Jump to content

Talk:Autogynephilia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

BLP?

Dick, can you explain how the sentence "Study of autogynephilia is ongoing; it is not either accepted or rejected by a majority of psychologists" qualifies for a BLP deletion? Was it just carelessness in the rush to remove this infomation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the section as a whole, as it wasn't clear what it could be turned into that would be useful. It included the BLP attacks that had been added by BarbaraSue shortly before she was blocked as a sock of a previously indefinitely blocked editor. The sentence you mention above has no useful content, as far as I can see, but if you want to put it in somewhere, and can source it, I certainly won't object. It seems more likely, though, that the concept is either accepted or rejected by a majority; or maybe there's a big undecided category; anyway, if you're going to say, a source would be nice. Thanks for asking. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I should add it was a WP:OR problem as well, in statements such as "some of them had previously either explicitly endorsed Blanchard's theory or provided evidence from their own histories that was quite consistent with the theory." The specific BLP attack I had in mind was the statement "Andrea James had initially endorsed Blanchard's work and considered herself autogynephlic," supported by an out-of-context clip of her email to Dreger, as misrepresented by Dreger. James objected so much that she later published the whole email to counter Dreger's misrepresentation; seems like a bit unfair then to be citing Dreger for this, after the subject has called her on it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
To be candid, I don't think that a majority of psychologists care one way or the other. Most psychologists don't deal with TG people, after all. For example, I had dinner with a clinical psychologist a few months ago; she knew nothing more about TG people than the typical college kid.
So here's my thinking: If the psychologists were sold on the concept, it would probably be listed in the DSM as subcategories of GID or otherwise affirmed in official position papers. I find none. If they totally rejected the concept, there would be a press release, a statement at a conference, or some other semi-official assertion that it's nonsense. I find none. Therefore I think it reasonable to assume that in fact it is neither accepted nor rejected by a majority of psychologists -- in fact, it's probably not even known to a majority of psychologists.
We don't want to leave the reader with the idea that this is a widely accepted fact. We can't source that it's formally rejected. So we say that the jury is still out -- and let the reader draw his own conclusions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point. Seems like not the wikipedia way, however. Just say what's sourceable and let it go at that; even to say that study is ongoing needs a source, as it contradicts what would be my default assumption on reading this, which is that it's some guy's whacky concept that will probably be mostly forgotten soon. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Autogynephilia is not a diagnosis of its own (few of the paraphilias have their own diagnostic code), but autogynephilia has been in the DSM since 1994.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The DSM is a WP:RS, and its contentsare accepted (at some level) by the relevant set of experts (psychologists). Thanks for the information and for crafting a reasonably balanced paragraph.
Dick, I know that this idea offends your point of view, but as you say, we must only say what's sourceable, and there are no comparable sources (or even partly comparable sources) that reject this idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Why would you think that would offend me? If it's in the DSM, there's nothing wrong with saying so. I'm puzzled by the quoted passage, however: "Adult males who are sexually attracted to females...usually report a history of erotic arousal associated with the thought or image of oneself as a women (termed autogynephilia)" Does this mean I'm unusual in not having such a thing to report? Or was it transcribed incorrectly? Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The transcription is correct; the quote is from the section on transsexualism, so it was written to apply to 'adult males with gender identity disorder who are attracted to females'. I can add greater context to the page.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Certainly it has been taken so far out of context as to be nonsense. A fix would be in order. Dicklyon (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I don't expect its mere existence to bother anyone. But we have a solid source that indicates broad acceptance, which means that we can't reasonably include strong statements to the contrary. It's the loss of "it is not accepted by psychologists" that I expect to be undesirable from the perspective of the loyal opposition, who would doubtless prefer to stronger endorsement of their views.
As for the idea being ignored, there's another publication from this year: PMID 18299976 Perhaps "research continues" would still be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The last ref I added says that its acceptance is still uncertain. But it's not appropriate for us to say one way or the other, interpreting multiple sources; we can report that a source says it is or not, but we should report an interpretation. Even saying "research continues" is vacuous and inappropriate unless that's what a source says. It would be better to cite that new source for what it actually says, rather than for "research continues". Dicklyon (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It seemed slightly POVish to have the DSM statement lead the controversy section -- sort of like, "Here's the correct answer, but there's this other fringe theory you can read about," so I have moved it up. Also, it seems strange to me that "BBL controversy" is likely to be a "real" name for that mess, so I 'hid' it under the descriptive phrase. I hope this seems reasonable to everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Consideration of Andrea James' 1998 autogynephilia confession

This section has been removed due to triple posting; see discussion at Talk:Andrea_James#Consideration_of_Andrea_James.27_1998_autogynephilia_confession

James, It turns out that external links do not have to be reliable sources. They merely have to meet the lower standards at WP:EL. (I have no actual opposition to removing them.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)\

I've kept re-reading the pages I could find about it, and they're not as explicit as I would like. The only clear statement I could discern from them was that using external links should not be used to circumvent WP:RS, which is what I believe they were doing here. For controversial topics (and the trans- topics always seem to me), WP standards typically go up a notch, so removing the non-RS links appears the most appropriate (conservative) thing. To keep it balanced, I even removed the one link that does meet WP:RS (in my opinion), www.annelawrence.com.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The statement that you're looking for is at WP:EL#Links to be considered, which specifically authorizes "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." I'm not sure how to make this statement clearer. WP:EL does not prohibit links to websites that fail to meet criteria for RS.
Having said that -- the mere fact that a link is not prohibited does not mean that it is justified. There must always be a positive reason to include an external link. I am unconvinced that most of these links met that (minimal) burden. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think that that's the central issue. Other than Anne Lawrence (who has published multiple articles on the topic in peer reviewed journals), I do not believe the other sites were written by knowledgeable sources. Perhaps I should have used the word knowledgeable rather than reliable in my edit summary?
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
That's one approach. I probably would have named a combination of WP:ELNO #2 ("unverifiable research"), 3 ("promote a website"), 11 ("blogs and personal webpages"), and 13 ("only indirectly related"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thank you. You've taught me something.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Hfarmer, I don't understand your goals here, but they should include an accurate discussion of the controversy, and not merely the inclusion of Juanita's pictures. First of all, Bailey wasn't accused of "inappropriate sexual advances." He was "accused" of having sexual relations with a research subject, something that appears not to be against the law or the rules. So this wasn't ever investigated. What was investigated was the accusation that Bailey conducted research without ethical oversight from his IRB. Truly, you should read (or carefully reread) Dreger. Your section, now replaced, did not adequately reflect what happened, and the current version does, both in the details and the big picture.

I intend to edit your analogous sections in other places, including the homosexual transsexual page. We can work together on this, if you want, but you have to tell me what it is exactly you want. If you want Juanita's picture up, we can work that out in a different way.ProudAGP (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Template

Shouldn't this have the Transgender sidebar Template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.22.201.46 (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure why not?--Hfarmer (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

I'm not at all familiar with this SLPC source (this article in particular) that James Cantor says is not WP:RS in his revert, and had not heard of this connection someone just added about Blanchard and Bailey and Steve Sailer's "Human Biodiversity Institute", but on searching I see that I probably should have been aware of it. A bit more searching shows that Sailer has promoting Blanchard's concept of Autogynephilia since even before Bailey's 2003 book, and had promoted Bailey and his research in 2002 as well (see [1] and [2]). Seems like an important connection, but not one that we should engage in speculation about without reliable sources. Maybe just a note that the concept of autogynephilia was promoted to a non-academic audience by Sailer before the Bailey book would be sensible, since it bears on what is currently stated in the controversy section? Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The SPLC got involved because Steve Sailer is a prominent promoter of what SPLC considers scientific racism and other misuses of academia. Sailer and Steven D. Tripp were Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI) members #1 and #2 on March 3, 1999. J. Michael Bailey and Ray Blanchard joined the very next day. HBI is devoted to ushering in the "Age of Galton" (the coiner of "eugenics"). HBI is kind of a Who's Who of people whose work might contribute to discussions about an "Age of Galton." HBI members were key sources of positive reviews for Bailey's 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen, which popularizes Blanchard's "autogynephilia" work. Bailey's book and "autogynephilia" were reviewed by Daniel Seligman in Forbes and John Derbyshire in the National Review. Both are HBI guys.
It's all very complicated and messy, but discovering HBI was a breakthrough in understanding how the concept of "autogynephilia" was being disseminated in 2003. "Human biodiversity" is the latest term for sociobiology, eugenics, etc. -- they say they study "human differences." If the SPLC's own publication is not considered a reliable source, there's a typically one-sided description in Dreger's "scholarly history," published by Bailey's and Blanchard's friend Ken Zucker. It's probably better in the article on Bailey's book, though. Jokestress (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow. How did all this get found? What are the sources for the dates of B & B joining HBI? And in what sense is the SPLC article not "reliable" as a source, at least of one writer's opinion? It seems very relevant to the "origins" or "controversy" around the current topic. I hadn't read that bit of Dreger before, but now I see what you mean; we should maybe quote Dreger on the SPLC claims? Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's their archived roster on Sailer's site. The humanbiodiversity.org site went offline a few years ago. Forgot that David Buss was also on it. Buss' praise of Bailey's book is used in their marketing materials. Also forgot Steven Pinker was in the HBI group - another Bailey promoter blurbed in their marketing. In other words, a significant number of people cited in Bailey's marketing materials are HBI people. The HBI list was removed shortly after it was discovered during the early days of the Bailey investigation in summer 2003. Jokestress (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Dick, I'd assumed that the "not a reliable source" referred to www.exgaywatch.com and www.vdare.com. The SPLC source is only used to support the list of members in an e-mail list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems plausible. The SPLC Intelligence Report seems to be widely cited (about 100 times or more in NYT articles). So we should probably cite that article and report what it says. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how you got any of these ideas. The SPLC got involved because Andrea James and Lynn Conway sent them letters asking them to. (Along with similar letters they sent to many others; SPLC was simply the strand of spaghetti that stuck to the wall.) The rest of Jokestress' commentary is insinuation of guilt by association. Neither Bailey nor Blanchard did anything other than to join a listserv for people interested in the genetic basis of behavior. The political views of other (one? two?) people who are on that listserv (a hundred? two hundred?) have no bearing on Bailey's or Blanchard's own views. Nor does any of the above have anything to do with the origins of the concept of autogynephilia.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 11:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how you got any of those ideas. I know Blanchard/Bailey apologists want to make it sound as if two people caused all the response, but neither Professor Conway nor I contacted SPLC. Dreger claims Bailey's "star" did. As far as the connection to "autogynephilia," HBI members were responsible for much of the positive traction in the mainstream media for Bailey's popularization of the concept. About 10% of the HBI folks were involved in promoting it. They all logroll for each other.
Dicklyon asked about the SPLC source, so I gave a little background on how "autogynephilia" is connected to the source. While the SPLC did not get involved until after Blanchard coined the term, his membership in a group significantly involved in the popularization of his concept seems relevant to this article. As I said previously, it is more relevant to The Man Who Would Be Queen, though. Jokestress (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree that we need to be careful about implying guilt by association, but if reliable sources have done so, then it's OK to say so, isn't it? In the case of the SPLC noting that Blanchard and Bailey have been associated with this group that was promoting their autogynephilia idea ("Among some of Bailey's reported HBI cohorts, that racist science of old is still just as alive and well as their current sex research"), that seems worth a mention; the head of the group that both were members of was promoting the idea and publishing discussions with Bailey, before Bailey wrote the controversial book and provoked so much feedback; Cantor's claim that they were simply readers on a mailing list is clearly bogus; maybe they were just very imprudent as to who they chose to kick ideas around with, but here's the guy who put "autogynephilia", the word, in front of a reactionary audience; I don't think we can say anything about their views based on this, but it does seem relevant to the origins of the publicization of the word. Some of this predates TMWWBQ, so it wouldn't all be more relevant there, though some might. As for trying to discredit the authors of that SPLC article via an indirect link with others who criticize Bailey and Blanchard, I don't see how that's tenable; I wonder why Cantor is claiming that "The SPLC got involved because Andrea James and Lynn Conway sent them letters asking them to." I guess it's not negative, so no big deal with respect to BLP, but still, saying such unsupported stuff on a talk page seems inappropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The SPLC source didn't seem very well researched to me. For example, consider this quote: "In fact, she sent several others of the book's subjects to Bailey — friends who needed his help in obtaining mandatory approval for sex-reassignment surgery."
They needed Bailey's help? As if a letter specifically from Prof. J. Michael Bailey, Ph.D. were the only option? How about they wanted Bailey's help, on the practical grounds that he was willing to write a supportive letter for free? (I wonder whether he's still willing to do that, given the way he's been thanked for that charitable effort.)
The writer turned Anjelica's "informed consent" complaint into "she was never informed that Bailey was going to write about her" -- whereas I think we can all agree that if you give permission to use your real name in a book, as Anjelica once did, then you know you're going to be in a book. In short, while it's a reliable source for activists' reaction, I'm not sure that it's a reliable source for general facts about what happened. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion of how well researched the source is; but I fail to see the relevance. Dicklyon (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Anjelica was mentioned in the book only under a pseudonym (Cher); nonetheless, WhatamIdoing's main point is on the mark. Not only did Anjelica know that she was going to be in the book, Bailey let her read it before it was published.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Wrong again. She is mentioned both by name and by pseudonym. The pseudonym was added after the first draft because she was unhappy about how she was depicted.
WhatamIdoing, per verifiability, not truth, we cite both when reliable sources conflict. Jokestress (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not wrong at all; in fact, Jokestress is agreeing with WhatamIdoing and me: Anjelica did, in fact, know that she was going to be in the book, despite what the SPLC said. Jokestress is advocating for the inclusion of information that she acknowledges to be incorrect. "Verifiability, not truth" ought be interpreted as "verifiable in addition to true" not "verifiability despite the truth," as Jokestress is applying it.
Moreover, SPLC should not be considered an RS for this issue (although it could be for other issues). The lack of research, as WhatamIdoing indicated, demonstrates exactly why not. That the SPLC is quoted in the NYTimes is not persuasive. Activist organizations (of all stripes) are cited by mainstream media, yet lack reputations for fact-checking of the type described by WP:RS. In fact, such organizations generally have reputations for spin-doctoring.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Please save the condescension and insults for your academic mailing lists. Your off-site style of interaction contravenes our civility policies and should not be imported here. The fact is that Kieltyka is mentioned by her real name in Bailey's book, so you are wrong. As far as discrepancies in the reporting, I believe SPLC was brought up because of the spin-doctoring done by Blanchard/Bailey's connections via Sailer's HBI list, a story broke by SPLC. In addition to being a reliable source, the Intelligence Report article has not been disputed in regards to that. Jokestress (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
So just add a sentence to report the relevant bit of what they say, omitting anything you believe to be false if you like; if Cantor has sources that argue with SPLC, he can ask someone to add that, too. Or if you think it's more relevant elsewhere, then take it elsewhere. Enough arguing. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit removed by James Cantor clearly does not belong on this page. The SPLC report at issue will surely be vetted for The Man Who Would Be Queen, where it may or may not merit inclusion. Jokestress and Dicklyon, are you seriously suggesting that it might be appropriate to bring up on Autogynephilia? If so, you appear to be reversing your position at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen#Revising_Controversy-related_Material_Concerning_Bailey.2FConway.2FJames.2FQueen, where you agreed that the controversy material should go on the book's WP page. And regardless, the stuff introduced by Hidebeetle clearly doesn't belong here.ProudAGP (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear yet exactly what of it might be useful on this page -- I was mostly objecting to Cantor's rationale of calling the SPLC report not a reliable source. There were lots of other problems with that edit, but if the report has a bit of alternative to Blanchard's recollected history, it could be worth a mention. As I noted already, the connections discussed at that ref predate the book, so might be relevant here as well. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This page gets hundreds of hits per day!

See here [3]

We should endeavor to make this page at least a good article as it seems that for tens of thousands of people per month this is the page they see. An order of magnitude more people must Google this term than the other related terms. Just thought knowing how much this article was referenced would put it's importance in perspective.

How would we do that?
— James Cantor (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Once we get The Man Who Would Be Queen straightened out, we should take out the unnecessary junk here. Indeed, I have already proposed how to do that and have no objections to your getting started. The scandal (charges from both sides) has no place here. For example, that Bailey was accused of having sex with a transsexual clearly does not belong here. Most of that whole section does not (although mentioning that there was a controversy about the book is fine). Feel free to proceed. If you don't, I/we will later.ProudAGP (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about it, but you're right: A person reading this article probably wants to know "what it is" instead of "somebody connected to this subject was accused of sexual improprieties." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with ProudAGP and WhatamIdoing.
Just to clarify something: The first comment in this section is from Hfarmer; she forgot to sign it, and the bots haven't filled it in. My question ("How would we do that?") should not be confused with Hfarmer's idea. The current format makes my signature look like I wrote the whole thing, which I did not.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The controversy section serves an important purpose. You see before the controversy section we have now what would happen is the article would end up filled with random, un sourced, or poorly sourced "information" about Bailey. The controversy section is needed for that reason. Furthermore it is a fact that "autogynephilia" stands in for the whole theory in the minds of many (I did not even hear of the term "homosexual transsexual" or the name of Blanchard untill I took a look at this for myself. All I knew was Autogynephilia=bad.) That I suspect is why "autogynephilia" get so many many more hits. It is effectively the front door to all of the other related topics. Which includes the controversey over the book, theory, and people involved. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a suggestion to include a "See also...", rather than repeat a debate that already has a page of its own. No?
— James Cantor (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
We can try that and see if any objections occur. In fact I will be bold and implement that suggestion across the entire complex of articles just to see what happens. A rukus I'll bet. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Good for you!
— James Cantor (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed template

/Blanchardian Gender Theory

I am going to create a template for use with this and related articles. Does this sound like a good idea? If so what should be on it. See above for what I have so far.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have created and implemented a bonafide template Template:BBL sidebar

Questionable science

I am going to add a short blurb to the very first paragraph of every article or section of an article which deals with BBL theory. I have also deleted the BBL side bar for now just until the template is delted as it seems it will be. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Autogynephilia

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Autogynephilia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "leavitt1990":

Reference named "benjamin1966":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This appears to have been fixed in a later release. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Innaccurate sentence in lead.

The statement "This theory is considered to be questionable science by some Behavioral scientist Such as Harry Benjamin and Bruce Bagemihl" does not appear to me to be quite correct. It would be more accurate to say, "Terms that refer to a person's sex-of-birth (such as "homosexual transsexual") have been criticized by theorists such as Harry Benjamin and Bruce Bagemihl for not referring to a person's sex-of-identity."

Neither HB nor BB were really talking about autogynephilia or related theories; they were talking about language in general. The phrase I recommend also gets us out of calling Harry Benjamin a "behavioral scientist," which is not a very accurate way to describe an endocrinologist.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

POV sentence in terminology section

I recommended changing the title and first sentence of the terminology section to:

Terminology
Terms that refer to a person's sex-of-birth (such as "homosexual transsexual") instead of a person's sex-of-identity have been criticized, such as by endocrinologist Harry Benjamin and linguist Bruce Bagemihl.

This would remove the POV problem in the section heading which asserts rather than reports the criticism, better identifies the people cited, and better describes the actual problem. Thoughts?
— James Cantor (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You like "endocrinologist" and "linguist" to better obscure the fact that these are guys known for their work and writings in transsexuality and homosexuality? Seems like a good idea. Wouldn't want anyone to take their criticisms seriously. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A productive comment would include a suggestion for an alternative. Currently, the main page calls them both "behavioral scientists," which is not true.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is some thinking among transwomen that backs up that kind of phrasing. A person knowing their body is one sex...thinking it ought to be the other sex. Thus transsexual. So I guess that can work. Though in an uncalled for hostile way, Dick has a valid concern. So we should make sure that it is made clear that Benjamin and Bagemihl are known for ther work on transsexualism. Does that sound fair to you all. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, H. Actually, though, I think Cantor was calling for the hostility. I shouldn't react that way to him, though. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The title should also remain as it is. The section is expressly about the questionable nature of this kind of terminology. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hfarmer: It's not clear to me what you're saying is backed up and what you're saying can work. Starting with the descriptors for B&B, how about:

Terms that refer to a person's sex-of-birth (e.g., "homosexual transsexual") instead of a person's sex-of-identity have been criticized, such as by Harry Benjamin, one of the first physicians to assist people to undergo sex reassignment, and Bruce Bagemihl, a linguist and biologist who has published a book on homosexuality among non-human animals.

Personally, I think that that's wordy, but it's accurate. Other suggestions?
Regarding the title, I appreciate its meaning: I contest only that the current phrasing makes the >page< call the expression "questionable" rather than let the RS's call the phrase "questionable."
Dicklyon: When one is sincere in saying "I shouldn't react that way to him," one generally includes an apology. Saying that "Cantor was calling for the hostility" and similar victim-blaming suggests the opposite. — James Cantor (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My typing appears to be ahead of my reading. I only just saw that Hfarmer included the text I suggested above. The additional sentence does indeed solve the problem in a way better than my second suggestion above. I believe only that the title asserts rather than reports the issue and would be more NPOV as "Terminology issues" or other.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The article in total has to be NPOV. I will think of another title. However it must be clear that the use of terminology which labels transsexuals by birth sex has been and is questioned by a number of relevant scientist. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on both points. I'm saying only that the page (that is, the title) shouldn't be calling the phrase questionable, the RS's should be. The title should just report the topic of the section. Alternatives that come to mind are "Terminology," "Issues in terminology," "Terminological controversy," etc.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that "Criticism by sexologists" is accurate either. The page is about autogynephilia the idea. Neither Benjamin nor Baghemil were criticizing the idea (at least, in those sources). In fact, the phrase "homosexual transsexual" doesn't appear on the page at all.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Should this section even be on this page? I think it's important for the HT page, but the term "autogynephilia" doesn't actually seem to refer to either birth sex or sex-of-identity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe WhatamIdoing has a point. Hfarmer has noted the distinction between the term "homosexual transsexual" and the idea of "homosexual transsexual" and has correctly separated opposition to the term from opposition to the idea. However, the distinction between autogynephilia the idea and autogynephilia the term is not analogous: Even though there are people who oppose the idea of autogynephilia, the term itself does not refer to a person's sex of birth.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
That, plus the complaint about the idea doesn't seem to be "Blanchard rudely called transwomen "men" two decades ago". It seems to be more about the socially unsavory notion of autoeroticism (for lack of a more precise description), which idea doesn't really depend on sex of birth in the way that the term HT does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I ought to make sure to keep up with the location of the above exchange, unlike what some other editors would like to believe, I can and will clash with Cantor too. He just does not act all like his POV is the only right one, and insult those who disagree.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Carr (2009) reference?

I suspect that might be an invention... Шизомби (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are correct.— James Cantor (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It was added by Smcewincarr. There is a Susan V. Carr who has written about the subject. Hard to say if it's an invention or not, but it appears to be and if not would be somewhat problematic anyhow if it is really someone adding their own reference. Шизомби (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Confused why this is mentioned

"Autogynephilia has also been suggested to pertain to romantic love as well as to sexual arousal patterns"

As someone who uses autogynephilia as a way to get off, there is absolutely 100% nothing to do with romance. There is no love at all, it's only a tool used to get yourself off. Autogynephilia has nothing at all to do with homosexuals or transexuals, it's about us autosexuals. Sex is Sex and its' get's us off, we don't care much about whose helping us get there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.71.99 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: You are entitled entirely to your opinion and personal insights. WP pages, however, are not collections of editor's opinions and insights; they are summaries of existing RS's. If you have such an RS, you are free to add its contents to the mainpage. I would, however, hesitate to generalize from one's personal experience of autogynephilia to everyone else's. As an analogy, there can be typical heterosexual men who fantasize about women in a orgasm-goal-directed way, and there can be others for whom the sexual attraction is merged with romantic attachment. There is nothing in either situation that is "more heterosexual" than in the other.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual??

I am wondering why this line has not been corrected "(as compared with homosexual transsexuals, who are driven by their attraction to men)"? And why it is even used as a comparison? A transsexual, both male, and female(as this line seems to discount the fact that their are transsexuals in both sexes), are considered to be members of their acquainting gender, and not of the gender associated with their sex(the author clearly hasn't research transgenderism). This is noted legally, as well as socially, so this particular line is very much so out of order. A "homosexual transsexual" is either a gay transwoman(a transgendered female attracted to females), or a gay transman(a transgendered male, attracted to men). This comparison should be deleted from the page.LeafromOZ (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

what you or I think is the better terminology is irrelevant. What matters is what the RS's say, and the RS's on autogynephilia use terminology that is relative to birth sex.— James Cantor (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It's an odd terminology used by James Cantor and his academic sexologist friends, and if used should be used carefully in the sense they use it. Somelike like "so called homosexual transsexual" would help to clarify that this is what transwomen attracted to men are called by the academic sexologist community. Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lea,
You're correct about what's polite, but the fact is that these terms are older than the modern social norms, and they don't follow the current social standards. The reason that HT is linked is because it's a term of the art -- much like chronic fatigue syndrome means something materially different from what you'd guess from the individual words (CFS, after all, is not just a fancy way of saying "I'm tired all the time"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Dick, "so-called" is on the list at Words to Avoid because it introduces a bias. I think it might be better to try something like "(as compared with homosexual transsexuals, who are transwomen driven by their attraction to men)". Perhaps even leading caps, as a proper noun, could even be justified. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any proper noun here. The page you linked says So-called means both "commonly called" and "falsely or incorrectly so named" (Webster's), and it can be difficult to tell the two uses apart. Its use should be restricted to the first meaning, for instance when introducing terminology that may be unfamiliar (though here, italics may be preferable). It should not be used to characterize a specific application of a familiar word. So it's OK, it seems; there's no implication that it's false or incorrect, just that that's what it's called, however odd it may seem. Alternatively, it might be good to actually clarify who calls it that (subsequent sentences sort of get into that issue). Or just avoid the confusing term and say transwomen who are attracted to men; or avoid the dichotomy entirely, and get rid of the "non-homosexual" clause that sets up this confusion, adopting the Bailey theory implicitly that gender dysphoria comes always with some sort of paraphilia or something. Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Lea's point, as I understand it, is that transwomen who are attracted to men are not "commonly called" HT, and that HT is "falsely or incorrectly named" because it refers to the birth sex instead of the target gender. On the first point, HT is obviously unfamiliar jargon instead of familiar, everyday language (else Lea, and editors before her, wouldn't have misunderstood it). From the perspective of the transwoman, being called a man is most definitely "false and incorrect". Your choice of "so-called" does exactly what WP:WTA says not to do.
I think that it's useful and appropriate to introduce the dichotomy that the researchers have settled on. I don't think that we can eliminate the "non-homosexual" clause without engaging in either bisexual erasure or needless verbosity. Regardless of what the previous construction is, I believe that it is important to introduce the researcher's term, and that the term, whenever and however it is introduced, requires some clarification, because the unqualified term will be confusing to most readers (e.g., Lea, and several others before her). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
So people have decided to do some work on these finally. he he he. Here's my $0.02. So called "Homosexual Transsexual" is ok to me, as long as the tone of the surrounding text does not imply sarcasm. Which it does not. "So called termX" only means that termX is wrong if you say it a certain, sarcastic, way. As for the bisexual erasure issue, in a way blanchardian taxonomy does that anyway, in a way it does not. If I understand Bailey correctly any bissexual male is basically gay, but bissexual transsexuals are more like straight transsexuals. The only way that can be reconciled is if bissexual, regardless of gender presentation, is to them the same as homosexual. While someone who is "bissexual", attracted to women as a man, attracted to men as a woman (Such people claim that gender identity drives their choice of sex partner) is basically heterosexual.
The point of all that comment? That the way these people use these terms is not the same as the common meaning. This is true in many branches of science. (i.e. In logic AND, OR, NOT, TRUE, and FALSE mean slightly different things than they do in common use.) That is why HT is appropriate when discussing Blanchard's theory and basically no where else does it make total sense. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I didnt realize it was linked, and after reading the page, I see what is meant by the usage of the term. Thanks for your answers everyone.LeafromOZ (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling in quotation

I'm not sure on whose part this typo(/Freudian slip?) is: "In the early days I would become aroused whenever anyone, a sales clerk, a casual stranger, would address me as "Ma'am" or perform come courtesy such as holding a door for me." Note "come". Does anyone have the original source? Or should we err on the side of correct SPaG and just fix it? Personally, I'd bet that the error was on the part of the Wikipedian who transcribed it, but I can't be sure. 138.110.233.119 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you not able to find the source online? I found it easily; it's a typo in transcription. Dicklyon (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sorry, I evidently wasn't thinking. Finals, I guess. Seriously, thanks. 138.110.233.119 (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Autoandrophilia

The whole theory is based on men phantasizing about being female. If this was a serious theory, there would have been a counterpart like Autoandrophilia mentioned anywhere on the sources or on the concept developed by Ray Blanchard. Which is not the case. Please point that out clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.203.69 (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autogynephilia/Archive_3&oldid=1073752881"