Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory / Moser 2009

This RFC is for a dispute between User:WhatamIdoing and myself. I wish to include a summary of the paper Moser (2009) in the article. WhatamIdoing opposes the inclusion. The current article includes no scientific criticism of the theory, which I see as WP:POV. User:WhatamIdoing sees criticism of it as fringe science. I consider it absurd to claim that something for which there have been four peer-reviewed papers in the past two years on (Veale et al, 2008; Moser, 2009; Moser, 2010; and Nuttbrock et al, 2010) to be "fringe science", and that the BBL theory itself is rapidly becoming "fringe". The RV status, as of the time of writing, is two RVs by User:WhatamIdoing and one editing by myself (taking into account User:WhatamIdoing's criticisms) and one RV. I offered a compromise, but it wasn't acknowledged. I think it's time to bring in some outside viewpoints. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Question for the anon:

Moser conducted one (1) survey that produced twenty-nine (29) responses. Can you explain to me why you have repeatedly characterized this single survey as "Recent experiments"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Veale, Clarke, and Lomax (2008)? Same result (now, *their* TS's scored higher than Blanchard's, but 52% of their natal women scored higher than Blanchard's gynephilic M2Fs -- also, Veale's gynephilic M2Fs scored *higher* than natal women in terms of female childhood gender identity). Moser 2010 is more of a review, but still very instructive, and Nuttbrock 2010 is a critique with some new data on M2Fs. Bockting (2005) is a pretty harsh critique of Bailey's concepts and how they contradict with the actual data obtained by clinicians and goes into some of that. I'd be glad to cite *more* papers, but less is simply unacceptable in terms of WP:POV. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: I just got a reply for clarification from Moser:

Dear ((MyName)),

The 2009 article was meant as a test of Blanchard's theory. A later paper (2010) cited below is the critique article. As you may know Anne Lawrence wrote a letter to the editor criticizing the paper and I published a rejoinder. The rejoinder has additional information about autogynephilia in women.

As far as your summary, I did not conclude that Blanchard's statement was clearly false; my paper only raised questions and challenged BBL to study the question. (ED: I will change that wording to reflect Moser's stance)

My rejoinder was reviewed by the editor. I believe he reviewed Lawrence's letter as well.

As far as the other editor, I do not have a theory (fringe or otherwise); I have only questioned the BBL theory. In my critique article, I found several weaknesses, inconsistencies, and showed how the data could be interpreted differently. I believe my paper raises serious concerns about the theory, the methods and studies on which it is based, and implications of the theory. In science, BBL should respond to my critique, point out why my criticism is not valid, do further studies, or admit that the theory has problems. If I took quotes out of context, misrepresented the studies, or misunderstood the data, that should be noted. If not, my "fringe" paper should stand as a creditable critique of the theory.

Take care,

Charles Moser, PhD, MD, FACP

So apart from one critique of one part of my wording (which I will change shortly -- I sent him the entire wording of what I wrote)), he seems to have come down strongly towards my presentation of his work -- notably, the following key points:

1: He is criticizing BBL.

2: His "letter to the editor", as you call it, is reviewed.

3: Unsurprisingly, he strongly disagrees that this is a "fringe theory", only a criticism of an existing theory (matching with my section title, "Scientific Criticism").

I hope this will help resolve this conflict. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Editorial review is not the same thing as peer review. I'm sure that Moser is capable of explaining the difference to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

One, I never said "peer-reviewed"; you did. Two, editorial review is sufficient for WP:V. Three, it distinctly is not a Letter to the editor, as you called it. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Moser and Veale are part of the problem, through their uncritical adoption of the concept and terminology in question. They have fallen for the rhetorical trap set by proponents of these beliefs, which is why those proponents latch onto anyone like them who is unsophisticated enough to make this mistake (Helen Boyd, etc.). Because Moser and Veale start from the premise that "autogynephilia" exists, they play into the hands of the very people they claim they are opposing.

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. Jokestress (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

They're kind of stuck; when responding to papers, you're supposed to adopt those papers terminology (even though in this case, it's offensive and presupposes its conclusion). I think there's more than enough criticism of Blanchard's terminology out there. And I agree with you about whether this merits it's own article; I think the article on Autogynephilia is enough. Perhaps this should be WP:VFD instead? -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole series of redundant articles here that should be merged, including transgender sexuality, homosexual transsexual and others. I encourage you to be bold and take those steps. Jokestress (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I will. The topic is certainly WP:Notability, but it's also clearly WP:UNDUE. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Moser and Veale are starting from the perspective that there are two types of MTFs. Almost the entire research community believes that (to a first approximation) (at this time).

It is not necessary to adopt the terminology of papers you disagree with, and you normally should not, if you think the terminology is offensive.

To the anon: You might benefit from asking Moser to clarify what exactly he means when he says "Blanchard's theory" in the first sentence of his e-mail message. Specifically, is this "Blanchard's theory that there are two types of MTFs", or "Blanchard's theory that autogynephilia is an abnormal expression of sexuality seen exclusively or primarily in natal males"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, "almost the entire research community" does NOT believe that there are only two types of transsexuals. For example, you clearly haven't read Veale yet. Or Nuttbrock. Heck, the very conclusion of Nuttbrock's paper reads that "a classification of the MTF population, based solely on sexual orientation, is fundamentally limited." Or are Larry Nuttbrock, Walter Bockting, Mona Mason, Sel Hwahng, Andrew Rosenblum, Monica Macri, and Jeffrey Becker (just the authors of that one paper alone) not part of the research community? Heck, Nuttbrock's reply is called The Limitations Of Blanchard's Typology: A Response To Lawrence (2010). Are you even reading the research on the subject? Moser 2010 alone cites over a dozen different papers that argue against Blanchard's classification. Heck, the very premise itself requires that one believe the fringe theory that there's no such thing as bisexuality.

Adopting the terminology of the authors you're responding to is standard practice in scientific research, whether you accept it or not.

Re, clarifying Moser's reply: No clarification is needed. Here's what he was replying to:

"I'm currently involved in an editing dispute on Wikipedia over the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of transsexuality. I've been working to get your 2009 paper included (right now, the article is 100% supportive of the theory).

1) Was your paper intended as a critique of the BBL theory? (It seems pretty obvious to me, but the other editor is insisting that it's not)

So yes, he was critiquing BBL theory. And I'm baffled as to why I even had to ask him that in the first place; the very first paragraph of the paper makes it plainly obvious -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue that needs clarifying was what exactly "BBL theory" means in the above sentence. Does Moser believe that his survey of natal women demonstrates that transwomen attracted to men are clinically identical to transwomen who are not (=opposes BBL theory, as defined in this article)? Or does Moser believe that his survey of natal women demonstrates that natal women report experiences that Blanchard would call autogynephilia in a transwoman (=critiquing a detail of autogynephilia, not what this article calls BBL theory)?

I believe from the context that Moser's survey criticizes Blanchard's idea of autogynephilia. I believe it says nothing at all about whether HSTS and non-HSTS MTFs are clinically distinguishable groups. I suspect that Moser would agree with me, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have read Mosers paper at length, and like the anon I also corresponded with Dr. Moser on the subject. My take on his point of view is that the title of his paper is his point of view. Which is that Autogynephilia exist in women.

We can argue about the significance of his small sample size survey, which he himself admits in his paper is a limitation. However there is no argument that he thinks Autogynephilia does not exist.

The thing is a summary of his work, a very short summary, could be good. Anything more than a five sentence paragraph would be overkill. It also has to be neutral and not try to overplay what Moser's study indicates. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, we have decided that the original claim ("Blanchard says that autogynephilia doesn't exist in natal women") is too tangential and trivial to mention anywhere in this article.

Don't you think it's a little silly to include Moser's "rebuttal" to Blanchard's belief, if we don't first mention Blanchard's belief? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point.

I really wish the anon who wants to merge all of these articles would make their case.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatamidoing: I am increasingly finding that your tendency to make "statements" of the nature of BBL theory and characterizations of other research exhibits a marked tendency to rely on your interpretation of articles, rather than their plain contents, and that your summaries of such are unreliable WP:OR, e.g., "I believe from the context that Moser's survey criticizes Blanchard's idea of autogynephilia."

"I agree that Moser and Veale are starting from the perspective that there are two types of MTFs." Would you please quote Moser to establish this? I believe he makes no such assumptions.

And also, "BBL theory" is comprised of the whole schmeer, not just the distinction between "two types" of MTF: that MTF transsexuality is an expression of sexual preference rather than gender identity, with two distinct types, "homosexual" and "autogynephilic"; "homosexual" transsexuality is motivated by what one might call "sexual economics", while "autogynephilic" transsexuality is an extreme form of a paraphilia involving an erotic obsession with the image of oneself as a woman; and finally, when you get right down to it... doesn't SRS as a treatment for "autogynephilic" transsexuality resemble an amputation fetish?

Personally, I can say this: I would have zero interest in SRS if it were merely an "amputation". bonze blayk (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The following are verbatim quotes from Mosers paper "Autogynephilia in Women" DOI: 10.1080/00918360903005212 .

"The presence or absence of autogynephilia is considered clinically and etiologically important in MTFs. Blanchard (1993a) stated “Autogynephilia is clinically significant because it interferes with normal interpersonal sexual attraction and because it is associated with gender dysphoria” (p. 301). Additionally Blanchard (1991) suggested that “Gender dysphoria, in young nonhomosexual males, usually appears along with, or subsequent to, autogynephilia; in later years, however, autogynephilic sexual arousal may diminish or disappear, while the transsexual wish remains or grows even stronger” (p. 248).

The hypothesized absence of autogynephilia in women is seen as supporting Blanchard's theory that autogynephilia is an unusual sexual interest of men and that the desire for SRS is sexually motivated. If genetic women and MTFs both endorse the same statements and exhibit the same behaviors, then autogynephilia may not be an unusual sex interest of men, but a sex interest shared by both groups; it could be a characteristic of female sexuality. Thus, the presence or absence of autogynephilia in women is a significant finding in understanding the sexuality of both natal women and MTFs."

That makes it sound like he's not only agreeing with Blanchard about the clinical importance, but that he's saying it's generally accepted that the AGP/HSTS distinction is important. He does not qualify "The presence or absence of autogynephilia is considered clinically and etiologically important in MTFs," at all. He does not say Blanchard asserts the presence or absence.... Then he quotes Blanchards papers. Here's another quote. Their are two things that make this paper problematic to me. Moser writes. "It is possible that some respondents in the present study (genetic women) were aroused by the possibility of or fantasy about a sexual encounter rather than the “autogynephilic” stimuli described. It is possible that some “autogynephilic” MTFs were aroused by the possibility of or fantasy about a sexual encounter as a female rather than “autogynephilic” stimuli."

The a paragraph latter he writes.

"The present study does not support the contention that autogynephilic MTFs are manifesting a type of “male” sexuality or that autogynephilia is absent in natal women. The meaning of a sexual interest in one's own body (or ideal body) is not understood for men, women, or transsexuals. Autogynephilia appears to be a different phenomenon from other paraphilias, in its frequency, intensity, and duration. Although it is possible that autogynephilia is manifested differently in men than women, Blanchard (2005) incorrectly predicts the response of women to autogynephilic stimuli."

Which are both self contradictory. It is possible that his study failed to measure actual autogynephilia in women... Take a look at the questions that were asked and the answers he got.

Mosers Questions and raw data:

Questions	Number of responses (Never, On Occasion, Frequently, No data)
I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself in the nude.	9, 15, 2, 3
I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself wearing lingerie, underwear, or foundation garments (e.g., corsets).	10, 16, 2, 1
I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself fully clothedin sexy attire.	15, 13, 1, 0
I have been erotically aroused by dressing in lingerie or sexy attire for a romantic evening or when hoping to meet a sex partner.	7, 14, 8, 0
I have been erotically aroused by preparing (shaving my legs, applying make-up, etc.) for a romantic evening or when hoping to meet a sex partner.	10, 12, 5, 2
I have dressed in lingerie, sexy attire or prepared myself (shaving my legs, applying make-up, etc.) before masturbating.	19, 10, 0, 0
I have been erotically aroused by imagining myself with a “sexier” body.	14, 13, 1, 1
I have been erotically aroused by imagining that others find me particularly sexy, attractive, or irresistible.	4, 19, 6, 0
I have been erotically aroused by using specific articles of clothing, odors, or textures during masturbation.	14, 13, 0, 0

Overall most responses to all questions were Never, or on occasion. Only two of the women reported frequent arousal to simply being nude, or wearing sexy clothes. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The following are quotes from Moser's latter paper which indicate that he does belive autogynephilia exist. "Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory: A Critique" DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2010.486241

"Blanchard (1988) argues that MTFs can be classified by their sexual orientation into two basic types, “homosexual” (predominantly sexually attracted to men) and “nonhomosexual” (notpredominantly sexually attracted to men). Blanchard employs these terms in relation to natal sex, not self-definition or presentation. He adopted the term “nonhomosexual” as individuals in this group report sexual interest in women, both men and women, or neither men nor women, but not primarily in men (Blanchard, 1988). This article will use Blanchard's terms for consistency, but the terms will be critiqued later in the article.

In his review of the development of autogynephilia, Blanchard (2005) appropriately distinguishes between autogynephilia and theories involving autogynephilia. No one disputes that autogynephilia exists or that it can explain the motivation of some MTFs; many MTFs readily admit that this construct describes their sexual interest and motivation. Nevertheless, it is not clear how accurately the BAT predicts the behavior, history, and motivation of MTFs in general."

In the following he questions weather Blanchard's Autogynephilia theory BAT has he calls BBL theory here is correct. He asserts things, then says that more study is needed to confirm his assertions. Significantly he does not say that this paper supports any other theory of transsexualism.

"This article questions the following tenets and predictions of BAT. Reviewing the same data as the BAT proponents, it is not clear that autogynephilia is always present in non-homosexual MTFs and always absent in homosexual MTFs; the practice of discounting statements by non-homosexual MTFs “denying” and homosexual MTFs reporting autogynephilia appears flawed; autogynephilia seems to differ from other paraphilias in significant ways; natal women score as autogynephilic on similar inventories used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic; according to Blanchard's (1993a) definition of orientation, autogynephilia does not seem to be an orientation overshadowing other traditional orientations; there is little reason to suggest that autogynephilia is the motivation of non-homosexual MTFs to SRS; and there are no data to suggest that non-homosexual MTFs have difficulty with pair bonding. Further empirical studies are needed to confirm any of these assertions.

This article should not be interpreted as supporting any alternative theory or hypothesis of the origins or nature of transsexuality. There may be more than one cause of transsexuality; Blanchard et al. (2009) similarly accepts that there can be more than one cause of a paraphilia."

There is one more Moser paper. I am going to retrieve that now. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In "A Rejoinder to Lawrence (2010): It Helps If You Compare the Correct Items" DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2010.485859 .

He creates a table where he compares some of Blanchards questions to his. I won't recreate this one. Just to give you a sense of it.... Moser claims that this ". I have been erotically aroused by dressing in lingerie or sexy attire for a romantic evening or when hoping to meet a sex partner." is the same as this " Have you ever felt sexually aroused when putting on women's underwear, stockings, or a nightgown? [CGFS item 6]". Moser claims that this " I have been erotically aroused by preparing (shaving my legs, applying make-up, etc.) for a romantic evening or when hoping to meet a sex partner." is the same as this " Have you ever felt sexually aroused when putting on women's perfume or makeup, or when shaving your legs? [CGFS item 5]"

Finally he writes of his study himself. "Blanchard (2005) contends that “Autogynephilia does not occur in women” (p. 445), but there is no data to support that assertion. My study was a small, proof of concept study. It never purported to be definitive, although it does cast doubt on Blanchard's prediction about women."--Hfarmer (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It is my opinion that because Lawrence 2010 is part of this discussion, it too would need to be included in some form or the other. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To reply to many of the points above from different posters:

Re, applicability: Moser specifically replied to the wording, "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory", exactly the same as the title of this article. His first paragraph of his paper describes BBL theory. So even if any of YOU don't think it's applicable, HE does, and he's peer-reviewed. The debate ends right there. This is borderline entering No true Scotsman territory here.

Re, merger: These three articles -- autogynephilia, BBL theory, and "homosexual transsexual", are all just different aspects of the exact same thing -- all part of a single theory on transsexuality. Since autogynephilia is by far the most recognizeable of these terms, and is the article that the overwhelming percent of people arriving at Wikipedia will get to first (who do you think would randomly guess "Blanchard,_Bailey,_and_Lawrence_theory", with exactly that spacing, comma structure, and wording?), the suggestion is to merge them into the autogynephilia article. Most of the articles' content is redundant.

Re, Moser's questions to assess autogynephilia: For God's sake, how many times do I have to point out the top line of WP:V? The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia doesn't give a flying flip if you think Moser's questions are an appropriate test of autogynephilia. Moser does. Moser's peer reviewed. The argument ends there. If you don't like Wikipedia's rules, go somewhere else.

Once again, I'll reiterate: there are no exceptions to the rules for this or any other article.

Let's review what's been established. I can name four peer-reviewed papers critical of this theory (Moser 2009, Moser 2010, Veale et al 2008, Nuttbrock et al 2010), representing over a dozen researchers in a relatively tiny field. Hence, the article, without any counters, easily violates WP:NPOV. As per Wikipedia's rules, this mandates the inclusion of criticism to restore balance. Moser 2010 is a secondary source (a review of the literature), which is ideal and actually makes it a better paper than virtually every cite in this article (although primaries are still acceptable so long as accurately represented, which would include Moser 2009, Veale et al 2008, and Nuttbrock et al 2010). All of these are highly WP:V sources, which is the requirement for inclusion. Hence, the only thing that should be up for debate is how to accurately represent these papers in the article(s).

Feel free to toss out wording suggestions. -- [Special:Contributions/128.255.251.167|128.255.251.167]] (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We really should keep discussion of the merger or not merger separate from the rest of this or it could be a very confusing discussion.

As for the papers, no one has said that the papers are not applicable as far as I can see. Second the major work on these articles was done more than a year ago. The papers you describe are all newer than that. We haven't even had a chance to react to them, honestly I wasn't even thinking about this.

I propose the following. We go to a talk page of your choice, and discuss the merger proposal first. THEN we talk about what sources and wording will be in what articles. I say this because I would not want to do the same work twice. Once now, then again after a merger. Is that ok and reasonable to you?--Hfarmer (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that sounds perfectly fair. Perhaps the merger proposal should be discussed on the autogynephilia page, since that's the proposed merger place. I'll go ahead and start it out, and you can join the discussion. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now added a section discussing the merger. I look forward to discussing it with you over there. Thanks! -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 21:51, 3 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.

Merger details:

• The overwhelming majority of content from the original three articles made it into the merged version.
• The redundancy was removed (i.e., each article before had to explain the background, the theory, the criticism of terms, etc)
• Cruft, such as references that didn't match up with their text, were removed when found.
• Extraneous topics of lesser importance that didn't seem to lead anywhere, such as how homosexual transsexuals use their penis and the like, were removed. We want people getting to key points and evidence rather than being wrapped up in tangential elements.
• A significant amount of effort was expended on making the subject easier to understand to a reader with no background on the subject. I think I did a good job with the header, although the science sections could probably do to be clearer.
• I tried to handle balance properly between "Justification of the two classifications" and the "Scientific criticism of the theory". A few years ago, this would have necessitated only a few sentence on criticism of the theory, but recently, there's been a lot of criticism of the theory. Still, since it's in the DSM and still has lots of papers out there, I made sure to give the pro side more room. IMHO, we should try to make sure that we don't shift the balance out of whack in our edits, although there's certainly room for discussion of what's appropriate balance. I think the "Scientific criticism of the theory" side could do to be a few sentences shorter (3-4?), although I'm not sure what would be best to remove -- any thoughts? I already had to leave out one article I was thinking of including (Bockting 2005) for space reasons.

Overall, even with the criticism section added in, the article is about 2/3rds the size of the total of the other three, and IMHO, a lot clearer to read and more balanced. However, as James Cantor mentioned in talk, I think we should come up with a better name for it. I've seen "Blanchard's theories" and "BAT" used in the literature.

As this is a work in progress, I highly encourage editors to be bold and take part in editing and to join the discussion. If things work well and we all do our best to get along, I think we can get this to the Good Article list.  :)

Hack away at it! -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Dominant taxonomy"

I felt it was pretty evident that Blanchardian theory is the dominant taxonomy, but an editor has tagged this dubious. I think we should discuss. If removing "dominant" would help build consensus, I would support it. I would also support retaining it if we could get a cite that states that it's the dominant taxonomy. If anyone can find a cite to defend this in the next day or so, I'll remove the dubious tag; otherwise; I'll remove the "dominant taxonomy" part. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to call Blanchardian theory "influential" or even "extremely influential", but I believe that to refer to it as "the dominant taxonomy" is probably going too far.

I haven't read over the revised article closely yet, but it appears to have been significantly improved! bonze blayk (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I like that wording; I'll change it.  :) Again, not everything has been totally reworked, especially the supporting research side, but I certainly did my best.  :) -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that we try to determine whether this hypothesis is dominant or influential RELATIVE to other taxonomies. But that question misses one alternative that could be far more important, namely not recognizing such a taxonomy, and have one large group. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Stabilization: Time for WP:GA?

The new revision of the article seems to have stabilized much faster than I would have expected. That's a good thing.  :) What do people here think about trying for good article status? -- 128.255.252.253 (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a few things you should do first. Check out WP:MOS the manual of style. That is the criterion you will be judged against by the reviewer. More specifically the list of criteria for a good article. WP:WIAGA

Also and interested editor taking a wikibreak does not negate their opinion nor does it constitute "consensus" or stability. Though you have improved the content that deals with Autogynephilia, you have not improved the content on the research on Homosexual/androphilic transsexuals only masked and confused it. Heck there are legitimate complaints about those terms which seem to get short shrift, as if those who might be so labeled and who would take offense perhaps should not, whereas tons of space is dedicated to what's wrong with Autogynephilia. It's a bit unbalanced in that it says one of these things is more offensive than the other. Do you get me?

I will be back in a week or so and their will be changes. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be glad to hold off on this until you get back, and I welcome your inputs on the article. Could you rephrase your above criticism? I'm interested. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of Autogynephilia (paraphilia) "disambiguation"

I'm reverting Riverstone's insertion of a "Disambiguation" page in "Autogynephilia" offering (alongside the new, merged article) a completely new "Autogynephilia (paraphilia)" page focusing on its association with Transvestic Festishism, as opposed to its larger context within Blanchard's (et. al.) concept.

Riverstone: "Autogynephilia" as a paraphilia IS Blanchard's concept, and it's associated with a clinical diagnosis. It covers a lot more range than just Transvestic Fetishism or crossdressing. You need to be aware that the recent merger of the "Autogynephilia", "Homosexual Transsexual", and "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory" articles was done precisely in order to clean up the confusion and duplication among and between the articles. If you want to add some text to the BBL article about autogynephilia and its relationship to Transvestic Fetishism, go ahead; but creating a parallel article with a misleading title is not a good idea. bonze blayk (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, Bonze. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional merge proposal

I propose also merging Feminine essence concept of transsexuality into this article. The term is used by Ray Blanchard's allies and only in the context of his ideas. It is an obscure neologism employed by essentialists in one sexology journal as a straw man to attack social constructionist models of gender. The people who use it believe transwomen have a "male essence" and claim any of their critics must therefore believe that transwomen have a "female essence." This is of course untrue. Like most attacks of this sort, it is directed at transwomen and not transmen. Because those who use it are essentialists, they are either unwilling or unable to frame the debate outside of their own narrow worldviews. Feminine essence concept of transsexuality was started by someone affiliated with the editor of the journal where it appeared. Jokestress (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I second this merger (as I can't find any reference to this concept outside the context of his theories), although I do not have the time to do the merge at the moment. Alternate theories of transsexuality tend to be very specific, not an "essence". For example, there's a variety of brain structure theories, Ramachandran's "body mapping" theory, etc. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made precisely five edits to the Feminine essence article. I think that notices that this is being considered should be placed on the talk pages of it's most prolific editors. WhatamIdoing and Dicklyon. Speaking of whom he pointed out sources which do not derive from Blanchard or any of his pack. Diff of his comment. "[1] and [2]. And more books, using the term "female essence" which seems to be more the norm than "feminine essence"."

As I am sure Jokestress will affirm Dicklyon is no tool of BBL or any of that.

I personally don't see what benefit there is in merging this notion into this already mammoth article.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we really have to get into attacking editors so soon ("no tool of BBL")? Believe it or not, some people here just want to make good articles. It would have sufficed to say, "You should have invited Dickylon, since they are active in that article."

"Female essence", in most of those references, isn't about a scientific theory -- nor do they use the phrasing in the article ("feminine essence" -- Blanchard's term). The very nature of using the term "essence" is pretty unscientific; that's a philosophical term (essentialism v. non-essentialism). Now, I don't think any non-Blanchardian theories belong in the BBL article -- only Blanchard's foil term. Legit, independent, notable theories deserve their own article. If there was a single comprehensive "female essence" scientific theory (which I see no evidence of -- just the occasional use of the term "female essence"), it should have its own article. But all non-Blanchardian theories should not be lumped into one article simply because Blanchard does that, and nor should it be under Blanchard's choice of name for it. There are alternative theories of transsexualism -- for example, Ramachandran's innate body image theory, which suggests that transsexualism is a form of innate phantom limb syndrome. Lumping them all into a foil to Blanchard's theories using Blanchard's non-scientific term is improper, IMHO.

Now, there could be an issue if the individual theories do not meet Wikipedia standards sufficient for their own article -- notability, for example. I would be open to the existence of a broader article on transsexualism theories (one of which would be Blanchard's, with a "Full article..." link to BBL). But not simply as a foil to Blanchard, presented as "Blanchard vs. Everything Non-Blanchard using Blanchard's term for everything not under his theory". -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The "no tool" comment is not an attack. It's a comment on the fact that Dicklyon does not favor BBL. You really need to calm down. As for what you said about lumping things under such and such a title chosen by Blanchard. Perhaps you should consider renaming the article. Folding all that stuff into this article will not really make anything clearer or easier.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Since we don't have a masculine essence concept of transsexuality article, it's clear this is yet another content fork of this article, created by a Blanchard coworker. Wikipedia should consolidate all this under one article summarizing the theorizing of Blanchard and his supporters. I also agree on a larger article on conceptualizations of gender variance. Jokestress (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the articles history JamesCantor did create it. He also edited it four times. See here. The rest of the editing was done by Dicklyon and whatamIdoing. Dicklyon as I said is no tool of BBL he does not favor them in the slightest. If this was as plainly what Jokestress says it is then why would he do so much work on it? --Hfarmer (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dicklyon nominated it for deletion, and after that failed, he tried to mitigate the worst of its problems until there was support for a merge/delete. Jokestress (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at that deletion discussion I would still say Keep but rename. For the same reasons I did then.

Their are people who really do believe a notion of a "feminine" or "female" essence in transsexual women. For some people that essence is biological they speak of intersex conditions and HBS. Others speak in more spiritual terms. Plus there is the old "woman trapped in a mans body" line that has been so repeated (in fact that's probably the most well known explaination among the general public.)

I don't see how any of those ideas fit into this article about Autogynephilia. The only way they connect to Autogynephilia at all is because Blanchard wrote a commentary in which he mentioned those and opined that they were the opposite of his theory.

IMO the article may have started out the way you said it did but Dicklyon mitigated the heck out of it until it is actually a worthy article apart from BBL theory.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I think should be "merged" into this one is the name, and only in the context of it being Blanchard's foil. My opposition is merely against having an article on a subject that is nothing more than a foil to Blanchard's theories; I have no opposition to articles on other theories of transsexualism, and nor do I think that other theories belong in this article.

In terms of keeping content on other theories but changing the name, what about the concept of it becoming a "Theories of transsexualism" article? Again, "essence" is not a scientific concept; it's a philosophical one. There is no formalized scientific "transsexual essence theory". There are, however, as noted, a variety of specific theories -- theories about specific brain structures (BSTc, the hypothalamic unicarnate nucleus, white matter fractional anisotropy differences, etc), theories about causes (some of the genetics studies, prenatal androgen exposure (aka, the finger ratio studies), etc) theories about brain workings (cortical homunculus or other mismapping resulting in a form of phantom limb syndrome), Blanchard's theories, etc. I think it's more than fair to have an article discussing them. Blanchard's theories would warrant a section in there, but only a summary, with a link to this article as the main article. Thoughts? -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

bases on the arguments, I support a merge. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a (very) bad idea. The FET article is not supposed to be about Blanchard's term for the idea; it's supposed to be about the popularly accepted idea itself: the idea that a transwoman is a real woman (where "real" does not mean "physically intersexed") -- the "woman trapped in a man's body" idea. There is absolutely no reason to bury information about that totally unrelated idea in articles about a completely different conception of transwomen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's Blanchard's term, and it's a term he created specifically as a foil to his theories. It is not a scientific theory. There are scientific theories about transsexualism that do support the "woman trapped in a man's body" notion, and there's no problem with them being presented in Wikipedia (they should be). But not simply as a foil to Blanchard's theories. You can't just lump a bunch of disjoint, actual theories together under a single category because Blanchard says so. And then make the article revolve around Blanchard and Bailey to boot! (as the current article does). Just because some people use the phrase "I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body" doesn't make that a single scientific theory any more than the fact that some people use the phrase "I feel like you ripped my heart out of my chest when you left me" means there's a "Chest-heart-ripping theory of breakups".

IMHO, the very first thing it needs is a rename: "Theories of transsexualism" or similar. We can deal with content after that. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's why the other article should not be merged here. The actual subject of the other page is the "woman trapped in a man's body" idea, not "Blanchard's name in a single publication for the idea of a woman trapped in a man's body". Wikipedia doesn't care if the idea is "scientific"; Wikipedia has plenty of room for non-scientific theories. (See, e.g., just about everything written about fine arts, popular culture, business, society, people and athletics.) But Wikipedia should have a page on that idea -- and it should be a completely separate page, entirely dedicated to that concept, and not merged into this unrelated idea.

If you think that the FET page is incomplete, then please expand it. (I do, but I haven't been able to find many good academic sources, and I found Dick's knee-jerk opposition so frustrating that I gave up.) If you think there is a third (or fourth, or seventeenth) notable idea about the nature of transsexuality, then please write those articles, too. This page should be specifically about Blanchard's psychological typology of MTFs, not 'Career-long summary of everything Blanchard has ever published about MTFs'. The other page should be specifically about the "woman trapped in a man's body" idea. Wikipedia needs one article for each notable idea, not one page with multiple separate ideas mashed together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But half that article, as it stands, is about Blanchard's theories. And I'm sorry, but Wikipedia in no way supports arbitrarily lumping independent theories together and calling it a single theory. For something like the fifth time in this section, there is no scientific feminine essence theory of transsexuality. It's an article on a fake theory. Rather, there are a number of real theories which Blanchard lumps together. Blanchard does not get to dictate how Wikipedia should lay out its articles.

As for a separate article for each theory, first off, "feminine essence" would need to be deleted, since it's not a theory. It's a philosophical concept at best; science doesn't deal in "essences". Secondly, having a bunch of small articles scattered around is in no way conducive to learning about a topic. What good do you think having a short article out there called "Ramachandran's 'phantom limb' theory of transsexualism", and a dozen others like it, will do for anyone? If someone wants to learn about the theories of transsexualism, then there should be an article on theories of transsexualism. Any theory which has enough content to justify a whole article, like Blanchard's theories, should get one, and have only a summary in the article. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing other articles, I think it's a lot simpler than all of this. There's already Etiology of transsexualism. It needs a ton of improvement, but that can be worked on. With that article present, there is absolutely no need for an article on a fake theory of transsexualism created as a foil to lump all non-Blanchardian theories together. And there's nothing in the Feminine essence concept of transsexuality that I see that's worth merging into BBL (although there may be some things worthy of merger into the etiology article).

Proposal: Delete Feminine essence concept of transsexuality, leave a redirect, and merge relevant content into Etiology of transsexualism, then clean up the latter. Is there a second for this proposal? -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete/merge is fine by me. Jokestress (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose that we merge Feminine Essence theory into eitology of transsexualism's article. If after doing so it looks like FET is still to big of a subject to be summarized in a couple or three of paragraphs in that article then perhaps a new article could be created.

WhatamIdoing's point about this article not being a career summary of everything Blanchard writes on MTF transsexualism is correct. Not everything that blanchard ever mentions then becomes part of Autogynephilia theory. Though I suppose the anon's position is the logical extension of the same logic they used to merge homosexual transsexual into this article.

There is also one thing, we should consider cleaning up the article we have now. Right now this article is huge and in need of condensing. It needs to be something like summary style.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me too. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a delete/merge of the Feminine Essence article into Etiology of Transsexualism is a good idea. As it stands, the article on Etiology of Transsexualism is kind of slanted towards brain-sex theories, and as such, was labelled with WP:NPOV... the merge would fix this problem. (OTOH, w/r/t Cornice's NPOV comment that "advocates of psychotherapy" are not adequately represented... I think Paul McHugh and other subscribers to the thoroughly discredited "psychoanalytic model" of transsexuality may be safely given a minimal amount of attention without running the risk of failing to adequately represent "expert opinion" on the subject :-). <humor>This POV might well be introduced with a phrase such as: "Most psychoanalysts and psychoanalytically-oriented psychiatrists, who were extraordinarily attached to their penises and the belief that they were truly indispensable, argued that MTF transsexualism is a manifestation of a delusional mental illness..."</humor>. I myself always wondered why Freudians never acknowledged the existence of "breast envy" :-)

Just to show how even-handed I am, I just added a reference to and citation of David Cauldwell's psychoanalytically-oriented assessment of MTF transsexualism to the Etiology article.  :-)

HFarmer: I disagree that the BBL article is "huge and in need of condensing". bonze blayk (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: As per the discussion above, which seems to be pretty one-sided in favor of merging Feminine essence concept of transsexuality with Etiology of transsexualism and giving the latter a heavy cleanup, I was WP:B and did just that. The latter part was a lot of work, but I think it's a *much* better article now. I hope others agree and feel free to contribute.  :) -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is still under discussion. Though I agree with the merger there was still some objection to the merger from WAID and we had not heard back from Jokestress. Consensus is not about any sort of "voting" it's about arriving at a ultimately compromised result. I don't know that this result will satiate Jokestress any more than keeping the article or she may be ok with it.

Further you must realize that people who have a COI of any nature in one article that does not stop them from editing a tangentially related article. i.e. I can edit basically any article about transsexualism gender or sexuality but this one.

I don't object to this merger, but if anyone else does they should go ahead and undo it until we can reach general agreement.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not about voting. But as I've mentioned before, I care what others think on the topic, and don't want to be WP:B when I think most people would object to it. But I think the changes are a big help. Let's see where it goes. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the separate ideas -- "there are two kinds of MTFs" and "woman trapped in a man's body" -- should be merged into the same article. I think that "woman trapped in a man's body" deserves its own article. It does not matter if you personally believe this idea to be "fake". It does not matter if you personally hate it. It does not matter if you personally think it's "unscientific". It does not matter if you think it's not a proper "theory". The only thing that matters is that reliable sources have written about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

One: they weren't merged into the same article. The content from the feminine essence article was merged into the etiology article.

Two: Blanchard doesn't get to dictate to *other people* that their theories all get conglomerated into one "theory", something that Blanchard neither properly defines through more than a philosophical concept nor puts through the scientific process.

Making up a "theory", which isn't a theory, while not treating it as a theory, does not in any way mean it gets its own article; it simply means that it's WP:V that Blanchard has called it a "theory" and used it as a foil to his actual theories. You certainly have Wikipedia's go-ahead to add it to the BBL article. You do not have the case that there is anyone who actually independently uses and defends this as a serious theory in a peer-reviewed paper. And you have a lot of people whose research are being treated as part of this "theory" who have never used that term, and who, to the contrary, promote their own theories independently.

Having that article around is like having an article on the "Chicago Bears" and a second article on "Non-Chicago-Bears football teams" because the coach of the Bears used the term. And then defending the latter by saying, "Look, there's WP:V sources that "Non-Chicago-Bears football teams" is a valid term!" -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Revert war over "Feminine essence concept of transsexuality"?

It appears that there may be a revert war brewing over "Feminine essence concept of transsexuality". I thought there was large agreement (above) that this article needed to go? See history and talk. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Whatamidoing on the revert for the time being, so that the article remains accessible: but the "Feminine essence" article needs to be merged into the Etiology of Transsexualism article, rather than simply bypassed. I don't agree with Dreger's, Bailey+Triaea's, & Blanchard's characterizations of the concept/self-concept (or whatever)... but I think the idea itself and their criticisms are notable, because it's routinely been presented as the justification for transitioning. And also, I was disappointed to see the disappearance of Dicklyon's brief exposition and citations regarding why this presentation of self-concept has been so prevalent: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminine_essence_concept_of_transsexuality&diff=prev&oldid=291115672. :-) -- bonze blayk (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bonze blayk: Could you repost this over there so it's visible there? Thanks! I merged the individual "essence" theories that were previously conglomerated in, but only the individual theories. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of how best to address your criticism. Could you help with the merging of what you think belongs in the etiology article? Just a rough draft would be good; I can clean it up afterwards if you'd like. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, looking at it some more, I almost think that this part belongs more in the article on transsexualism itself, rather than in the etiology article. As Dreger put it, people who say "I feel like a man trapped in a woman's body" or likewise are making a "feminine essence narrative". They're not making a theory. I think the concept of that being a narrative is WP:N enough for a mention somewhere; that narrative is certainly all over the place. I think the concept of it being a theory is not. For a theory to be notable, you need actual scientific proponents of it making scientific arguments in support of it, scientific publications publishing scientific papers defending it, etc.

Of course, in no way do I think the narrative warrants its own article. It's just a narrative, after all. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not in this field. As you've been told several times, the definition of the word theory varies widely between fields.

In this field, a theory is anything that is written down as a set of propositions. Consider the claim that MTFs are just like natal women. Here's two ways to say that:

• Theory: "Male-to-female transsexuals' behavioral and psychological characteristics are exactly like natal women."
• Narrative: "My MTF clients tell me that their behavior and psychological characteristics are exactly like natal women."

It's the same idea, just presented in different format. The important part is the concept itself (=MTFs are exactly like natal women), not the window dressing (grammar). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is about essentialism and reductionism, not whether it's a theory, hypothesis, narrative, concept, notion, etc. There is no correlate for masculine essence theory of transsexualism because this is designed as a straw man to attack the "trapped" metaphor sometimes used as a shorthand explanation. That's why "men trapped in men's bodies" is positioned as the "opposing" POV. It's not about the "trapped" part, it's about the essence, and the belief that trans women are essentially male. It's only used to attack trans women, because society is more concerned about trans women and controlling our bodies vs. trans men. This article has been a content fork from day one, created by a coworker of its chief proponent. This information should be incorporated into existing articles which give a fuller explanation of how this conceptualization came into being, and how the either/or thinking behind it is in reality the exact same essentialist argument. The "really" men or "really" women framing is just a convenient way to ignore those who reject both essentialist positions. Jokestress (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: No, it was Kim that was in a discussion about what was a theory. No, a theory is not "anything that is written down as a set of propositions. That's a hypothesis. What you list as a "Theory" is a hypothesis, if even that (hypotheses are supposed to be a lot more specific than that and to have explanatory capability). To become a theory, a hypothesis must be extensively tested and shown to have predictive merit. Since the feminine essence "theory" was only created by Blanchard to "disprove" it, it is automatically not a theory. As the National Academy of Sciences states, a scientific theory is "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence." In no way, shape, or form does "feminine essence theory" meet that criteria. And in no way is it WP:N, since only Blanchard and those defending him bring it up, and only as a foil to his theories.

No, a narrative and a theory are not the same thing. By the very definition of the terms, they are not. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not in this field. Different fields have wildly different standards for what should be called a "theory" and what should be called a "hypothesis". In the field of sexology (as with all of psychology, and most of the soft sciences), an idea formulated as a set of propositions called a theory. The definition you claim is used by chemists and physicists -- but "Transwomen are like this" is not really a study of physics or chemistry, is it? So the particular definition of the term by physicists and chemists is irrelevant.

More importantly, if I could draw your attention to the title of that article, you might notice that the word "theory" doesn't appear anywhere in it. This is because 100% of the editors at that article agreed that the actual subject of the article was the idea, very broadly construed, rather than Blanchard's 2008 formulation of the idea in a format that his field calls a "theory", or the fact that clients say this ("narrative"), or any other single narrow method of presenting the idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Anon in this case WhatamIdoing is correct. In science there are two ways that theories are made. One is called a Phenomenology . In physics and hard science that would be

Phenomenological Theory. A theory which expresses mathematically the results of observed phenomena without paying detailed attention to their fundamental significance.Thewlis, J. (Ed.) (1973). Concise Dictionary of Physics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, p. 248.

Where by observation they mean empirical observations through experiments.

That is what you are describing when you say "To become a theory, a hypothesis must be extensively tested and shown to have predictive merit."

Let me give you an example of a non empirical theory. The theory that dinosaurs were killed off by a massive comet/asteroid strike. That theory is not strictly emprical because we have never seen a terrestrial planet actually hit by a asteroid of the type thought to have struck 65 Million years ago. Many serious paleontologist doubt that theory and attribute the mass extinction to the Deccan traps eruption which was ongoing at the same time. No experiment is possible that will ever test either of those. Cretaceous–Tertiary_extinction_event#Causes_of_extinctions

Or from physics, string theory and M-theory are precise and mathematical and have never been tested and verified by an empirical experiment. Yet everyone, ever single physicist calls it a theory.

Last but not least we need to defer to what WP:RS's say. According to Moser 2010, you know which one the name is "Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory". Which is what we should call it per WP:V.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede the point about theories in soft vs. hard sciences, Hfarmer; you make fair points.

That said, what's being dealt with in the article in question is a narrative. The narrative may be notable, as "a woman trapped in a man's body" has almost become a media cliche for discussing transsexualism. Blanchard's treatment of it as a foil theory combining everyone else's theories, a theory whose set of postulates has no supporters supporting it in the literature (a straw man), is definitely is not notable. When the general public says "a woman trapped in a man's body", they are in no way referring to Blanchard.

The question, then, is, "is an article warranted for a narrative"? Can you think of any narrative articles on Wikipedia? I certainly can't. On the other hand, I can easily see it fitting into the content of an existing article, such as transsexualism. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mergers

There are actually several fragmented pages on the topic that merit consideration for merging/deletion:

• Benjamin scale
• Classification of transsexuals
• Androphilia and gynephilia
• Etiology of transsexualism
  

— James Cantor (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking over these articles, I find I agree with James Cantor with respect to the "Classification of transsexuals" article... it seems to me that the classification schemes and diagnoses do (roughly) fit in with different understandings of the etiology of transsexualism. Maybe a merged article could be entitled "Classification and etiology of transsexualism"?

I'm willing to do a rough merge of the Classification article into the Etiology article if this suggestion meets with approval.

For the other articles, not so much... the Benjamin scale article is a bit lengthy to be merged without eviscerating the content, and stands on its own anyway; and androphilia and gynephilia exist independently of transsexualism. bonze blayk (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have merged autoandrophilia here, and I have tagged andromimetophilia and gynemimetophilia for transclusion to Wiktionary. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename proposal

After reading much about this topic during my recovery of a broken hip, I think the current name is a misnomer for the following reasons:

1. Theory in science means a well supported body of work that is so solid that it is not really disputed anymore. Evolution theory, gravity, cell theory etc are theories. As it stands, this is a hypothesis with rather minimal support and has obvious flaws (like the assertion autogynepghilia does not occur in natal woman that has been thoroughly discredited).
2. Although the "theory" has been promoted by all three, the original idea is from Blanchard only.
3. This is an etiology hypothesis for transsexualism.

I therefore suggest we rename the article to: Blanchard's transsexualism etiology hypothesis, which is an adequate title that does not promote it as more than that it is. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I second this proposal. bonze blayk (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking that the merger of the feminine essence article, and etiology of transsexualism is the best option.

The word theory in science does not mean what you said consider the fact that Tests of general relativity a uncontroversial and well accepted theory are carried out every day. Just don't expect that level of hard core exactness outside of physical science.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really disputed anymore does not mean, not tested anymore. Evolution is really undisputed within serious sciences, but it is tested every day again, with as purpose to refine it and to understand it better. Nobody expects to falsify it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support. I believe that Blanchard's transsexualism etiology hypothesis is superior to the current name.

For the record, however, I do not agree with:

Kim's definition of theory: In different fields, the word has different connotations.

Kim's assessment of the literature, which clearly does not include the articles I emailed her at her request or knowledge of the consensus of the field outside of google results.

The very peculiar assertion that there is some kind of problem when an "original idea" is attributed to a single person. Original ideas are, of course, very often the product of a single person, and the concepts which led Blanchard to his own ideas are all very well documented in his writings.

And I do not agree that Blanchard's major contribution here is about etiology at all. Blanchard's theory is one of taxonomy that merely has implications for etiology (which Blanchard explicates).

Nonetheless, I believe the proposed title is superior to the current one.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Theory is confusing, because the way it is used here is as in vernacular English. Sure, it is very possible that the term scientific theory is used different in different fields, maybe he can provide us with a reliable source that explains how it is used differently between fields. 2. I read all the autogynephilia articles (thanks to the proxy server of the university I work), including the ones that James e-mailed me, so that assertion is incorrect. 3. The hypothesis goes much further than grouping (which taxonomy is), it has an explicit hypothesis of underlying etiology, and it is that etiology that makes the hypothesis stand out, not the taxonomy, which could easily be covered under one of the other articles James mentioned above. 4. There is no problem to link a specific idea to a person, if I had a problem with that, I would not have proposed the name as is. So, I am mystified with that comment. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to your first point... I have a question. Are were on WP suppose do use the vernacular English or standard academic English? I am pretty sure we are suppose to stick to academic English. There are allot of different vernaculars in the world of English speakers.

I think we would merge Etiology with feminine essence theory.

I think we should perhaps rename BBL to something else what Moser calls it "Blanchard's Autogynephilia theory" would probably come up when a layperson does a search.

That's my $0.02.

Kim while you are not new to science neither is James cantor or myself. Different fields have different standards. On your talk page you say you have a Doctorate in ecology. I imagine you can obtain a high standard of predictability in your theories. Theories of physics in which I am a defense away from a MS in are the gold standard of precision and predictability. Psychology is just funny in that any experiment that would produce that kind of data would probably be inhumane or unethical. i.e. trying to prove the theory that an abusive childhood can make someone a psychopath by taking some kids an abusing them. Clearly that's a theory that will never be tested rigorously! :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding theory. If the usage is indeed so different between fields, I think it bis wiser to avoid the term. With regard to Blanchard's Autogynephilia theory, I think it is not a good title, because it focuses exclusively on one of the two groups Blanchard is recognizing. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. It's rare that I hear anyone even acknowledge that his theory is about more than one group of people, at least in Blanchard's mind. However if the logic used to merge HT with AGP and BBL holds then why have a neutral title. "People only look for information about Autogynephilia" and all that?--Hfarmer (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did a fair amount of reading on the hypothesis, there are two vastly different components. At the science level, it has always been about two groups, homosexual vs non-homosexual transsexuals, the first are effectively effeminate gays who want to be so effeminate that they want to change their body, the latter suffer from a paraphylia called auogynephylia and their primary motivation to change their body is that they get sexually arrounsed by the idea of being a woman. Among transsexuals, the latter has recieved a HUGE amount of critisim, the former hardly anything. What happened here was that some aspects of the hypothesis had articles, but they were not mirrored. HT but not N-HT, autogynephylia but not the counterpart. The first are classifications on the taxonomy, the latter are the etiologies. So, I think bringing all those smaller articles together in one article made sense. Now that we have arrived there, we need to give it a proper name and work from there to improve it.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think the reason the HSTS category gets less attention is because it's Blanchard's "autogynephilia" category that's novel: "Homosexual Transsexuals" pretty much fit into the classic "true transsexual" model used (imposed?) since the days of Harry Benjamin (see the Benjamin Scale article). Blanchard does reinterpret HSTS so they're really very EXTREME homosexuals who transition based on "sexual identity"/needs/desires, rather than discordance between their body and their "gender identity", but other than that I don't see that much difference. I think many transwomen, who are justly miffed by Blanchard's (typically male, typically "diagnostic") condescension and love of his own brainchild, miss that he recognizes that both types of transsexuals may suffer from major dysphoria justifying surgery--where before those whom he characterizes as "autogynephiles" had to lie and lie and lie to obtain treatment--and so there's an element of compassion being expressed. At least that seems to me to be the case with Blanchard, and also with Lawrence, however weird she may be... I will refrain from characterizing that other fellow out of a desire to maintain a veneer of polite discourse, since he's the one primarily responsible from bringing to everyone's attention the misogynistic, sexist, racist, transphobic elements which may be drawn forth from the vulgarization of the "theory". IMHO, YMMV, etc. -- bonze blayk (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So at least the two of you can see why I thought that a separate article dealing with that aspect was appropriate. I will admit that I also felt that the people that label was attached to got a double Whammy. I'm talking the ones mentioned in TMWWBQ just for example in the name of protesting AGP theory and that book allot of not nice blanket statements have been made. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposed rename as well. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the current title of this article is the best we can do.

I don't think that the proposal is an improvement.

• Within the standards of the field, this is what passes for a "theory", and we need to accept the academic standards of the field.
• Blanchard's idea is not a statement of etiology. That word means "cause" or "origin". The etiology of tuberculosis is M. tuberculosis. The etiology of a carrot is a carrot seed planted on a farm. The etiology of your car is an automobile manufacturing company. "There are two kinds of MTFs" is not an etiology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoww, the core of the hypothesis is about HOW people become transsexuals. If you are attacked to man, you can become transsexual if you are so effeminate that you want to change your body to fit the picture. if you are attrackted to women, you want to modify your body because you actually get sexually aroused by the idea of being a woman, and you just cannot wait till you have the body to work out your sexual fantasies. That are very obvious etiologies. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatamidoing: You are conspicuously failing to "get it", as I have noted before. Blanchard's use of "autogynephilia" to characterize the majority of MTF transsexuals embeds a paraphilic etiology of transsexualism into the very term being used to "denote" this population, as Madeline Wyndzen noted... and this is PRECISELY WHAT GETS THE VAST MAJORITY OF TRANSWOMEN SO LABELLED SO PISSED OFF! -- bonze blayk (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

People being pissed off or not regardless, Blanchard repeatedly, in practically every paper, uses his classification as an explanation for why male-to-female transsexualism exists, as do his defenders such as Lawrence and Bailey. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the idea really isn't a claim for etiology. Saying that there are two kinds of transwomen doesn't say anything at all about how either group came to be transwomen. "Younger, shorter, androphilic transwomen are different from older, taller, non-androphilic transwomen" is not anything like a statement that "being young and short causes transsexuality". That would be an eitological claim. "Weird hormones in utero cause transsexuality" is an etiological claim. "Unusual brain structures cause transsexuality" is an etiological claim. "One of these groups is not like the other" is not an etiological claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is a etiology. Extreme effeminacy causes transsexuality and sexual arousal of the idea of being a woman makes them transsexuals. Cause and result, as clear as it can be. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So if a natal woman is sexually aroused at the idea of being a woman (a claim made recently on these pages), then is she transsexual? If a natal man is sexually aroused at the idea of being a woman, but never dresses, lives, or presents as a woman, is he transsexual? If a non-androphilic transwoman has never been sexually aroused at the idea of being a woman, does she somehow quit being a transsexual? Do you think that having experienced those thoughts is what directly causes the transsexuality, or could they just be a symptom?

An idea can have implications for etiology without actually being an etiology. For example, "Red cars are different from non-red cars" is a theory that has implications for etiology, but noting that the two groups are different doesn't tell you how the cars became red (e.g., paint, or rust). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To answr your questions in order:

1. Crucial to Blanchard's claims is that natal women do not get sexually aroused from the idea of being a sexual woman. That part of the hypothesis is obviously incorrect, but nonetheless.
2. If a natal man has those fantasies but does not result in the desire to become a woman, it is obviously not strong enough.
3. Non-androphilic transwoman who claim not to have been sexually aroused of being a woman have been claimed to be lying (See one of the Lawrence articles).
4. I personally think the hypothesis is incorrect as a generalization, although I do think that the autogynephylia motivation is valid for some transsexuals. Most have a different motivation. I think it is a symptom, but that does not mean Blanchard sees it that way, and he pretty explicitly states in his articles that it is a cause relationship.
5. This hypothesis goes much much further than an idea that has implications for an etiology. It is explicitly formulated as a etiology, as how can we explain that these men want to change their body so it looks like a woman. he first grouped them in two categories, homosexual and non-homosexual, and then gavce for both an explicte explanation why these men want to do this. The first because they are so effeminate that they want to have a female body as to be normative, the latter because they are sexually aroused by the idea and want to have a fitting body to play with.

Personally, I think this hypothesis is seriously flawed. First of all, it does not take biology into consideration. The development of a body with all its sex specific aspects is really complex, and everything has to match up. There are already sufficient articles that suggest skews in hormone balance etc. that could equally explain things. Disable the testosterone receptor, and one part of the blue print goes haywire (AIS). Do it with something else, and another part goes haywire. As a biologist with a lot of interest in Evo-Devo, I am amazed how well the various pieces generally work together and result in a individual where all primary and secondary sexual aspects are matched up. Second, I have not seen any explicite tests to test between the various etiologies. Without a test to distinguish between them, nothing is seriously tested. For example, Blanchard never tested natal woman, it was others who did that. Once that was done, that part of the hypothesis crumbled.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not any of us think the idea is good, bad, fatally flawed, nonsense -- is completely unimportant. (Personally, I don't know what the "right" answer is, and I don't even care.) We just need to describe what the idea is (according to reliable sources), and then describe what other reliable sources (i.e., not Wikipedia editors) think about it.

Your idea of etiology is not the field's idea of etiology.

First, the initial step in BBL is not "Why these people do this?". It's "Hey, there's two different groups of people here!" Compare this to, "There are two kinds of cars: cars that are red, and cars that aren't."

Second, "That car is red" is not the cause of the car's redness. The thing that actually causes the redness is probably either paint or rust. "Being red" does not make the car be red; paint or rust makes the car be red. "This person seems to have an autogynephilic motivation" is not the cause of the motivation's existence. The actual cause could be genetic differences, hormonal exposures, psychological trauma, differences in neurological "wiring", or hundreds of things that no one has ever thought of -- but not "Having autogynephilia causes people to have autogynephilia" (which is illogical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we just disagree, just like people like Nuttbrock:

Non-linear associations of a continuous measurement of sexual attraction to women (gynephilia) and transvestic fetishism were interpreted in terms of an etiological hypothesis in which transvestic fetishism interferes with the early development of heterosexuality. Blanchard concluded that homosexual versus non-homosexual sexual orientation is a dominant and etiologically significant axis for evaluating and understanding this population.[3]

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is right that what we think of these theories is not important. In fact we can't take that into consideration at all. Though there is no harm in mentioning such feelings.

That said Kim and Bonze are correct Blanchard's theory does make the claim of eitology.

"Homosexual transsexuals" become transsexual because they are by nautre very feminine males. You know the story feminine as young boys, attracted to men from the get go. The kind of person who would have been called a sissy often, played with dolls or other "feminine" toys. Then as they grew being so feminine repelled gay men who want masculinity. Then with a little effort in dressing they could get a straight man's attention, in part because of that very femininity . Then in the pursuit of greater sexual and social success they become transsexual, have SRS and end up living as women. A "masculine" sexual appetite for sex with a variety of men is ascribed to this group by Bailey. Supposedly this group tends to take feminine professions legal and illegal...such as secretary, waitress, prostitute, stripper... etc.

While Autogynephiles are supposedly attracted to their ideal image of themselves as women. The first try cross dressing as young teens, never showed any inclination to femininity as boys though they may not have been the most masculine, no one would have called them a sissy. They supposedly value a good image and feel ashamed of the cross dressing sexuality. Some of these cross dressers are attracted most to the image of a nude body of theirs with a vagina and so they have SRS and become transsexuals. They do this in spite of often being very successful as men. Well established in careers. Supposedly having professional or male dominated jobs i.e. Doctor, Lawyer, Scientist, Engineer, Mechanic, Plumber... etc.

In a nutshell that is more or less Blanchard's Typology and Etiology of Male to female transsexualism.

The RS Nuttbrock calls it an etiology and I'm confident there are others.

I am not sure what group I would fall in. My childhood behavior, and sexual history are consistent with homosexual transsexualism, while my choice of career is consistent with Autogynephilic transsexualism, on the other hand what I have ever made a living doing is consistent with homosexual transsexualism. That said I don't see how one group or the other is really good. Right now I'd rather be a rich white Autogynephile.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Having quickly read this, my personal opinion is that it should not be called a theory, because it does not rise to the complexity of a scientific theory, but if it's usually called that in sources in its field (is it?) then that's probably what it should be called here. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I've split my original post in two with next subsection heading because it's best to discuss the issue of theory-ness and that of etiology-ness separately). Tijfo098 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it an etiology?

Also, I think etiology should be understood in scare quotes here because it's almost a Freudian-type of etiology, that involves only assumptions about psychological processes. If this hypothesis is notable enough outside its field, perhaps some (applied) philosopher of science has commented on the matter of its theory-ness, and this could be discussed in the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the word etiology is one of those fifty-dollar words usually favored people who are unduly impressed by fancy science jargon. It very probably violates the WP:Explain jargon rules. The problem is not unique to this field; for example, educationists are commonly impressed by business terms, and business people are commonly impressed by basic concepts from education "experts".)

But IMO neither etiology nor the plain English cause are appropriate here: Having autogynephilia simply does not cause a person to have autogynephilia. Similarly, "having tuberculosis" is not what causes a person to have tuberculosis, and "owning a car" is not the cause of owning a car, and so forth. This name suggests confusion about cause and effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Etiology" may indeed be a form of cheap talk in titles of Wikipedia pages, but the more important matter seems to be that the BBL "troika" doesn't seem to have a unitary position on whether this is an etiology or not. Particularly, Blanchard seem to be less adamant of the three that autogynephilia is proposing an etiology. John Bancroft's 3rd edition of his book paraphrases a paragraph from Blanchard (2005) [4], which is worth reading. (Previous editions of Bancroft's book were well reviewed, including in NEJM [5]. Also, we should perhaps add to the article Bancroft's own position the etiology hypothesis of Bailey is at least incomplete, and therefore demeaning, Bancroft concludes). Tijfo098 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Google scholar/books

• "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory": 0 hits in google scholar, 3 hits in google books, all apparently in some obscure 2010 books published by Books, LLC.
• "Blanchard Autogynephilia Theory": 0 hits in google books, 2 hits in scholar.
• "Blanchard's taxonomy": 1 hit in google books, 2 hits in scholar

Is this even notable for an article or is the title just totally ad-hoc? Tijfo098 (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have the impression this article was once called autogynephilia (redirects here), because it is the term blasted in the latter part of the article. Perhaps it should be renamed back, because this is the word that most readily identifies this theory in lots of sources: hundreds of google scholar/books hits. The intro can explain that it's part of a two-pronged classification introduced by Blanchard, supported by blah, blah, criticized by... Political correctness over the (not)acceptability the word in some circles of should not override the common sense in naming the article with the best known term, which is about two orders of magnitude more notable than any of the current (bold) titles. I've learned not expect much sanity on articles about sexual topics on Wikipedia though. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, there was a very recent and somewhat disputed merge. This idea is "there are two types of transwomen". "Transwomen (supposedly) with autogynephilia" is only one of the two types. The previous version of Homosexual transsexual described the other type. See here for the previous article specifically on autogynephilia.

Given that the previous versions of these three pages totalled about 100K of information, and the result is now less than half that, I assume that some information was lost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Ok, I accept that in humanities and other soft sciences, that this is called a theory. However, seeing the confusion about it, hypothesis is less ambiguous and for that reason, I would still argue we avoid the word theory in the title. Of the people expressing their opinion, I basically see 4 people in favor (plus one seems to in favor but unclear), one opposed, which generally does for a move. As Tijfo98 showed, this hypothesis does not have a general accepted name, and in those cases, it is best to use a descriptive name, which is basically the proposed name. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's most readily identified with the word & notion of autogynephilia, but that word alone does not describe the whole taxonomy/theory. I see why the articles were merged. How about calling it a taxonomy instead? Even James Cantor suggested that the most significant contribution is taxonomic rather than etiological, which seems rather self evident. Are you concerned that not using either theory or hypothesis in the title would imply wider acceptance? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The taxonomy was already proposed by others, Blanchard merely confirmed that. If you think about autogynephila being the most readily identified word, it is about etiology. As for hypothesis or theory, I am not afraid that it would imply wider acceptance, but more that it would leave it kind of hanging what it is. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

To many a reader the word theory would not in and of itself imply wide acceptance. Yet clearly to some, who don't know how low the threshold for a "theory" really is, it would. (i.e. people who have only heard of theories which were well established and well tested. Whereas I have heard of many theories which are utterly speculative and untested yet they are still theories.)--Hfarmer (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)