Talk:Autogynephilia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Merger proposal

Following discussion, a merger of Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, and Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory was proposed. This section shall discuss the background to the proposal and where to go from here.

During a debate over whether to include certain papers in the BBL theory article, User:Jokestress questioned whether these articles should exist at all, suggesting instead that they should just be a mention in gender identity. User:Whatamidoing wanted to keep them all separate. I felt it might be good to take a middle ground.

From a basic perspective, this is a unique and well-formed theory, and not one without significance or repute. Hence I think it is fair to say that it carries enough weight to warrant more than just a section in an existing article. At the same time, all three of these articles are all on the same theory. Autogynephilia basically doesn't exist outside of discussion of the theories of Blanchard, Lawrence, and Bailey. And essentially nobody uses the term "homosexual transsexual" except them and those responding to them. Much of the content in these articles is redundant -- the same debate over the wording of "homosexual transsexual", the same arguments over autogynephilia, etc. Likewise, papers that criticize even one portion of the theory generally are attacking the whole theory.

Examining this proposal from a WP:UNDUE perspective, I think we can agree that agree that while it certainly merits discussion on Wikipedia, this is a pretty tiny corner of scientific research. So while, say, String Theory can justifiably warrant articles on each of its sub-aspects, I don't think that something like this theory of transsexualism fits that bill.

As for timing: for a long time, there wasn't much writing on the subject outside of the works of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence. However, in recent years, Moser has published two papers, plus Nuttbrock et al 2010 and Veale et al 2008. New data means it's probably time for a new look at the article(s).

As for the proposal to merge them all into "autogynephilia": Autogynephilia is by far the most recognizable element of the theory. Almost nobody is going to arrive at this topic by guessing "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory" with precisely that wording and commas/etc (which, AFAIK, was a term made up for Wikipedia, although it may have seen some limited use outside there). And few would arrive on the subject of "homosexual transsexual" (although probably more than on the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory"). But "autogynephilia" is somewhat of a hot (and controversial) topic in the transgender community. Due to its higher name recognition, I think it is an appropriate place for the merger to go to.

As for the content of such a merger, I would propose the following structure:

Header -- information about what Autogynephilia means, who its primary proponents are, the basic aspects of BBL theory (including "homosexual" versus "non-homosexuals", and a *brief* (one sentence) line on the criticism of the theory. ~2.5 paragraphs? Also, could we perhaps get a picture of Lawrence here, since she is both a promoter of the theory and self-identifies as an autogynephilic?

TOC

Theory origins -- History of how the BBL theory and the notions of "autogynephilia" and "homosexual transsexuals" came about. Merge from all three articles. ~3 paragraphs?

Homosexual transsexuals -- Description from BBL article, with additional (but not WP:UNDUE) info merged in from homosexual transsexual. 2-3 paragraphs.

Non-homosexual transsexuals -- Description from BBL article, with additional (but not WP:UNDUE) info merged in from autogynephilia. 2-3 paragraphs.

Evidence -- Summarize all of the evidence presented for BBL from all three of the articles not mentioned in the preceding three sections. ~3 paragraphs?

Criticism of the terminology -- There's a section on this in two of three articles; merge. ~2 paragraphs.

Criticism of the theory -- Summaries of Moser 2009, Moser 2010, Nuttbrock et al 2010, Veale et al 2008. One paragraph each.

Reactions from the transsexual community -- Gathered from the different articles. Both positive *and* negative. While most reaction has been negative, there clearly are supporters out there, and their views need to be represented. (~2 paragraphs?)

See also, Categories, etc.

What do you think? It seems to me that would provide a proper balance, make all info easier to find for a person just stumbling into the subject from outside Wikipedia, and both avoid risks of over-representing and under-representing the subject matter.

If we can get rough agreement on the concept, I should be able to whip up a prototype merged version which we can then work on refining. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Support -- As for the reasons above. I'm simply posting this comment to make my vote registered. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Opose. 1.) Merging these articles together would result in a very long article which would contravene wikipedia's preference for Summary style. 2.) Homosexual transsexual or some variant their of (i.e. androphilic transsexual) are used outside BBL theory by other researchers. See the references of said article. As such it is an independent subject from Autogynephilia. While it was used as part of BBL theory it existed before BBL theory. As such Homosexual Transsexual is notable in and of itself enough to warrant it's own article. 3.) The BBL theory article discusses the combination of Autogynephilia, and the homosexual transsexual to make the two types theory. No researcher not even Moser and the other think that Autogynephilia does not exist. Indeed if anything they seem to think that it's real, and that it goes beyond Blanchard's theory.

Any one of the above reasons would be enough to quash this merger by themselves.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

1) I spelled out length above (~22 paragraphs). That would not be an abnormally long article (string theory is almost 80 paras, not counting subarticles) unless you have WP:UNDUE material included. Which is currently present -- it's already loaded with undue material and redundancy. WP:UNDUE must be addressed either way, merger or not.

2) Could you list a couple (say, 3) WP:V papers of researchers using the term "homosexual transsexual" from within the past decade or so outside the context of BBL theory?

3) Can you point to a couple (say, 3) WP:V papers of researchers discussing autogynephilia outside the context of BBL theory?

Also, one back to you: 4) How do you address redundancy without a merger?

Thanks! -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

1.) You presuppose that the way you have laid things out is what must be followed after a merger. Argue based on what is now, not what you would like to be.

2.) Yes. I can list more than two.

Cohen-Kettenis, Peggy T.; Owen A., Kaijser V., Bradley S. and Zucker K. (February 2003). "Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Problems.". Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology (Netherlands: Springer Netherlands) 31 (1): 41–53.doi:10.1023/A:1021769215342. PMID 12597698.

Long-term Assessment of the Physical, Mental, and Sexual Health among Transsexual Women Steven Weyers MD1, Els Elaut MrSc1,2, Petra De Sutter MD, PhD1, Jan Gerris MD, PhD1, Guy T'Sjoen MD, PhD3, Gunter Heylens MD2, Griet De Cuypere MD2, Hans Verstraelen MD1 The Journal of Sexual MedicineVolume 6, Issue 3, pages 752–760, March 2009

The following use androphilic instead of homosexual but they mean essentially the same thing in reference to male to female transgender/transsexual people. (Milton Diamond a well known researcher proposed Androphilic MTF transsexual as an alternative back in 1980. Both are used basically interchangeably in the literature).

Kin selection and male androphilia in Samoan fa'afafine, Paul L. Vasey, David S. Pocock, Doug P. VanderLaan, 1 May 2007 (volume 28 issue 3 Pages 159-167 DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.08.004)

Birth order and male androphilia in Samoan fa'afafine Paul L Vasey* and Doug P VanderLaan

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2176197/

That's more than two. I even found some newer ones that could be used to flesh out the article on Homosexual transsexual even more.

According to the notability criterion here on WP. these are more than enough to give homosexual transsexual a article of it's own. ( Though I suppose their could be an argument for a name change. Perhaps "Homosexual or Androphilic Male to Female Transsexual" that's a bit unwieldy. )

3.) Sure I can . Mosers articles each essentially take Autogynephilia out of Blanchard's theory. Furthermore any article that deals with transvestic fetishism in relation to transsexuality. i.e. the current DSM IV and the proposed DSMV.

4.) There is no redundancy. The article on homosexual transsexual in particular covers a distinct issue separate and apart from BBL/Autogynephilia theory. I know that's hard to believe especially after consuming what's on the blogs and message boards. (I have read them to. All the sound and fury is over autogynephilia and the term homosexual transsexual is hardly mentioned, or even mentioned in a way hostile to anyone to whom the label might attach.) The fact that as I have just shown homosexual transsexual or it's cognate androphilic transsexual appear in numerous numerous references apart from BBL theory prove that there is no redundancy.

I suggest we sit back and let others have time to comment. I have said my piece for now.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to reply to this first, but I won't reply again until tomorrow evening to give people time to respond.

1) If people over-expand an article, they are the ones responsible for WP:UNDUE.

2a) Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Problems.: Proof by ghost reference. Does not mention "homosexual transsexual" or anything similar at all. Talks about GID in children and how many grow up to be homosexual, but that's non-transsexual homosexuality they're referring to. Also, just for reference, it's worth mentioning that Zucker and Bradley are coworkers of Blanchard's and open proponents of BBL (not sure about the others).

2b) Long-term Assessment of the Physical, Mental, and Sexual Health among Transsexual Women: My institution doesn't have access to this one; however, just the title alone, as well as the long and detailed abstract, makes it sound very unlikely to provide you any support. They use the term "transsexual women" repeatedly, operating on the basis of M2F = Female, and they refer to those who sleep with men as "heterosexuals". So it looks like another "Proof by ghost reference".

2c and 2d) Kin selection and male androphilia in Samoan fa'afafine and Birth order and male androphilia in Samoan fa'afafine: You note yourself that they don't use Blanchard's terminology. Blanchard neither invented, popularized, NOR regularly used the term androphilia; to associate the use of the term androphilia with Blanchard's theories would be to imply things that the authors had absolutely no intent to imply. And would be wrong to imply anyway: the fa'afafine can hardly be compared to transsexuals. They don't pursue any sort of genital modification (nor does the author attempt to compare them to transsexuals). Our closest equivalent is gay crossdressers.

2-summary): Zero of four support the claim that people use "homosexual transsexual" outside the context of BBL theory in the past decade.

3a) As discussed over here, Moser himself specifically stated that his work is a criticism of BBL theory when asked, and the very first paragraph of his paper goes into BBL theory. Moser explicitly, directly, and incontrovertibly refutes you on this.

3b) Once again, proof by ghost reference.

DSM-IV) 302.1: Transvestic Fetishism

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, in a heterosexual male, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing.

B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Specify if:

With Gender Dysphoria: if the person has persistent discomfort with gender role or identity''

3c) The DSM-V proposes to link to autogynephilia, Blanchard himself is on the committee. I.e, that's hardly an outside source using the term for some unrelated purpose.

3-summary): 0 of three support the claim of autogynephilia being used outside the context of BBL theory.

4a) I personally don't care what blogs and message boards have to say about the subject, apart from the fact that they make it clear to me that WP:Notability is met. I care about WP:V, WP:OR, and especially in this context WP:UNDUE, which I think is a very easy argument to make that it's been exceeded.

4b) There absolutely is redundancy. Try to tell me with a straight face that this isn't essentially the same thing as [[1]]. Or [[2]] and [[3]]. I can keep going. In each case, there are minor differences, but they say basically the same thing. And they have to, because each page is about the same theory. There is one theory of "autogynephilia" in transsexuals, and that is Blanchard's. There is one theory of "homosexual transsexuals", using that term, and that is Blanchard's. Note that I don't propose to merge in the page on transsexual sexuality, as that subject is more independent from Blanchard's theory (although his theory certainly deserves good mention there). But the other two are inexorably tied to Blanchard's theory. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have accessed the full text of every one of those articles they either mention homosexual transsexual or they speak of androphilic male to female transsexuals which are mainly the same thing. You asked for references and you got them. Are you going to make me download the PDF's put them on a website I control and link them here (a violation of copyright) to prove you don't know what you are talking about?

That is not redundancy because the issues discussed are completely and utterly different. Homosexual transsexualism is an idea that originated long before Blanchard. Going beyond the artificial last decade limit. their are papers such as which show that, and address the above.

Extension of the Gender Identity Scale for males Kurt Freund, Ron Langevin, John Satterberg and Betty Steiner ARCHIVES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIORVolume 6, Number 6, 507-519, DOI: 10.1007/BF01541155

Measuring feminine gender identity in homosexual males Kurt Freund, Ernest Nagler, Ronald Langevin, Andrew Zajac and Betty Steiner ARCHIVES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR Volume 3, Number 3, 249-260, DOI: 10.1007/BF01541488

Long before, and independant of Blanchard, and used in contemporary context aside from blanchard. Androphilic=homosexual if the people in question are biological males. At least that's how sexologist look at it.--Hfarmer (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I said I was going to wait until tomorrow, but the facts must stand. I have all of the PDFs (except the one I don't have access to) downloaded (the remaining one, I have the long abstract). Allow me to demonstrate:

[user@host writing]$ pdftohtml Gender-Dysphoric\ Children\ and\ Adolescents\:\ A\ Comparative\ Analysis\ of\ Demographic\ Characteristics\ and\ Behavioral\ Problems.pdf 
Page-1
 link to page 3 Page-2
Page-3
Page-4
Page-5
Page-6
Page-7
Page-8
Page-9
Page-10
Page-11
Page-12
Page-13
Page-14
Page-15
[user@host writing]$ grep -c -i "homosexual trans" Gender-Dysphoric\ Children\ and\ Adolescents\:\ A\ Comparative\ Analysis\ of\ Demographic\ Characteristics\ and\ Behavioral\ Problems*
Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Problems-1_1.png:0
Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Problems.html:0
Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Problems_ind.html:0
Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Problems.pdf:0
Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Problemss.html:0

It's Not There. What about androphilia?

[user@host writing]$ grep -c -i "androph" Gender-Dysphoric\ Children\ and\ Adolescents\:\ A\ Comparative\ Analysis\ of\ Demographic\ Characteristics\ and\ Behavioral\ Problems*
Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Problems-1_1.png:0
Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Problems.html:0
Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Problems_ind.html:0
Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Problems.pdf:0
Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Problemss.html:0

Not There. I can keep going, but the rest of my points on those papers speak for themselves -- but for anyone who can't access the files, I just wanted to set the record straight. And for the record: Blanchard was Freund's protege! You're citing Blanchard's mentor as evidence that others use the term independently! And Nagler was a coauthor with him on a lot of his papers on the subject. I mean, it's absurd; you're citing the very history of the theory itself and saying that it's independent researchers using the term.

To pull everything back to square one: these terms ("autogynephilia" and "homosexual transsexual") are, as things stand, integrally tied to the theory of transsexualism promoted by Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence. They are almost never used outside this context by present researchers. The terms have an entire theory tied up behind them which they cannot be reasonably dissociated with. To avoid WP:UNDUE for such an esoteric topic, there should not be three pages, some of which are long. Each of the three pages has redundant material, as discussed above -- a direct consequence of them all being from the same theory. Solution: Merger. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So I am mistaken about one of the references. Ooops.

That still leaves four or five others that do have either Androphilic or homosexual in them. That still makes the term, and concept, homosexual transsexual notable per wikipedia guidelines. Those being the old works by Freund, and the newer works by Vassey which do have the words in them.

Vassey's work even has it in the title! Furthermore, he's not working on Blanchardian theory.

Freund uses the exact term all over the place. Blanchard had not yet even proposed his theory when Freund was working.

If your pronunciation that the word/concept is only used in Blanchard's theory then how can the above be true? Simple logic says you are wrong in the face of the above two points. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote previously, my previous post speaks for itself and already debunked all of that. Hence, I'll merely repost:

2b) Long-term Assessment of the Physical, Mental, and Sexual Health among Transsexual Women: My institution doesn't have access to this one; however, just the title alone, as well as the long and detailed abstract, makes it sound very unlikely to provide you any support. They use the term "transsexual women" repeatedly, operating on the basis of M2F = Female, and they refer to those who sleep with men as "heterosexuals". So it looks like another "Proof by ghost reference".

2c and 2d) Kin selection and male androphilia in Samoan fa'afafine and Birth order and male androphilia in Samoan fa'afafine: You note yourself that they don't use Blanchard's terminology. Blanchard neither invented, popularized, NOR regularly used the term androphilia; to associate the use of the term androphilia with Blanchard's theories would be to imply things that the authors had absolutely no intent to imply. And would be wrong to imply anyway: the fa'afafine can hardly be compared to transsexuals. They don't pursue any sort of genital modification (nor does the author attempt to compare them to transsexuals). Our closest equivalent is gay crossdressers.

2-summary): Zero of four support the claim that people use "homosexual transsexual" outside the context of BBL theory in the past decade.

3a) As discussed over here, Moser himself specifically stated that his work is a criticism of BBL theory when asked, and the very first paragraph of his paper goes into BBL theory. Moser explicitly, directly, and incontrovertibly refutes you on this.

3b) Once again, proof by ghost reference.

DSM-IV) 302.1: Transvestic Fetishism

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, in a heterosexual male, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing.

B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Specify if:

With Gender Dysphoria: if the person has persistent discomfort with gender role or identity''

3c) The DSM-V proposes to link to autogynephilia, Blanchard himself is on the committee. I.e, that's hardly an outside source using the term for some unrelated purpose.

3-summary): 0 of three support the claim of autogynephilia being used outside the context of BBL theory.

Likewise:

And for the record: Blanchard was Freund's protege! You're citing Blanchard's mentor as evidence that others use the term independently! And Nagler was a coauthor with him on a lot of his papers on the subject. I mean, it's absurd; you're citing the very history of the theory itself and saying that it's independent researchers using the term.

The only thing not addressed by my previous posts, and hence which requires anything more than a repost, is that you mention Vassey. What paper by Vassey are you referring to? -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Freund having been Blanchard's mentor does not change the fact that Freund was using the term and concept before Blanchard.

Vassey uses the concept, albeit by a slightly different name, in his papers. What is the real difference between a "male androphilic transsexual" and a "homosexual transsexual" other than the emotional response some of us have to one term and not the other? The term and concept

The DSM IV refers to Autogynephilia using the term transvestic fetishism. WP:RS sources say that they are equivalent. Furthermore the proposed DSM V outright uses the term Autogynephilia.

--Hfarmer (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it matters that Freund was Blanchard's mentor, just as it matters that you're talking ancient history. If Einstein had a mentor who used the term "Relativity" for a less complete Theory of Relativity than Einstein's, only an idiot would pretend like that was some sort of independent theory disjoint from Einstein's. Freund advocated for the basic principles that Blanchard later went on to refine, expand, and popularize.

Once again: I can't comment on a paper by Vassey unless you tell me what paper you're talking about. And any discussion of androphilia disjoint from Blanchard's theory shouldn't all be crammed into an article using Blanchard's term. Which is the reason why I do not propose to merge in the article on transsexual sexuality. If the focus is on Blanchard's theory and using Blanchard's terms, it should be an article on Blanchard's theory. If the focus is on general sexuality of transsexuals, including M2F androphilia, M2F gynephilia, M2F bisexuality, M2F asexuality, F2M androphilia, F2M gynephilia, F2M bisexuality, and F2M asexuality, it belongs in an article on transsexual sexuality. To use an article focused on Blanchard, using Blanchard's terminology, to describe all M2F androphilia is to associate all M2F androphilia with Blanchard's theory, as well as to give the topic of M2F androphilia WP:UNDUE weight. Even if you go with Olyslager and Conway (2007)'s high-end numbers on how common M2F transsexualism (they have several numbers -- let's say ~1500 lifetime incidence), that would mean that there are about 2,000,000 M2Fs in the world, and probably ~700k F2Ms -- a total of about the same population of Mongolia or Jamaica, and less than Oman, Kuwait, Albania, and Armenia. Does Wikipedia really need articles on "Androphilic Mongolian Males", "Gynephilic Mongolian Males", "Bisexual Mongolian Males", "Asexual Mongolian Males", "Androphilic Mongolian Females", "Gynephilic Mongolian Females", "Bisexual Mongolian Females", and "Asexual Mongolian Females"? Anything more than "Transsexual sexuality" is just way WP:UNDUE, and such articles should not be using terms associated with a single theory of it except when specifically discussing that theory in the article.

As for the DSM: Once again, Blanchard himself is on the DSM committee on transvestism. It's absurd to pretend that it's an independent source when it's Blanchard himself using his own term to mean what he says it means. All you're doing is ascribing WP:Notability for Blanchard's theory, which is something I already accept, and noted that I accepted in the first post on the merger. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since feedback thusfar has been minimal, I have compiled a list of all users who have commented any of these three articles in the past two years. I will shortly send out appropriate notification, in the form of the following:

== Merger proposal ==

You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The full list of users to be contacted is below:

User:Dicklyon User:JzG User:ProudAGP User:WhatamIdoing User:71.201.225.194 User:Rhialto User:Bonzesaunders User:Richlow User:Malkinann User:Benjiboi User:AliceJMarkham User:Geometry_guy User:Puellanivis User:Tryptofish User:PaleAqua User:Somedumbyankee User:Wandalstouring User:Jezhotwells User:CarpetCrawler User:Mattisse User:AuthorityTam User:LadyofShalott User:MishMich User:Samarkandas valdnieks User:Rebecca User:Moni3 User:Allstarecho User:Yobmod User:Cornince User:Schizombie User:63.27.71.99 User:LeafromOZ User:138.110.233.119 User:James Cantor (aka MarionTheLibrarian) User:Jokestress

Users who are already here (not contacted): User:HFarmer Myself

Welcome to those arriving; I look forward to your contributions on this issue. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

All notices have now been sent except User:JzG and User:Rebecca, whose pages are semi-protected. If anyone could inform them, it would be appreciated. I don't want to accidentally introduce a bias into the selection of invitations for comment. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

<material redacted for privacy reasons> SpinningSpark 19:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I don't know what's going on above there, but the fact that Homosexual transsexual is one of the worst articles I've ever read has not changed. It is still abysmally confusing. I still think it should be merged with another article. --Moni3 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe that merging the article(s) into something else would somehow improve the content? Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic, but I assume that a merge would mean a mechanical cut-and-paste, an effort to merge the most obvious sections, and a couple of months' worth of heated, but ultimately fruitless disputes -- and, in the end, one (or more) longer articles of exactly the same quality that we have now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, stagnation is not the answer. A line-by-line reanalysis of what's duplication (the short of it: a lot), whether references actually say what they're linked to or whether they're old cruft left over from earlier incarnations, and so forth is, IMHO, just what is needed. And as per above, I'm strongly of the view that spreading the Blanchardian theory over three articles is both WP:UNDUE and hinders people's ability to find information on the subject. Now, that certainly doesn't mean the first incarnation of a merger will be perfect. Far from it; indeed, I expect a couple months of heated debate and significant changes from the first draft. But I'm not a pessimist. I fully expect us to end up with something better than what we have now -- less redundancy, proper weight, cleaner cites, the latest research, and so forth. Blanchard's theory is most definitely notable, even if controversial, and we do a disservice to Wikipedia if we decide to sit on articles we know to be subpar. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To WhatamIdoing: No. It will not improve it. You raise a salient point. The article is a complete mess. I actually think it should be deleted. --Moni3 (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Moni. Do you know why the homosexual transsexual article is confusing? My personal opinion is that so much of what's there is worded so as not to offend. In a sentence what is meant by a homosexual or Androphilic male to female transsexual is that such a person is in essence an extremely feminine homosexual male. That one sentence should be the very first sentence in the lead. That one sentence sums up what the researchers who use "homosexual transsexual" or it's cognate/synonym androphilic transsexual seem to think.

Instead of simply representing what the researchers have published, then giving some voice to the WP:RS objections I am compelled to tip toe. If the term is offensive or not, we should have just been presenting it for what it is and letting the reader decide. That would be the most neutral thing to do.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about that the more it makes sense. Why don't we just re write these articles and emphasize brevity and directness. To illustrate what I mean I am going to be bold and being rewriting the article Homosexual Transsexual right now. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have sandboxed the article and am going to edit it into the sort of thing I have in mind for a shorter more direct version. User talk:Hfarmer/HTsandbox--Hfarmer (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Shrinking the article won't help with redundancy, with the spread out of a single theory over several articles, etc. I don't think that's the solution.

"The Researchers" don't use the term "homosexual transsexual". Blanchard and those discussing his theory are the only ones who use his term, and almost every paper criticizing or testing his theory from outside his circle includes at least mild criticism of the terminology. The problem is that this is all Blanchard's theory. It's split into three separate articles as though it's disjoint. It's not. Transsexual sexuality is a fine independent topic. Autogynephilia, homosexual transsexual, and Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence theory are not disjoint. They're just pieces of the same theory, which is why they have so much redundancy between them -- the same critique of terminology, the same explanation of the classifications, the same evidence cited, etc. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a single theory not matter how many times you keep on repeating that. The world of sexology does not revolve around Autogynephilia. I have shown you citations where Homosexual transsexual, and it's cognate/synonym Androphilic transsexual are used with no relation to autogynephilia. (yes I was mistaken about one. That does not invalidate the others).

@Moni Take a look at what I have done with the article. I have basically chopped the article down to it's lead, turned the paragraphs into sections, and preserved the citations. What I envision is that this article should be less confusing, more concise, and due to being short it will have less in it that can be construed as an agenda either way. It will be more neutral. What I have here it not final by any means. Does what I have now at least confuse you less?User talk:Hfarmer/HTsandbox.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You showed me citations? The 2x "Proof by Ghost Reference" and the 2x "A Totally Different Term In Papers Not About Transsexuals"? Is that what you're referring to? Absolutely the world of sexology does not revolve around Autogynephilia and the other aspects of Blanchard's theory. But you'd hardly know it from the current state of Wikipedia. To reiterate: the proposal is to conglomerate all of the articles about Blanchard's theory into one article, and to have articles on the general subject of transsexual sexuality in the article of transsexual sexuality. Since the term autogynephilia is by far the most recognized and controversial aspect of Blanchard's theory, it is proposed to merge under that name. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did show you citations here they are again.

Kin selection and male androphilia in Samoan fa'afafine, Paul L. Vasey, David S. Pocock, Doug P. VanderLaan, 1 May 2007 (volume 28 issue 3 Pages 159-167 DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.08.004) Birth order and male androphilia in Samoan fa'afafine Paul L Vasey* and Doug P VanderLaan [4] The Fa'afafine are male to female transsexuals by another name. As Vasey points out in the above paper and I quote:

In contrast, in most non-Western societies, transgendered male androphilia appears to be the cultural norm. Transgendered male androphilia occurs between a male who is markedly gender-atypical and another who is more or less gender-typical for his own sex.Thus, partners adopt different social roles and do not treat each other as social equals. In many non-Western cultures, transgendered androphilic males often occupy ‘alternative’ gender role categories that are distinguished linguistically from the gender-normative categories of ‘man’ and ‘woman’. Some contemporary examples include the xanith of Oman, the hijra of India, the kathoey of Thailand, thetravestí of Brazil, the fakafefine of Tonga and the fa'afafine of Samoa (Herdt 1996;Murray 2000). Most researchers working with these various non-Western groups have tended to emphasize their unique cultural properties relative to each other and to egalitarian ‘gay’ male androphiles living in Western cultures. Implicit, and sometimes explicit, in this emphasis has been the idea that attempts to draw comparisons among androphilic males in these different groups are misguided because these phenomena cannot be understood outside the unique cultural contexts that give rise to them. As such, the overall impression one gleans from this literature is that a panoply of male ‘androphilias’ exist.

In what I bolded he defines transgendered male androphilia which is pretty much the same as homosexual transsexual. He goes on to write.

At the same time, a much smaller group of researchers has sought to elucidate cross cultural universals among male androphiles by comparing these different groups. For example, retrospective studies conducted in Independent Samoa, Brazil, Guatemala and the Philippines (Whitam & Zent 1984; Cardoso 2005; Bartlett & Vasey 2006) confirm that androphilic males recall significantly more cross-gender behaviours in childhood when compared with their gynephilic counterparts; a pattern that had been well documented in Western nations, such as Canada, the USA and the UK (Bailey & Zucker 1995). On the basis of these findings, it has been suggested that cross-gender behaviour in childhood reflects a culturally invariant pattern of psychosexual development shared by most androphilic males.

Notice who he cites. He cites Bailey and Zucker who would certainly have said homosexual transsexual and says what I bolded there. That implies that the terms Andorphilic and homosexual are cognate and synonymous. Furthermore the person who suggested using the term is recorded in WP RS's as one being a possible substitute for the other.

Those two sources are sufficient to me the notability criterion for Wikipedia. I will direct you back to the last spate of sources I cited and Kurt Freund who coined the term homosexual transsexual before Blanchard, and of course independent of Blanchard. The fact that Freund was Blanchard's advisor/mentor or whatever only supports that Blanchard did not come up with it.

WP Notability WP:Nsays that if " A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. " I have shown you such sources in which it is used independently of autogynephilia. I am going to refer this to the notability noticeboard.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, HFarmer, you're pretending that terms that do not say what you want them to say do. 1) The fa'afafine are transgendered, but not necessarily transsexual. The papers properly use the term transgendered, which is a broad catch-all category and which includes "third genders". Wikipedia's own article on the Fa'afafine properly notes, at the top, "Fa'afafine is a third gender specific to Samoan culture." You can't just pretend that the author uses the word "transsexual" because you want it to be the case. Secondly, the author uses the term androphile. Androphilia is absolutely not the same thing as "homosexual transsexual". It's not the same words and it does not have the same connotations. You can't just go in and replace their word with a loaded word and say, "Well, they're the same". No, they're not. A straight natal woman is an androphile. Androphilia != "homosexual transsexual". I don't know why I have to keep pointing this out.

Yes, he cites Zucker 1995. Have you read Zucker 1995? Zucker 1995 is about homosexuality. In fact, it's a key part of Zucker's theory that children who exhibit cross-gendered behavior as children grow up to be homosexual, not transsexual, and anyone who had read anything from Zucker would know that. So once again, you're grossly misrepresenting papers to make them say what you want.

As for WP:N, I already accept that Blanchard's theories are WP:N. But "homosexual transsexual" is A) not independent of Blanchard's theories, and B) not treated independently by the literature. Period. It's Blanchard's term, and it's essentially only used in the context of Blanchard's theory. -- 128.255.252.253 (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hfarmer, I scanned your sandbox for the rewrite. Some months ago, I half-heartedly attempted to understand what this topic was about, so I took the first few cited sources in Homosexual transsexual to read them for myself, thinking perhaps this was just a topic that was overburdened by jargon or whoever had written it was not terribly proficient in English. It concerned me that there does not seem to be a definition for this concept in a chapter of a book somewhere. I don't even trust my own understanding of what the term means.

It's rather clear that there are personality conflicts that come into play among the editors who discuss transsexual sexuality theories. I have absolutely no interest in that, so whatever your (plural) issues before this discussion, I'm not taking sides in it and I think it should be left out of this discussion and perhaps the editors involved should consider removing the section above this one where it's entirely about the personalities involved. It's a needless distraction.

Saying that, it's is my own observation that the Homosexual transsexual article probably does not warrant its own space because it does not cover a distinct state of being, a concept, or something else rigidly definable. I know how difficult this is, though. The concept of "lesbian" is not rigidly definable, but there are definitions of the term although they battle in what they cover. There does not seem to be a definition of Homosexual transsexual in any form.

So it's maybe as I understand it, a temporary state of being for some pre-op trans people? Maybe? Or a descriptor for a very small set of characteristics (effeminate gay men who are considering reassignment surgery?) Seriously, I cannot tell. I'm sorry for the way this comes off, but if I can't understand the topic in the lead paragraph, the article fails in its directive to inform the reader of what it means. That's a critical issue in an encyclopedia. There must be an article here discussing the spectrum of sexuality that trans people experience before, during, and after transitioning. I consider myself marginally more informed than a general reader about the fluidity of sexuality, and my understanding is that trans people can be attracted to both sexes--perhaps not at the same time, but the point is that all MTF, for example, are not necessarily attracted to men--but that may change with the transition.

The editors involved in this topic should note that this field is far, far beyond the majority of readers' experiences. It seems you (plural) have immersed yourselves in the intricacies of information about this topic so that you no longer realize how foreign some of this stuff is. Because the world is unfortunately coming from a place of traditionally strictly defined gender and immutable sexual orientation, in whatever article is constructed to explain the fluidity of sexuality in trans people, it really should be explained to bring general readers up to speed. Any article to introduce these concepts should start with the absolute basics. --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as the definition arguement.... If there is no book that defines "homosexual transsexual" and as the anon argues HSTS has only ever been used in reference to Autogynephilia, then it stands to reason that Autogynephilia also does not warrant it's own article?

There is a rigid definition of "homosexual transsexual" (and autogynephilia) in a book. "The Man who would be Queen" By J. Michael Bailey, Joseph Henry Press 2003. Page 178 paragraph two and I quote.

"One implication of Cher's assertion is that homosexual transsexuals are like gay men. Many of the facts discussed in the last section on gay men apply to homosexual male to female transsexuals. For example, the causes of homosexual transsexualism are largely the causes of homosexuality. To be sure only a small minority of gay men become transsexual, but homosexual transsexuals are a type of gay man. "

I can find a similar passage defining autogynephilia. Now are you going to argue that a word is only rigorously defined if it's in a glossary? There is noting the the definition, of definition that requires that.

If being used in a book is what determines if a word is notable then this certainly has been used in a book. This term and it's cognate "androphilic transsexual" are used in several WP RS's . WP notability strongly supports keeping this and Autogynephilia separate. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not a glossary, but an authoritative scholarly work. A textbook about human sexuality perhaps. Or an authoritative work about transsexualism. Who is Cher? Is Cher a scholar in the field of transsexual sexuality? If you use p. 178 of Bailey's book as a citation, wouldn't you have to say that "homosexual transsexual" is defined by Cher? That does not seem like a reliable source.

This is my concern: unless the concept of homosexual transsexual is given the weight in scholarly sources that solid, definable concepts are given, it should probably not be given its own article, but rather explained in a more comprehensive article as an expression of gender and sexuality by transsexuals before transition. --Moni3 (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The person doing the defining in that passage is J. Michael Bailey not Cher. Cher is just someone he quoted in the paragraph preceding where I began to transcribe, not the person doing the defining. I wanted to quote him in context so I just transcribed that paragraph verbatim. You really did not realize that or are you pulling my leg?

Bailey is a scholar in the field of sexology with a PhD. in psychology and tenure at Northwestern University in Chicago. Bailey has published both technical and popular works on the subject.

See above where I cited and quoted Paul Vasey who used it's synonym androphilic male to female transgender in a contemporary source. Kurt Freund defined it and used it in scholarly sources in 1974, and it or (androphilic transsexual as defined by Milton Diamond) has been used continuously since then in scholarly sources.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(For the curious the person named Cher that Bailey mentions is one of the transsexuals he spoke to when writing the book. It's a made up name for the person to protect their identity. It didn't since he did not mask them very well.)--Hfarmer (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide the text of Kurt Freund's definition? If you're referring to the 1974 "Measuring feminine gender identity in homosexual males" article, I read it during my aforementioned half-hearted attempt to understand the sources. I did not find a definition, but instead three passing references using "homosexual transsexual". If there is another article or Freund defined it somewhere, I'm interested in reading the definition.

I'm not pulling your leg. Let me be clear about this. I don't understand what this concept is about. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia article: to inform uninformed readers. I don't believe the failure is my lack of intellect or willingness to comprehend this topic. Rather, it's the combination of problems associated with the article, none of which I can parse as one significant over another. The language in the article is dense. There does not appear to be a solid definition or even a definable concept. The article does not provide the basics of sexual orientation and gender theory. Personality conflicts with editors seem to be determining what is in the article instead of sources. I cannot tell if source material is being abused (i.e. sources that do not define what the term means are being used to indicate that the source has provided a definition). All of these are problematic and quite frankly so overwhelming that it seems easier to delete the article and start over somewhere else. I just don't know where to start. I'm not well-versed in transsexual sexuality theories. There should be a dispassionate discussion about these theories to determine what is the best way to write an article for visitors to Wikipedia. I'm skeptical that such a dispassionate discussion can take place in light of the display higher up on this page. --Moni3 (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok if the fact that he was "Measuring feminine gender identity in homosexual males" isn't enough of a clue here it is. The whole abstract of the article says.

The appropriateness of measuring femininity in homosexual males by means of the usual masculinity-femininity tests is questioned. It is felt that what was called by earlier observers femininity or effeminacy in males was mainly or solely feminine gender identity (F.G.I.), whereas the masculinity-femininity tests currently used in measuring femininity with males embrace a wider area of differences between males and females than that of gender identity proper. An attempt was made to arrive at a more appropriate scale by first assembling a nucleus of F.G.I. items of high clinical face validity which later could be extended by adding items strongly correlated with this nucleus. The degree of F.G.I. was assessed by means of this scale in transsexual and nontranssexual androphiles (homosexual males who erotically prefer mature partners) and heterosexual control subjects. Results showed that transsexual and heterosexual males were discriminated by F.G.I. scores without any overlap, while nontranssexual androphiles' scores overlapped heavily with those of the controls and only slightly with those of the transsexual males.

There you have it, transsexual and non transsexual androphiles."Homosexual males who erotically prefer mature (male) partners". He even does me the favor of equating homosexual and androphile in this quote. It does not get more rigorous than that.

Let me break it down for you in simple terms. A homosexual transsexual is a biological male who's attracted to males and is transsexual. The basic concept is as simple as that. That's it that's all.

You may say "He's talking about non transsexual males when he says what's in parenthesis. He says "transsexual AND nontranssexual androphiles (...." You also must realize about the mentality of those researchers is that transsexual women are in fact biologically male. It is part of the definition of transsexual, at least the one people like Freund use. See here bottom of the page. [5]).

Basic gender identity theory and sexual orientation and all of that have their own articles. WP prefers a summary style yet comprehensive article. It is not our job to disagree, agree, or try to seer what people think. Think all one would want to know in 1000 words or less.

I have given a notice on the notabilty notice board to get a third party to take a look at all of this.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Freund is Blanchard's mentor. So pretending like Freund is some sort of source independent of Blanchard's theory would be like pretending if Einstein had a mentor who promoted a less complete version of the theory of Relativity, that his mentor would be an independent source. It's not. "Homosexual transsexual" is a loaded term that exists only within the context of Blanchard's theory. Blanchard's theory is WP:N, but it does not justify 3+ articles.

For Moni3, let me give you some background. Blanchard, building on the work of Freund and other colleagues at the Clarke gender clinic in Toronto, came up with a theory that says that there are two types of M2F (male-to-female) transsexuals: "homosexual transsexuals", who are motivated by their homosexuality; and "non-homosexual transsexuals", who are motivated by "autogynephilia", or the sexual attraction to the thought of one's self as a woman. His use of terms has been highly criticized both in the scientific community and outside it, as being both offensive (as it assumes the original gender and not the gender identity of the subject), and confusing. As a consequence, virtually nobody uses these terms except when specifically discussing his theory. His theory was widely promoted by two additional people: Bailey and Lawrence. Bailey wrote a 2003 book, "The Man Who Would Be Queen", which caused an uproar in the transsexual community. He based most of the book on his experience interviewing people found at Chicago gay bars, and he asserts things such as that transsexuals are well-suited for prostitution and shoplifting (hence the uproar). Lawrence is a self-described "autogynephilic" M2F who runs a private practice out of her house. Blanchard and Lawrence are extremely prolific publishers of papers on the subject. Blanchard and several of his colleagues at the Clarke are on the DSM committees for their relative sections, often heading the committees (hence the absurdity of treating the DSM in inclusion of their terms as being a secondary source).

Transsexual sexuality is a topic of relevance, in my opinion. But creating multiple articles all about different aspects of Blanchard's theory, using Blanchard's terms, is WP:UNDUE. There should be one article on transsexual sexuality, and one on Blanchard's theories. -- 128.255.252.253 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's very slowly becoming clearer that one comprehensive article about transsexual sexuality should encompass the theory of homosexual transsexual. It is exceedingly difficult, however, to make an informed opinion about this based on the Homosexual transsexual article because it is so poorly presented. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Well, if it is indeed as simple as this: Let me break it down for you in simple terms. A homosexual transsexual is a biological male who's attracted to males and is transsexual., we are talking about a dictionary definition, which should be on wikitonary, not wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No this is not a defintion for the dictionary. Allot of research has been done on transsexuality and for some reason the people who do it have felt it useful to sort transsexuals by their sexual orientation. The article also attempts to cover that research. I was asked for a defintion so that's what I give.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a definition: "A homosexual transsexual is a biological male..." and it should be cited to a reliable source that also provides the definition. The Freund source does not provide a definition. This is a critical oversight. It mentions the term "homosexual transsexual" in passing three times but does not define what it is. These are the full mentions of "homosexual transsexual in the Freund article:

Freund, 1974 "Measuring feminine gender identity in homosexual males" First occurrence: Therefore, rather than using a female group as a referent, it seems appropriate to conceive of the "feminine" behavioral patterns and statements of homosexual transsexual males as the extreme of that "femininity" which occurs in homosexual males in general. Second occurrence: Finally there remained 185 controls (50 alcoholic patients, 48 staff members of Correctional Services, and 87 students), 33 homosexual transsexual subjects, and 192 nonhomosexual homosexual males with a complete Part A of F.G.I. items. Third occurrence: Part A of the F.G.I. scale differentiated the three control groups from the homosexual transsexual males to such a degree that there was no overlap (see Fig. 1).

Freund refers to homosexual transsexual as a behavior pattern, but does not seem to characterize what behavior attributes are inherent in the pattern. It's a serious concern that you wish the title of the source article to provide "enough of a clue" for the readers. Instead of breaking it down for me in simple terms on a talk page, why is this not broken down in the simplest terms in the article?

Now, if a homosexual transsexual is a biological male who is attracted to other men, is there a reference to pre or post-op status among them? Why is homosexual transsexual notable enough for an article but heterosexual or bisexual transsexual not? Is this explained in the source material? Sexuality among women is markedly more fluid than in men. It is also more fluid as I understand in transsexuals preparing to undergo surgery. Does the source material state that homosexuality among MTF transsexuals is immutable? Is this a temporary state dependent upon hormone changes or other pre-op conditions? Or is it a pattern as introduced by Freund. If so, why is this pattern particularly notable? What makes MTF transsexuals who are attracted to men notable enough that they get a full article? How is this pattern not within a range of behavior patterns among TS people that should be discussed in one inclusive article to reduce confusion for readers?

Again, the vast majority of readers are approaching this set of articles with a strict heteronormative point of view, even those who may be questioning if they are transgender or gay. Most people are taught and understand that there are two genders and a range of sexual orientations, but most commonly three sexual orientations: homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual that are most often lifelong. Without discussing in any of these articles that gender or sexual orientation may be fluid, readers will never have a complete understanding of the ideas that will be presented. It does not matter that there are separate articles. A discussion of sexual orientation and gender theory is necessary to build upon in presenting ideas that are beyond the experience of many readers. This is basic pedagogy. --Moni3 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Moni3, see my comment on the background above. You've hit the nail on the head. The term is generally regarded as confusing in the literature, and hence it's generally only used in discussions of Blanchard's theory; it should not be standing on its own as a separate article and simply parroting Blanchard's theory (complete with a redundant reiteration of history, criticism, and background).

For your information, no, Blanchard's theory does not accept bisexuality as an option. Blanchard classifies M2Fs who are in long-term stable relationships with men as "non-homosexual" instead of "homosexual" if they have also shown a past history with women. Bailey goes so far as to argue that bisexuality does not exist in anyone. Many transsexuals consider them to be merely prolific kooks (although they have a few supporters). But Wikipedia's standards aren't based on opinions. They're based on verifiability and notability, and the combination of the proponents being published and the uproar that they caused seems to warrant an article on the subject. But not multiple articles on the subject, each redundantly having to explain the theory, the problems with the terminology, and so forth all over again.

I think the subject of sexuality in transsexuals is a potentially interesting one in its own regard, but it should be detached from the specific theories of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence. -- 128.255.252.253 (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Anon Freund as Blanchard's mentor using the words BEFORE Blanchard means that unless Blanchar's theory can effect things that came before it (Thus violating the laws of physics)that Freund came up with the term frist, and independently of Blanchard. Blanchard then borrowed it from Freund. There is a difference.

Let me give you an example Inertia Both General Relativity and Newtonian theory use the term. Does that make them the same theory? Does that mean that Einstein's theory is the same as Newtons. No. The same here.

Every scientist builds on what was done before them to an extent. Blanchard built his theory on Freunds not the other way around. Therefore Freunds theory is independent of Blanchards because Blanchard's theory did not even exist when Freund wrote what he wrote. "It's the time space continuum Marty", the past effects the future, not the other way around, unless Blanchard hopped in his Delorean time machine and told Freund what to write then Freunds use of the word is independent of Blanchards!

Moni. You cannot sit here and demand that a definition has to be in the glossary like form you gave.

Moni what you are doing is actually original research WP:OR. Must I remind both fo you that as editors we are not allowed to use our own insights, our own feeligns, our own hunches to do things. Basic logic and common sense yes. Anything beyond putting two and two together needs a citation.

You write "Freund refers to homosexual transsexual as a behavior pattern, but does not seem to characterize what behavior attributes are inherent in the pattern." That's your opinion in your words. According to Websters Online dictionary the word definition does mean "

Definition of DEFINITION 1 an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma. 2a a statement expressing the essential nature of something 2b a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol". It has as synonyms according to Websters" description, delineation, depiction, picture,portrait, portraiture, portrayal, rendering, sketch, vignette". Freund's statement is all of those things and therefore a definition. Bailey's statement is all of those things and therefore a definition. Vasey's statement is all of those things and therefore a definition.

Unless the two of you want to disagree with Websters dictionary, then the following statements....

Transgendered male androphilia occurs between a male who is markedly gender-atypical and another who is more or less gender-typical for his own sex. (Birth order and male androphilia in Samoan fa'afafine Paul L Vasey* and Doug P VanderLaan[6])

The degree of F.G.I. was assessed by means of this scale in transsexual and nontranssexual androphiles (homosexual males who erotically prefer mature partners) and heterosexual control subjects.

For example, the causes of homosexual transsexualism are largely the causes of homosexuality.To be sure only a small minority of gay men become transsexual, but homosexual transsexuals are a type of gay man. ("The Man who Would be Queen" J. Michael Bailey, Joseph Henry Press, 2003)

All of the bolded things are definitions by the Websters definition of the word. I think they at least know that much. Heck the one given by Bailey even fits the format that you Moni insist on (which is by no means part of the definition of a definition)

Each of those are WP:RS's Two peer reviewed articles, and one nonself published book by a academic expert in the field. By the common standards of Wikipedia that's enough to establish a definition for homosexual transsexual. The text of these articles does not have a to be a bunch of quotes. These articles are summaries after all.

That's all I have to say about this inane subject of the definition of homosexual transsexual.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You can call my questions OR all you want, although I've never edited the article for content so how you think that applies I don't know. I'm trying to understand what the concept is because the article fails at describing or summarizing it.

So a Homosexual transsexual is a type of gay man, right? Can you provide the text in which Bailey defines what a homosexual transsexual is? It's not a phase or a pattern of behavior as Freund has stated? If Bailey then defines Homosexual transsexual, why is Freund cited? Is it Bailey's theory? Is this theory notable enough to warrant its own article? It certainly does seem to be in dispute. What are the characteristics of this type of gay man? What qualifies one as a homosexual transsexual? What disqualifies one as a homosexual transsexual? I think you're assuming here that I'm being deliberately difficult or argumentative, but the fact remains that the Homosexual transsexual article is such a jumble that it is inaccessible to anyone.

Articles should at the very least provide a basic understanding of the concept. This is accomplished by providing a definition, some examples, non-examples, and a discussion of the knowledge associated with the concept. At the lowest level this article does not do this. Look, I work on articles that mean something to me because I want people to learn about them. I quite frankly don't understand the point of building an article that is so dense and unreadable that no one can understand it. Wouldn't you want to improve it so any general reader could learn from it?

An article is very much like proving a point. You build facts upon facts using the most authoritative sources available until the point is unmistakable. When facts are disputed, you provide the source material in its raw form to give skeptics something to work with. I don't always state the points I'm trying to make gracefully so I ask for help or take advice when it's given to improve the article. So what are you trying to do? Are you trying to make this article the best it can be so readers from most any background can understand it?

And building from that question, consider this soberly: would it be more effective for general readers that a comprehensive discussion of theories of transsexual sexuality be presented in one article? --Moni3 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that there's so much emotion tied up in these articles. They're a redundant, confusing, WP:UNDUE mess, but the editor list is mostly people like Jokestress, who have an ongoing feud with the people involved and want to see the articles either gone or only attacking the theory, or on the other side friends and coworkers of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence, like James Cantor (coworker) and HFarmer (friend), who considers the article, and I quote, "my baby"[7]. Many editors see the articles as who they are (HFarmer) or defaming who they are (Jokestress). In short, the emotions run high, and one has to tread carefully.

However, at the most basic level, we have here Blanchard's theory, derivative of his mentor Freund's concepts, and promoted by several collaborators. The two categories in Blanchard's theory can simply be stated, "Homosexual transsexual: a male-to-female transsexual who is motivated by their attraction to men" and "Non-homosexual transsexual: a male-to-female transsexual who is motivated by "autogynephilia" -- a sexual attraction to the thought of themself as a woman". A quick note of the controversy over terms, a couple links to Blanchard's original papers, a critical paper or two (Moser 2010 covers the most ground), and that could condense all three articles right there. This would be at the cost of omitting most of the research. Yet we could include pretty much all of the research on the subject cited by all three articles and have it take up less than half as much space as they currently take up, and be clearer to boot.

Which actually raises an interesting question on how to approach this. Moni3, as an outside source, your views on the subject could be invaluable. If I sandboxed my draft merger, would you help give your view on its clarity? I'd have to register an account to sandbox it, however (AFAIK). My draft merger takes the latter (inclusive) approach, although I could see merit to the exclusive approach.

There are a couple issues which deserve some thought. The first is, whether this theory should just be a part of Transsexual sexuality -- something I did not assume for the draft merger. My concerns with that are that Blanchard's theory seems to be WP:N in its own right, and we'd have to heavily compress the content down to key points. The second issue is whether we should list all of the pro arguments together, then all of the con arguments together (as in my draft merger), or whether each pro and con issue should be stated individually and paired up. While that immediately allows users to see the arguments and counterarguments to each claim, since Blanchard makes many arguments about his two subgroups and the critics have many counterarguments, it could lead to an awful lot of sections.

In short, I'd really appreciate your input. -- 128.255.252.253 (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear 128.255.252.253: I believe that characterizing Jokestress et. al. as "want[ing] to see the articles either gone or only attacking the theory" is inaccurate... E.g. Jokestress August 2006: <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blanchard%2C_Bailey%2C_and_Lawrence_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=71768006&oldid=71764868>... if Jokestress is so ardently committed to the annihilation/evisceration of the BBL article... why did she add descriptions of the four subtypes of "autogynephilic" transsexuals? Most peculiar, mama!

I went over the history of the "Autogynephilia" and "BBL theory" articles before I dipped my toe into this morass, and up until Marion the Librarian/James Cantor's June 2008 editing onslaught, they seemed to me to be reasonably balanced; after that, they had been "purified" to comport with the BBL worldview (transview? :-), and remained so thereafter. Merging the articles is a good idea--I personally think it would be best for them to be merged into a "BBL Theory" article to which the others redirect--and the "Homosexual Transsexual" article needs at least to be trimmed dramatically--but that's not going to resolve the fundamental WP:POV problems here. bonze blayk (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I could agree with what Bonzesaunders proposes. If I understand correctly it would merge Autogynephilia and BBL theory. Redirecting Autogynephilia related queries to BBL theory. The article Homosexual transexual would be dramatically cut down to the basics (much like what I have sandboxed). Why don't we do that? Is it so crucial to some people that homosexual transsexual be a footnote in Autogynephilia? --Hfarmer (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is to merge Autogynephilia, Homosexual Transsexual, and BBL Theory. If having them merged into BBL theory instead of Autogynephilia would get you onboard with such a merger, I would second that. I want to see as many people happy with the outcome as possible. -- 128.255.252.253 (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bonzesaunders has made a counter proposal it seems. To merge Autogynephilia into BBL theory, redirect autogynephilia to BBL theory(or vice versa), and to rewrite homosexual transsexual. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bonzesaunders says "at least" needs to be trimmed dramatically. I can't read that any way other than "highly trimmed or deleted" (since the only thing greater than "trimmed dramatically", AFAIK, is deletion). -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't mean to impugn Jokestress's motives, by any means -- only to note that she's on the opposite side of the POV spectrum as

Cantor. It should also be noted that the first thing that she said to me concerning the articles is that she thinks they should be deleted. -- 128.255.252.253 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, here is her only comment to me: "This entire matter does not merit its own article. All of this crap should be summarized in an article on gender identity and sexual orientation. The whole premise here is that trans women are simply a manifestation of sexual orientations that (in this belief system) can reach the level of psychosexual pathology or psychopathology." I don't think I misrepresented her. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia Jokestress's opinion's my opinions, James Cantor's opinions are not worth any more than the other. What shall decide this is a interpretation of the notability of the articles. I have show the necessary and sufficient proof that the article is notable. One point I would point out at this time is that according to WP:N notability is not temporary or revocable. An article that was notable to be here since 2006 is still notable in 2010. In my opinion they should all stay.

However in the spirit of compromise I agree with BonzeSaunders idea. We should merge BBL theory into Autogynephilia, redirect BBL theory to Autogynephilia (or the other way around), then write a short sweet article on Homosexual/Androphilic transsexualism (covering bluntly what the sources say it is, what kinds of research have been done with it, and the objections to "homoexual" being applied to transwomen with copious references where more details can be found. We could treat Autogynephilia simmilarly.)

Is there some other reason you need to delete Homosexual Transsexual. If you are who I think you are anon, based on your past statements and demeanor when discussing these matters... I think you have some other motive, a malevolent motive with wanting to delete that article. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that anyone's opinions are worth more than anyone else's -- I was merely pointing out that emotions are high over this subject (which I think is abundantly clear) and that there's a POV split (which I don't think anyone would dispute). Let's not put words in my mouth that are not there.

The articles have been in hot dispute since their beginning. Appealing to history will hardly help your case.

WP:N does not say, "If a subject is notable, every last detail of it gets its own article." Because the Yellow-Headed Amazon is notable, should we have an article on "Yellow-Headed Amazon Eyes", "Yellow-Headed Amazon Crop", "Yellow-Headed Amazon Syrinx", and so forth? No. It gets one article. IMHO, Blanchard's theory is notable. "Autogynephilia" and "Homosexual transsexual" are all parts of Blanchard's theory. Hence it gets one article.

For a third and final time: WP:AGF. I will not repeat this policy again. As I've said many times, I'm looking for a solution that can make as large a percent of the editors here happy with the result. You included. I am trying to take a middle ground between "deletion" and "uncritically including everything favorable of Blanchard's theories spread across several articles with tons of redundant, confusing information". Attacking me is not productive. I will not be drawn into the personal squabbles which have caused so many problems for these articles in the past. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No WP N Says that if a subject is notable it gets it's own article. Peer reviewed WP:RS qualified sources write of Homosexual/Androphilic male to female transsexuals without even mentioning Blanchard's theory.

1MacFarlane, D. F. (August 1984). "Transsexual prostitution in New Zealand: Predominance of persons of Maori extraction". Archives of Sexual Behavior(Netherlands: Springer) 13 (4): 301–309. doi:10.1007/BF01541903. PMID 6487074.

Information concerning the racial distribution, family background, sexual history, education, and employment status of 27 New Zealand, male-to-female preoperative transsexual prostitutes was obtained by interview and questionnaire. Subjects lived in Wellington, New Zealand, and Sydney, Australia. Subjects recalled childhoods with maternal dominance, paternal absence, being youngest sons, and being dressed in girls' clothes by female relatives. Further, an early history of homosexual intercourse and cross-dressing behavior occurred significantly often. Moreover, it was apparent that the Maori race, which forms 9.0% of the total New Zealand population, was disproportionately represented; approximately 90% of the transsexual prostitute population in Wellington is Maori. Various explanations are offered for the racial inequality. It is concluded that cultural influences have an effect on the number of transsexual prostitutes in New Zealand. Further research is needed to assess whether these factors also influence the etiology and development of transsexualism.

2 Green, Richard (July). "Birth order and ratio of brothers to sisters in transsexuals". Psychological Medicine 30 (4): 789–795.doi:10.1017/S0033291799001932. PMID 11037086.

Background: As previous studies with homosexual males have revealed a later birth order, more older brothers and more brothers than sisters, this research was extended to a large series of transsexual males and females, some of whom are homosexual. Methods: The male sample comprised 442 male-to-female transsexuals, subdivided by sexual partner preference: 106 homosexual, 135 heterosexual, 155 bisexual and 46 asexual. One hundred female-to-male transsexuals were also studied: 75 homosexual, 16 bisexual, seven heterosexual and five asexual. Birth order was computed by both Slater's Index and Berglin's Index. Results: Homosexual male-to-female transsexuals have a later than expected birth order and more older brothers than other subgroups of male-to-female transsexuals. Each older brother increases the odds that a male transsexual is homosexual by 40%. Conclusions: Hypotheses explaining the extension of prior findings to this large sample of transsexual males include a progressive maternal immunization to the male foetus either through the H-Y antigen or protein-bound testosterone or alterations in foetal androgen levels in successive pregnancies, all modifying male psychosexual development. Data on the sexual orientation of younger brothers of homosexual male transsexuals in this study are not consistent with the progressive immunization hypothesis.

1. Those are in addition to the ones I have already pointed out none of these sources mention Blanchard's theory.

IF you want good faith assumed act in good faith and accept that the evidence does not back your assertion. Acting like a tendentious editor. Let me inform you of WP:GAME, and WP:COI.

You are gaming the system by trying to play WP:AGF off of WP:COI. You are trying to (very badly) hide your identity then stop anyone from calling you out using AGF. I assumed good faith, until your bad faith became evident. AGF does not mean "let people talk to you like you are a fool, and IGORE the evidence you present them that shows they are wrong." --Hfarmer (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again (how many times will you make me mention this?): 1) McFarlane does not use the term homosexual transsexual, 2) McFarlane isn't talking about transsexuals, but a third gender specific to Somoan society; 3) McFarlane doesn't even use the word transsexual, but "transgendered"; 4) McFarlane did not in any way, shape, or form imply anything at all related to the loaded term "homosexual transsexual"; androphilia is a completely different term with none of those connotations, which can even apply to straight natal women. You can't up and rewrite the paper to say what it does not, and I've pointed this out to you several times already. Your misrepresentation of the prostitution article is even worse; not only do they not use the term, but since 23% of them had been involved with women in their youth, they would, by Blanchard's definition, not even be "homosexual transsexuals" (and the paper again doesn't use that term). All of this for Green, too. I am disappointed with this behavior which you keep doing; misrepresenting sources is contrary to the goal of building a good article.

As per Moni3's recommendations, I will seek outside input to deal with the personal conflicts and accept whatever they have to say. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Macfarlane does not does not have to use the specific term verbatim. He uses something that is clearly synonymous. I will agree with you though If you can explain to me just how a male to female preoperative transsexual that engages in homosexual activity is not a homosexual transsexual (bearing in mind that Macfarlane refers to his study's subjects as male so he ain't talking about trans lesbians.) --Hfarmer (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fun in the kitchen means I cut my finger open with a knife and I can't type for a few days. This is the only message I'm going to be able to leave, and it is a reminder that personality-driven discussions about the editors involved distract from the content. It's been one of the major problems in the construction of these articles and it needs to be stopped. So, I'm requesting if you have commented about the identity or motivation of another editor, strike it. It solves nothing. It produces nothing. Another option is to ask an uninvolved admin to remove any mention of other editors from this discussion and continue to monitor it. As for other content issues, I will return to the discussion when I can type at my normal speed. --Moni3 (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Moni I learned my tactics at the feet of Jokestress. Much of what I do in arguing, mirrors her. Jokestress made me. One of the things she has done effectively is call out people who have a genuine conflict of interest. I.e. Marionthelibrarian/JamesCantor (Who at least had the respect to try to actually mask his identity).--Hfarmer (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I learned all kinds of bad habits. It just takes disengaging to break them. Strike your comments. Be a bigger person. Keep your eyes on the prize. In this case, it's accurate content. --Moni3 (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

For appropriate notification: I have sought outside input here. Hopefully this can be resolved. Whatever they decide, I will abide by it. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to strike my comments. Pointing out to a user that they have a conflict of interest which that IP user who is really Redacted per WP:OUTING. is not a personal attack.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. Do you want to improve this set of articles or would you rather carry on a pointless discussion about the motives of other editors? These articles are riddled with problems, and it doesn't matter why editors are doing what they're doing. Right now, the articles just suck. Can you carry on your interpersonal issues on your talk pages? You can create a whole sandbox where you can intone that other editors' motivations are less than noble to your heart's content. If you'd rather junk up a discussion about content with your other issues, we can just initiate an AfD for Homoseuxal transsexual right now. I'm for efficiency. --Moni3 (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

So what. Should I just shut up and let some IP editor who's unwilling to compromise on anything have their way. Should I let them post things like this this...Clearly in a bald faced attempt at intimidation have their way? I really dont think so.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea: "Blanchardian Theory in 30 Seconds"

Ray Blanchard proposed a theory that Male-To-Female transsexuals can be broken up into two groups: "homosexual transsexuals", who transition because they are attracted to men(), and "non-homosexual transsexuals", who transition because they are "autogynephilic"() (sexually attracted to the thought of themselves as a woman). It is represented in the DSM.() Supporters of the theory include Bailey, Lawrence, and Cantor, who argue that there are significant differences between the two groups, including sexuality, age, ethnicity, IQ, fetishism, and quality of adjustment()()(). Critics of the theory include Veale, Nuttbrock, and Moser, who argue that the theory is poorly representative of M2F transsexuals(), non-instructive(), and the experiments poorly controlled() or contradicted by other data(). Many sources criticize Blanchard's choice of wording as confusing() or insulting(). The theory has created a firestorm of protest in the transsexual community(), although it has its supporters.()

Insert reference links in all of the ()s, wikify, and publish as a section Transsexual sexuality. What do you think? Sure, it leaves out the details of all of the pros and cons of the research, but it's concise and readable.

The other option would be like my current draft merger (discussed above), which keeps the details of the research but merges and organizes them into their own, single article, eliminating redundancy and increasing readability. -- 128.255.252.253 (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the best summary of all and makes sense, whoever this editor is could also be in charge of drafting the pros and cons into something neutral, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.4.67 (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Summing up the feedback thusfar

Back to productive discussion and attempts at representing the majority view. Please correct any of the below if I misrepresent your stances:

• Myself Supportive of a full merger between the three articles. Willing to accept a full delete in exchange for a significant mention in Transsexual sexuality.
• Hfarmer Merge Autogynephilia and BBL theory into one article trim down homosexual transsexual.
• Moni3 Wants to see merger and greater clarity.
• Whatamidoing Does not want to see merger.
• Kimvdlinde Thinks Homosexual Transsexual be deleted and instead added to Wiktionary. No comment on merger.
• Bonzesaunders Thinks that at least Autogynephilia and BBL theory need to be merged, and Homosexual transsexual should be "at least" severely trimmed (assumedly anything more than "at least" means "deletion" -- i.e., its content covered by the merger).

I won't count Jokestress, who initially suggested deletion or merger, as I understand that she's recused herself.

Did I get everyone? I read this as the following:

• Delete: 2 / 6 (Kimvdlinde, Myself (with caveats))
• Merge all three articles: 3+ / 6 (Myself, Moni3, Bonzesaunders) (Unknown: Kimvdlinde?)
• Doing nothing or simply trim one article: 1 / 6 (Whatamidoing)
• Merging two articles and heavily trimming one: 2 / 6 (Hfarmer, Bonzesaunders)

If my reading of the above is correct, it appears to me that Merger has it. Again, please comment if you see the need for any correction to what's written above. Assuming this holds, I'll begin the merger process, but again, I want as much as possible that we can do towards consensus building -- so if there's anything that you feel should be taken care of during the merger process, please let me know. As Bonzesaunders thinks this should be merged into BBL theory instead of Autogynephilia, I will respect that choice. I can actually see a good argument for that, in terms of article structure, even if it's a term that people won't commonly arrive to Wikipedia at. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record: anyone's comments about anyone's identity during this discussion will be ignored. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

First off summing up other peoples statements is bad form.

Second Your summation of what I think is wrong. I agreed some time ago with Bonzesaunders that the articles BBL and Autogynephilia should be merged, and homosexual transsexual trimmed down to something like what I have sandboxed.

The question is would you accept Bonzesaunder's compromise? (Merge BBL into Autogynephilia, Revise homosexual transsexual to make it a shorter more to the point article.)

Or does it have to be your way or the highway?--Hfarmer (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Summing up views is essential for anyone who cares what others think for figuring out what action to take. Which I do. If I didn't, I would have just been WP:BOLD and changed it rather than putting out appropriate notification to get as many viewpoints as possible.

I've offered and accepted compromises more times than I can shake a stick at, including which article to merge into, whether to merge at all or just delete, a merger that includes all content, a brief summary merger into another article, and others. No, I do not find your proposal acceptable, and I do not need to reiterate all of the reasons once again; they've already been stated about a dozen times above, and this is not the venue to re-debate that. If you want "merge two, heavily trim one" it to be its own category, it at best gets two !votes (Bonzesaunders wrote "at least to be trimmed dramatically"; anything more than "trimmed dramatically" would, IMHO, mean elimination). -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC).

As per your interest, I'll go ahead and add the fourth category above. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's good. Do you accept Bonzesaunder's compromise in this case?

Do you now accept that the article Homosexual transsexual should exist separate and apart from the article on Autogynephilia/BBL theory?--Hfarmer (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There's one more thing WP:Consensus is how things are decided, not majority vote. Wikipedia has an established process for doing these things.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned many times above: No. I see it as irrevocably linked with Blanchard's theory, and that appropriate discussion of transsexual sexuality independent of BBL belongs in transsexual sexuality. And this is not the venue to re-debate that for the dozenth time. But it's certainly fair of you to want a !voting category for it, and of course I'll add it even if it doesn't get my !vote. I only want to be fair here.

Absolutely -- a straw poll is not a substitute for concensus. But I don't want to be WP:B unless there seems to be significant support for my actions, and I want to take whatever action is most supported. Please understand that I'm trying to make as many people happy with the outcome as possible. It appears that a proper merger would make myself, Moni3, Bonzesaunders, and probably Kimvdlinde happy with the outcome, while only potentially alienating you and Whatamidoing. As much as I don't want to alienate you two, it is inappropriate to stagnate the article for that. I am hopeful that after such a merger, you will join us in helping make it better. In no way do I expect to get it 100% right off the bat. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:B would not work for merging these pages. Let me point out other problems with that you have done in your summary. First you count votes twice

Since you insist on a straw poll here is how I see it.

Votes for the anonIP's proposed merger:1 (anonIP)

Votes Against the anon IP's proposal :2 (Hfarmer, WhatamIdoing)

Non committal or favoring other proposals including other merger schems or deletion of one page:3(Bonzesaunders, Moni3,Kimvdlinde)

This is the problem with a little summation and "straw Poll" as you called it there is more than one way to do what you did.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

One, it's not a straw poll "as I call it"; that's Wikipedia's official terminology for it. Two, AFAIK, you're grossly misrepresenting Bonzesaunder's and Moni3's positions, and possibly Kimvdlinde's (although I can't say, and she would have to add clarity). Bonzesaunder said to merge two and *at least* heavily trim the third, which easily falls into the description of merging all three (the two would be merged and the third would be "at least" heavily trimmed). Moni3 wrote, "It is still abysmally confusing. I still think it should be merged with another article." Then "it should probably not be given its own article, but rather explained in a more comprehensive article as an expression of gender and sexuality by transsexuals before transition". Then "It's very slowly becoming clearer that one comprehensive article about transsexual sexuality should encompass the theory of homosexual transsexual". How could you possibly argue that Moni3 doesn't want a merger? I'm sorry, but it's clear that you and Whatamidoing are the only ones who would oppose a merger.

Lastly, if people's positions allow them to be happy with multiple options, I put them in multiple options. That's what you call !voting twice. I call it accurately representing people's viewpoints. Again, this isn't a real poll. Nobody is casting actual votes here. It's just spelling out where people stand as accurately as possible to make clear what people will accept and be happy with moving forward. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, please think of the positives: with all of the information in one place, balanced, clear, and the editors happier, it should be easier to get to Good Article status. If we work together. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not made up my mind if the article is not dictionary material, but something else. From the discussion, I get that it are one term (Homosexual transsexual), one paraphilia (Autogynephilia) and one theory, with the term related to Heterosexual transsexuals, and a different explanation for homosexual transsexuals? Do I have that about correct? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to help provide feedback.  :) I hope I have not misrepresented you in any way; I'm just trying to assess where people stand to decide how to move forward with this. Yes, the articles are the term one term Homosexual transsexual, one paraphilia Autogynephilia, and one theory Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory (the latter isn't an official name, just something that was chosen for Wikipedia -- in the scientific literature, it's usually referred to as things like "Blanchard's theories" or "BAT theory"). The proposal is to merge them because they're all aspects of the same theory. Hfarmer's assertion is that homosexual transsexual can stand alone (see her arguments for why above). Mine is that it is integrally tied to Blanchard's theories (see my arguments for why above), and that any discussion of transsexual sexuality outside of Blanchard's theories belongs in transsexual sexuality and should not use Blanchard's specific terms. See "Blanchardian Theory in 30 Seconds" above for a concise summary of the theory, its backing, and its criticism. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that's about right. What we have is on term/concept that was around for years "homosexual transsexual" (It could be called the notion that MTF transsexuals who are attracted to men are in fact a type of gay male. It's been called by different names.)

Then we have a theory due to Ray Blanchard and advocated by J. Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence "Blanchard Bailey and Lawrence theory". Like HT it has been called other things. Notably it is often called Autogynephilia theory.

Aside from that is Autogynephilia the proposed paraphilia. Depending on which source you look at it has varying levels of acceptance. Notably it's in an early draft of the DSM V as a subtype of transvestic fetishism. Years ago I proposed merger of autogynephilia in to Transvestic fetishism here at Wikipedia that was defeated.

That said I am more than willing to compromise on merging two of the articles. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific, the term has been around for years because Blanchard's mentor, Freund, used it. Blanchard took the term and expanded it into a broader theory of M2F transsexuality being of two types ("homosexual" -- attracted to males, and "non-homosexual" -- attracted to females). Naturally, since these terms are confusing when dealing with people who are changing sex, they're virtually unused outside of talking about Blanchard's theories. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not unusual in science. Why invent a new term when their is an old one that's close enough?

Specifically in the above do you claim that Freund's homosexual transsexual meant less than a transsexual "attracted to males"?--Hfarmer (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm stating unequivocably that Freund's "homosexual transsexual" is Blanchard's "homosexual transsexual", and that Blanchard's theories are just an expansion on his mentor Freund's. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have done some reading on this, including the earlier articles from Blanchard. Based on that alone, it is obvious to me that the term has been used substantially in the past. After that, I did a search on google scholar, "Homosexual transsexual" -Cantor -Blanchard -Freund and found some recent articles (some hits are for "Homosexual, transsexual" and thus invalid) still using it, but I got the impression that it is a rather rare term. Similar for autogynephilia, I did not get the impression it is widely accepted.

Anyway, if I look at the five terms discussed here, it is rather weird to have three terms covered in an article, and two not. This by itself shows pretty strong bias. So, any solution should cover all five terms, not just three. Three solutions come to mind:

1. Five articles.
2. One article.
3. Three articles, various combinations, each of them equally subjective.

I opt for a single article, as they are very much linked together. I think that Homosexual transsexual should be a disambig page because the term is sometimes used outside the BBL 'theory'. Same for Heterosexual transsexual.

As for Transvestic fetishism, from what I have read, the Blanchard 'theory' goes much father than that descriptive term. I use hypothesis because in a theory in science is a well-established and supported concept such as gravity, cell theory and evolution, and this isn't. As far as I can tell, all they have is a idea and some correlations and statistical classifications which, excuse me if I say it, are not really convincing because once you read the articles, you know that there is a substantial percentage of subjects they study that does not fit hypothesis.

I would like to say here also that the degree of bickering is stunning, which generally happens when people have an agenda and loose sight about the purpose of wikipedia, namely, making an encyclopedia. Arguments should be framed in that context, not about who is actually right or wrong, because that is not the purpose of WP. If we take that concept as a starting point, what does someone want to find? A expanded dictionary entry explaining that a Homosexual transsexual is someone who is transsexual and attracted to man, with a side not that it is included in the BBL hypothesis, or do you want to send that person to the BBL hypothesis page were he can find the whole idea? I opt for the latter. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the name of the page, I would suggest Blanchard's transsexuality etiology hypothesis, because it is not a theory, it is Blanchard's idea (The others seem to just be supporters), it goes further than just a taxonomy, as it has explicit cause-results hypotheses in it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I take it your one vote for one article. Ok I respect that. Consider the following while you are writing that article.

The problem with your search on google scholar is that it misses occurences which use the concept but not the term "homosexual transsexual". such as...

"male to female transsexuals who are attracted to men".

"Androphilic male to female transsexuals"

"Transgender or transsexual Men who have sex with men "

I can go on with all the possible permutations of how this concept has been described. It's like you have said WP is not a dictionary. So we don't go around looking for definitions of terms. We describe subjects, concepts, theories, historical events etc.

Demanding that a article must say "Homosexual transsexual" exactly in order to be valid is like writing about the Franco Prussian war and demanding that every single reference have in it's title or abstract the exact term "The Franco Prussian war". You would not exclude an article WP:RS about "French artillery technology from whenever to whenever"... Where the years coincide with the war. One would use it as a source about French artillery technology in the war. Right?

How is this different.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have no problem with the variety of terminology. I have honestly not read everything you two have scribbled, because it is just much about the same and not that interesting. Transsexuals can be classified just like non-transsexuals in gay, heterosexual, lesbian etc. There are a whole range of classifications, and I think that is generally better covered in Transgender sexuality. Blanchard uses the term in a rather specific way, calling them homosexual and non-homosexual transsexuals (the latter including bisexuals, lesbians and asexuals) to fit his transsexuality etiology. That is why I think Homosexual transsexual should be a disambig page making clear that it is sometimes used just to indicate a transsexual who is homosexual and sometimes to indicate a specific classification linked intimately to a specific etiology. I hope that clarifies. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, that's a really interesting idea, Kim. I think I'll do just that. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll on the proposal

Lets have everyone sum up their position in their own words. Please endorse the following three basic positions. Please provide a brief explanation. We will discuss these after people have voiced their opinions and positions (Which may mean waiting a few days to let people who may not check in so often voice an opinion.)

1. Merge all three articles into Autogynephilia.
2. Merge Autogynephilia and BBL theory into one article trim down homosexual transsexual.
3. None of the above (Please, what do you suggest? :-) ).

Hfarmer (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, based on Bonzesaunders's suggestion, the current proposal is to merge them all into BBL theory. Also, I'm not sure everyone is still around, but if anyone wants to clarify their positions, I'd be glad to have that (which is why I made the request for clarification above). -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember state the reasons why you think what you think not the reasons that you think someone else is wrong. Please do not comment directly on peoples votes.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

2 Merge Autogynephilia and BBL theory into one article trim down homosexual transsexual. This option would consolidate BBL theory and autogynephilia. In literature the theory is referred to by both names and various combinations of them i.e. "Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory" (Moser 2010). This makes a much weaker case that BBL and Autogynephilia are different enough in the literature to warrant different articles. Research on transsexuals/transgenders who are attracted to men, known as Homosexual or androphilic transsexuals has been conducted independently of research on Autogynephilia (Freund 1974, Vasey 2007, MacFarlane 1984, and others). This makes a good argument that homosexual transsexual should be it's own article, trimmed down (perhaps by another name). --Hfarmer (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The existing RS's justify both autogynephilia and homosexual transsexual. The research suggests that autogynephilia exists independently of gender dysphoria and transsexuality and the typology of transsexuality. (Cross-dressers, for example, also report having autogynephilic sexual fantasies.) "BBL", however, is a nickname and misnomer. It appears only in blgos and the very lowest impact RS's, but no reasonably reliable source. In fact, both Bailey and Lawrence give credit to Blanchard for the work, although they have both supported and expanded Blanchard's work on the topic. I think the "BBL" page would be more NPOV and more accurate as "history of the taxonomy of transsexuality" or similar. Many lay-writers mistakenly claim that Blanchard divided MtF transsexuality into two types, when in reality, there were already multiple types being discussed for decades, and Blanchard showed that there were fewer types, not more types, than believed at that time.
I was a student and colleague of Blanchard's, and I do no expect to participate in editing of the relevant pages, but I am happy to contribute whatever information I have on relevant talkpages about it.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm, after reading the whole evening about this, I really wonder if autogynephilia is actually so weird, especially in the light of some of the recent studies on natal women. So, if it is present in natal women, when is it becoming a paraphilia in that it is a problem? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the very point both Moser (2009) and Veale et al (2008) raised. Blanchard's initial work lacked a control group of natal women, and he simply asserted that autogynephilia doesn't exist in them. There are real problems with it being a paraphilia if it exists in natal women. For one, if both M2Fs and natal women experience similar degrees of autogynephilia, then it's an equally valid hypothesis that the M2Fs in question are just behaving as normal women would. Secondly, paraphilias are rare in women. And third, you can't consider normal sexual behavior a paraphilia. So the theory's supporters have been attacking these papers. I think some of their criticisms are valid, but don't address the underlying issues. Moser (2010) also raises some more problems with the paraphilia hypothesis -- paraphilias interfere with normal sexual relationships (M2Fs have surprisingly little problems having normal sexual relationships, given the circumstances). Paraphilias decline with age (transsexualism doesn't). Paraphilias tend to decline or go away with androgen blockers, and androgen blockers tend to make people with paraphilias uncomfortable with the effects (transsexualism doesn't, and M2Fs generally really like the effects of androgen blockers). Paraphilias tend to decline with support groups; transsexualism doesn't. Etc.

Honestly, I just find the whole debate a fascinating topic. I think it's clear that there are some M2F transsexuals for whom autogynephilia is a significant or even primary motive, and I think one could pretty convincingly argue is the primary motive for most cross-dressers. But as Moser, Nuttbrock, Veale, etc note in several different studies, it doesn't really paint a full picture of gynephilic M2Fs. I'd especially like to see more research on Moser's notion of autoandrophobia. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk)

James: I left you a message in talk, re: wording of the theory. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of the votes

(I had intended for votes to not be discussed until many people had a chance to vote. That was disregarded. For the sake of keeping each editors position clear let us not commingle this discussion with the votes please.Hfarmer (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC))

James, I respect and fully understand that you want to be involved with this subject. However, you have already explicitly excluded yourself from this subject due to your clear COI as a colleague of Blanchard's, shortly after your days as "Marion The Librarian". Your opinions cannot count toward editing consensus any more than Jokestress's, who already made clear a "delete or merge" opinion (which, as I noted above, shouldn't count).

Now, if you simply wish to discuss the facts of the case, I think that's more than fair. Do remember that the proposed merger, however, is to an article on Blanchard's theories, with transsexual sexuality as a completely independent topic. Blanchard's theories also encompass cross-dressers, and the discovery of autogynephilia in natal women by Moser (2009) and Veale et al (2008) was merely in response to Blanchard's statements that it doesn't exist (i.e., to provide a control group). And AFAIK, Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence still deny that it exists. Indeed, you are correct that BBL is a misnomer, something that I have pointed out several times. I've seen Moser (2010) refer to it as "BAT theory"; I usually refer to it as "Blanchard's theories" (something I've also seen in papers) or simply "Blanchardian theory". As for the concept of "history of the taxonomy of transsexuality", that's certainly an interesting thought, but for the most part, the papers I've seen range from "everyone doing their own thing" (early history) to Freund's and later Blanchard's refined taxonomy, and then more recently, criticism of the accuracy of and merit of Blanchard's taxonomy, without the proposal for an alternative taxonomy to replace it (Moser 2010 argues that there is no clinical utility to such a taxonomy, while Nuttbrock et al (2010) simply argues that such a taxonomy is deficient). So it seems like it'd largely be an article on Blanchard's theories either way.

Again, interesting inputs, and unlike some, I welcome your involvement on talk. However, I must reiterate that I cannot weigh your views into account in terms of actual editorial decisions any more than I can for Jokestress's. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. -- I'm actually curious as to your thoughts on Moser (2010). There's a lot of criticisms leveled there, and I'm curious as to which ones you think may have merit and which ones you think he missed the mark on. This clearly will have no bearing on the article, due to both your COI and WP:V, so perhaps it's something that should be taken to a user talk page. But I am interested nonetheless. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. COI'd editors by policy and the customs we have here have always had input on the talk page as if they were not COI'd. They just could not make changes to the article.

Even though and editor has a conflict of interest, they can still take part in discussion on the talk page. Jokestress, Dicklyon, and James Cantor did exactly that for years and me and WAID and whoever elese was not COI'd and could edit would give their opinions equal weight.

Everyone's opinion is of equal weight. You are taking my statement that Jokstress's opinion, no matter how respected she is off wiki, is no more important than anyone's beyond what I meant.

If you don't believe me about that then According to WP COI COI'd editors can make suggestions. According to the accepted suggestions for COI compliance. WP:SCOIC it says that editors responding to COI'd editors should do things like "Treat the user's suggestion on its merits, rather than trying to assess the conflict of interest itself." "Assume good faith, the user is likely trying to work for the betterment of the encyclopedia, even if they have a conflict of interest."

I could be self serving and agree with you on this because then if Jokestress and Dicklyon show up then they would also be excluded. I am not going to do that. The five of us Jokestress, Dicklyon, James Cantor, WhatamIdoing and myself, have worked together for years on this. We always took what they had to say into account. If Jokestress or any one of them had a RS I added it. We argued over how much of a quote would be in or stuff like that. However It was added. Ever scrap of criticism, the long passages about how offensive these words are. Those were typed by me and WAID at the behest of Jokestress and Dicklyon! The passages that are not critical but are technical were based in large part on suggestions from James Cantor. The policy cited above backs up this custom.

I notified everyone you did as best I could because I trust the basic integrity of these editors. If the consensus of the 10 or so people on that list is Merge then we will merge. Not a second sooner. We need to give adequate time, at least a few days, or even a week for those who are interested to chime in. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, no no. Selectively choosing a list of editors you trust is WP:CANVAS. You also didn't at all file any sort of appropriate notification that you were doing this. I posted to *everyone* who had edited the article in the past two years, even those I thought would disagree with me, announcing this article, then listed what I had just posted and every editor who as contacted. You snuck out in secret to have those you've worked with back you up in a dispute. This is inacceptable. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

How am I being selective I notified Jokestress I notified her and according to you she's a sure vote for merge/delete. I also notified other editors Dicklyon for example who would also vote for merge/delete.

I notified all of the same people you notified save for a few. See my contributions [8]

Canvassing is looking only for certain editors who agree with ones point of view. By the logic you are using going to one of the many noticeboards is canvassing.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Save a few? I notified all 35 people. You notified 14. You hand-selected who to post an announcement to, and made no notification that you were doing so ("stealth" canvassing). Great -- you picked some token opposition. That doesn't change the overall picture. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As for your statements about WP:COI: it's almost like you're replying to a different post than I wrote. Did I not just tell James that I welcome his opinions and welcome him on talk? All I stated was that he can't be involved in "editing consensus". Which is pretty much the core of what is required of someone with a COI. I remember over on BBL seeing people rant about Jokestress commenting because she had a COI, and I wanted to make clear that I did not agree with that. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you see the difference between trusting someone's judgement and thinking they are going to vote one way or the other? I said I trust the judgement and integrity of editors I worked with for years.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- it means selection bias. Contacting a hand-selected 14 people, of which a couple can clearly be considered "the opposition", is votestacking. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The few I did not notify were people who's talk page says they are Retired, meaning they are not active and may not be active for a very long time. There is literally no point in even notifying them.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There were 35 people, not counting you or I, who edited the page in the past couple years. I assure you, the others were not all retired. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Vasey responds

Hfarmer has spent many occasions on this page trying to argue that Paul Vasey is providing independent support for the use of the term "homosexual transsexual" in his article about the fa'afafine (a strange argument, since Vasey never actually uses that term), and that the Fa'afafine are "homosexual transsexuals". Like I did with Moser previously, I emailed Vasey. Here's what he has to say:

---

 Dear MYNAME,
 I will assume you are referring to the 2007 paper by Vasey, Pocock & VanderLaan in Evolution and Human Behavior and the
 2007 paper by Vasey & VanderLaan in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B (Biological Sciences).  You are
 correct that I do not use Blanchard's  terminology of "homosexual transsexuals" and "autogynephilic transsexuals."  You
 are also correct that the vast majority of fa'afafine are not  transsexual; rather, they would be defined in Western terms
 as "transgendered" or highly effeminate males, but they do not (in the vast majority  of instances) seek to change their
 bodies (especially their genitals) to that of the other sex. In both those papers, I use the term "male androphilia" to
 refer to adult male-bodied individuals that are attracted to adult male-bodied individuals.  The word "male" refers to an
 individuals biological sex (hence, my frequent use of the phrase "male-bodied," but it does not refer to a person's gender.
 Therefore, a male-bodied person could be a man or a fa'afafine.  Fa'afafine are androphilic, but they are sexually
 attracted to "men" not "fa'afafine."  I never use the term "autogynephilia" in these papers.  I don't think these papers
 really speak to the issue of "autogynephilia" because there is no "autogynephlic transsexual" control group for which data
 was presented (and indeed, if this phenomenon exists in Samoa, I've never studied it).  Note that I also never use the term
 "gay" or "homosexual" in reference to the fa'afafine unless I'm explaining that characterizing them as such is incorrect.
 I hope this helps clarify things.  If not, please feel free to get back to me. 
 Kudos for your attention to detail.
 All the best,
 Paul

.

 -----Original Message-----
 From: MYNAME [9]
 Sent: Thu 9/9/2010 12:30 PM
 To: Vasey, Paul
 Subject: Question about your research on the fa'afafine
 
 I'm currently involved in an editing dispute on Wikipedia that revolves around two of your papers: "Kin selection and male
 androphilia in Samoan faafafine" and "Birth order and male androphilia in Samoan fa'afafine". I was wondering if you could
 clear some things up.
 
 The other editor is using your papers to claim that they're an independent third party defending the theories of Blanchard,
 Bailey, and Lawrence (that is, that there are two types of M2F transsexuals: "homosexual transsexuals" who like men and
 transition because of their "homosexuality"; and "non-homosexual transsexuals" who like women and transition because of
 "autogynephilia" -- the sexual attraction to one's self as a woman).
 
 My assertion is that you neither use Blanchard's terminology, nor reference Blanchard's theory, and that the fa'afafine are,
 as you state, "transgendered"  (more specifically, a third gender specific to Somoan society), not specifically "transsexual"
 as we know the term in the west.  You use the term "male androphilia", which is a different term than "homosexual
 transsexual", and is not meant to refer to or carry any of the theoretical baggage of Blanchard's theory, but simply to note
 that they're anatomically male and are attracted to men.
 
 Would you mind indicating who is correct in this regard?  Thank you.
 
       - MYNAME

---

So that should hopefully put that claim to rest. Once again, I'll reiterate: "homosexual transsexual" is a term that exists almost exclusively inside BBL theory, and cannot be effectively divorced from it. And the fa'afafine do not belong in any article on transsexuals, as they are not transsexuals. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

All of that is Original research.WP:OR Which is forbidden WP:OR find a primary or secondary source where he says something like that and we will consider it. Policy of the Wikipedia forbids the use of your supposed email.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You think I plan to include the email in the article? Of course not, right? Then it's not WP:OR.

That is the author of the paper himself rebutting your use of his paper, telling you that you're reading things into it that aren't there (something I've been telling you for quite some time now). Seriously, who do you expect people to trust on what the paper means: the author of the paper, or you? It's absurd to think that you're going to have any support for including a paper and using it to say something that the author himself says the paper does not say.

Hfarmer, please: enough with the proof by ghost reference. Enough with trying to make papers say things that they absolutely do not say. When you have people who may not have access to research or feel up to reading the research, that sort of thing may fly. It will not any more. You're going to have to face that homosexual transsexual is a term that is almost exclusively used in the context of Blanchard's theories. I know you don't want to accept that because the logical conclusion of that is that it doesn't warrant its own article. But that's the way it stands. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Even using the email as an argument for what should or should not be in the article is not valid under WP:NOR. Such an email also runs afoul of WP:V and WP:RS. I have placed a notice on No original research notice board

A reference which says it's studying transsexual/transgender people who are attracted to men is not a ghost reference. No where in wikipedia do we requier that everything has to be a verbatim quote. i.e. a source on Nazi Germany that balmes the holocaust on Himmler could be used in the article on Hitler.

OR A source that talks about the state of Oklahoma and never says United States... could be used in an article about the United states.

Lastly do not comment on why you think my vote is wrong and yours is right. Just let people vote, let them voice it without an arguement over their vote.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

State your case for why this Email is not original research, why it is verifiable, and why we should rely on it here.

Entry at WP:NORN--Hfarmer (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Proof by Ghost Reference: Claiming that a paper says something that it clearly does not. It doesn't take Vasey to point out that you were grossly misrepresenting the paper by claiming that it's about "homosexual transsexuals" when it neither uses the term nor is about transsexuals. And this is not the first time you've done this, by any stretch.

Let's be really clear about OR: OR is about articles. This is a talk page.

Doubt the email? Email Vasey yourself. "Vasey, Paul" <paul.vasey@uleth.ca>. If you want to reference my email, the subject was "Question about your research on the fa'afafine". Or you can let third parties do it if you'd rather.

Once again: this is about your gross misinterpretation of a primary source. The choice is between Vasey's interpretation of his own paper or your reading into it things that clearly are not there. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

We will let the NORN decide this matter.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, emails are not considered reliable sources... they are easily spoofed. Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not dispute that this email would not meet the standards for inclusion in an article. It is simply here to point out that Hfarmer's interpretation of Vasey's papers is grossly off the mark -- something that I guarantee any third party who read the papers would agree with. Also, I encourage anyone who doubts this email to verify it themselves. I listed Paul's email address above, or you can find it yourself from their website. Have you checked out [the entry at NORM? -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a minute: Hfarmer, are you canvassing this? WP:CANVAS -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you gaming the system by playing various policies off eachother WP:GAME? --Hfarmer (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above: selectively choosing a list of editors you trust is WP:CANVAS. You also didn't at all file any sort of appropriate notification that you were doing this. You snuck out in secret to have those you've worked with back you up in a dispute. This is unacceptable. This is not a game. It's a blatant breach of Wikipedia's policies. You're recruiting people who you've worked with before in secret for this OR dispute and you went and did the same for the straw poll above. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And Hfarmer, there's nothing you can say behind my back that you can't say directly to me. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Notifying interested editors is not canvassing. Going to the notice boards to report your behavior or seek a third opinion is not canvasing. None of that is canvassing. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Going to the noticeboard is not canvassing. Going to the talk pages of editors who you've worked with before and who you think will support you and leaving messages without noting that you're doing this is. You need to be open with what you're doing, and you can't introduce a selection bias. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Going to the noticeboard is not canvassing. Going to the talk pages of editors who you've worked with before and who you think will support you and leaving messages without noting that you're doing this is. You need to be open with what you're doing, and you can't introduce a selection bias. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I did. Do you really think that Jokestress is going to support me on this? She saw it, deleted the notice and has not showed. She does not seem to care anymore. (shrug). Dicklyon, you think I think Dicklyon is going to side with me? As for blueboar he is an editor interested in and active on WP:NORN there was no guarantee he would agree with me.

Listen. I am going to take a wikibreak, at least from these articles for at least a couple of weeks. If when I get back there is only Autogynephilia and the talk pages indicated robust consensus for your proposal fine. If there is not robust support then your merger will be undone. If not by me then by someone else. -Hfarmer (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it came to this. And, whether you believe me or not -- despite all of the attempts to out me and everything personal that was said -- and while I'm still more than a little concerned that you might show up at my home when I'm gone -- I still do value your opinion. I hope that when you come back, you can help shape the articles into something we'll all be happy with. And perhaps even something that will get Good Article status. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And trying to get back on topic: What would it take to get you to accept that papers that say nothing about "homosexual transsexuals" and isn't even about transsexuals have nothing to do with "homosexual transsexuals"? Clearly the author of the papers isn't enough. So what will it take? An act of God? -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If those papers said nothing about "homosexual transsexuals" "Androphilic transsexuals" "Transsexuals who are male bodied and have sex with men", "Male to female androphilic transsexuals", etc etc. All of those permutations refer to the same basic idea, that there exist transsexuals who are attracted to men and men alone they behave in certain ways etc. Each of those is saying somthing about Homosexual transsexuals weather or not it has the exact term in it.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

One, no they're not the same (you're trying to defend "homosexual transsexual" as being disjoint from BBL -- picking different terms does not help that case in the least). And two, the papers don't say any of those things, either! They don't even talk about transsexuals. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

They are equal. Would you say the same thing about a source that says "male to female transsexuals attracted to men" Then goes into Blanchard's theory but never says "Homosexual transsexual". Would you use such a source as an example of how connected Autogynephilia and Homosexual transsexual are?

They are actually the same. They are the same the same way that 1 is the same as $\cos ^{2}\theta +\sin ^{2}\theta$ or $e^{0}$

Remember WP:AGF--Hfarmer (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What bad faith? If I thought you had bad faith, would I have asked you to come back after your wikibreak (above)?

In a debate over terminology, you can't say "Well, other terms are the same". Referring to other terms simply does not help defend your term against charges that it's irrevocably tied to a particular theory. And once again, the papers aren't even about transsexuals. They weren't about Blanchard's theories, they didn't use his terms, and they weren't even about transsexuals. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger complete

As per the approach favored by all but two commenters in Talk:Autogynephilia, the articles Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory and Autogynephilia have been merged, and Homosexual transsexual is a disambig page. Please see the discussion page at Talk:Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory#Merger complete. As this is a work in progress, I highly encourage editors to be bold and take part in editing and to join the discussion. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)