Jump to content

Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Extremely bad sourcing and wrong on "Theory"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology#Theory

I'm a bit confused here, we see an article called "Blanchards etc", and then there is a section that explains the theory, and we read this: "Homosexual transsexuals are proposed to be motivated by being very feminine in both behavior and appearance, and by a desire to romantically and sexually attract (ideally very masculine) men."

Now for the problems:

1. The idea that "HSTS" transition due to their attraction to men is Baileys, not Blanchards, to my knowledge Blanchard has never stated such a thing, and he has also several times stated that this is Baileys theory and not his, and Bailey has stated that it's his theory on his own. (Due to people reading the Man Who Would be Queen and conflating Blanchards theory with Baileys own theorizing). (Blanchard states something very different than what is conatained within that sentence. (Just one example in the entire section).

2. All the sources are basically from "The Man Who Would be Queen" (by Bailey), and two by Anne Lawrence, and 0 by Blanchard apparently, on a page called "Blanchards etc", and then under theory section, has nothing sourced by Blanchard. I don't think it's coincidence that the theory section is so wrong since basically all the sources are from Baileys book and not from Blanchards papers.

3. Bailey has stated that "The Man Who Would be Queen" is "popular science", more meant as an attempt to introduce the science and his own speculation in a readable format. So why is something that's not a paper sourced for the basis of the theory? When Blanchards papers are mostly open source and easily found? (It's Baileys speculation in this book that some gay men transition for access to heterosexual men that has been conflated with Blanchards theory).

(There are many more problems, but I think these examples are a good start)

Anyhow, I just feel this entire page is very badly structured (and misrepresents Blanchard, and the sourcing is completely off), perhaps since this issue is sensitive, people are messing with it back and forth. Chronicler87 (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

James Cantor's recent edits

James Cantor, as a connected contributor, shouldn't you be proposing changes to the article here on the talk page, rather than making them directly to the article? Any reason your last 20 edits shouldn't be undone, pending a discussion here of the desired changes?
P.S., by this, I'm not making a statement either way about whether I agree with the content of the edits. Mathglot (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

How is there a COI? WP:COI says Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. It also says, Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. I don't see a particular problem. He is not Blanchard himself and not even citing his own work (which is not necessarily disallowed). I appreciate his expertise. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC) expanded -Crossroads- (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:COI is not a justification for wholescale reverts. The input from other editors thus far has been some (well-taken) fixes and a post on my userpage. I take this to indicate that folks are following, but nothing has been objectionable. If there is any edit or any part of any edit you'd like to discuss, do please indicate it. I'd recommend the collaborative rather than antagonistic approach.— James Cantor (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Mathglot (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot means that, like the lead of the article states, Cantor is a supporter of the typology. He's also worked with certain researchers, including Blanchard. That's a COI. Cantor is aware of his COI, but he is careful about it (due to a number of years of being on Wikipedia and facing COI concerns). Like Crossroads1, I appreciate his expertise and latest edits at this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

James Cantor is such a prominent and public supporter of Blanchard's theories that he is mentioned in the lead of this article. James Cantor does not dispute that he has a conflict of interest here, and WP:COI says that COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. On this page, he's said that with his edits he is specifically trying to de-emphasize criticism of Blanchard's typology (It was silly to have had several paragraphs of criticism) and has repeatedly tried to demean one of its critics (She is also a slam poet, arguably more successful than as a biologist). I object to him editing this article, but am happy for his input here on the talk page. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Wanda may object as much as desired, but the relevant policy is that "Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise". Also relevant, but unmentioned, is that having strong personal/political views also produces a COI. My editing has produced little conflict, as anyone reading this page can see, whereas Wanda's involvement causes much greater conflict, again as easily evidenced. Results of various reports made about me to various WP boards have unanimously supported my behavior. It is indeed true that I believe this mainpage was strongly overbalanced on criticism (with whole sets of findings receiving a single sentence, but individual negative editorials receiving whole paragraphs). If Wanda had any argument about where the NPOV point is, it hasn't been mentioned. This is not about COI at all, but clearly about IDONTLIKEIT.— James Cantor (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"Transsexualism" or "gender dysphoria"?

Flyer reverted my change from "transsexualism" to "gender dysphoria" saying in her edit summary that we should use what is in the sources. I agree very much with that rule...It's just that all the sources say gender dysphoria!

  • Blanchard R (October 1989). "The concept of autogynephilia and the typology of male gender dysphoria". The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 177 (10): 616–23. doi:10.1097/00005053-198910000-00004. PMID 2794988.
  • Blanchard R, Clemmensen LH, Steiner BW (April 1987). "Heterosexual and homosexual gender dysphoria". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 16 (2): 139–52. doi:10.1007/BF01542067. PMID 3592961.
  • Blanchard R (January 1988). "Nonhomosexual gender dysphoria". Journal of Sex Research. 24 (1): 188–93. doi:10.1080/00224498809551410. PMID 22375647.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

To flesh out the concept (and maybe this would be good to include on the mainpage), not everyone with gender dysphoria is transsexual. The Blanchard's typology still applies to them: Their dysphoria is still motivated in one of the two ways Blanchard describes, even if the person never comes or transitions, etc..— James Cantor (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
James is referring to this and this. James, I didn't revert you. Not fully. I re-added "transsexualism" by adding "and transsexualism." Given the sources in the article that clearly use the term "transsexualism," and that this article is titled "Blanchard's transsexualism typology," I'm perplexed as to why you want to remove "transsexualism" from the short description and lead sentence completely. You stated, "No, it's broader than transsexualism only. [Also in Blanchard (1989)])." You did not state "it's not about transsexualism." And neither do the sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
You are correct; I don't have any objection to both phrases being included. Only for the record, however, I don't like the title "Blanchard's transsexualism typology" exactly because it does not match the sources. IMO, this whole page was a POV-folk from the bad old days, and its content (which I still have some fleshing out for) should be integrated elsewheres.— James Cantor (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know how you feel about the title. Per #Request for Comment on material in Autogynephilia vs Blanchard's transsexualism typology vs Transsexualism, I also know how you feel about the article. Your edits have improved it, though, and I still think it should be kept. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Above, why have you left out the 1985 "Typology of male-to-female transsexualism" Blanchard source? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's how he started. As his work went on, he realized it wasn't only for the transsexuals.— James Cantor (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but the literature on this topic mainly focuses on transsexual people, and transgender people who are not cross-dressers or non-binary (although it also concerns cross-dressers). And, as you know, it especially focuses on trans women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Primary sourcing

James and others, we should try using WP:Secondary sources when we can per what WP:Secondary sources and WP:SCHOLARSHIP state. I understand some use of primary sources, especially in the case of this article, but let's try not to rely so heavily on them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I have added very few new ones to focus on fleshing out the cites already here. It was silly to have had several paragraphs of criticism on what was described only as "a series of studies."— James Cantor (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

How to describe Julia Serano.

I think Serano is most accurately described as an activist. Although she is often noted by RS's has having a background in biology, it is not at all relevant to trans issues (it was about fruit flies), and it is mentioned just to make he opinion seem more legitimate/reliable. She is also a slam poet, arguably more successful than as a biologist (17 years as a postdoc and never led her own lab), but we wouldn't say "according to slam poet Serano..." because it would make her opinion seem less legitimate. Same principle. Her relevant background and what makes her notable is her activism.— James Cantor (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is not about Julia Serano, so her notability is not at issue here. The first time she comes up in the article body, it's about her assessment of flaws in experiment design in Blanchard's original papers. Given the subject of the study, I think a zoologist, or a scientist trained in practically any of the life sciences, or for that matter, nearly any scientific subject, would be eminently qualified to talk about the relative merits or flaws in a scientific paper of this kind. If the paper were about the discovery of the Higgs Boson, I might agree with you; but here, she qualifies as an expert by dint of her training and background as a scientist. Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
A hard sciences partisan might even say that a hard scientist like Serano is more qualified to critique a scientific study than someone in the soft sciences like James Cantor or Ray Blanchard. Of course, I would never say such a thing myself. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Let's not make comments that can be seen as antagonistic. The Hard and soft science article that you pointed to is clear about the unnecessary belittling/snobbery with regard to "soft" science. And either way, psychology overlaps with some biological aspects such as behavioural genetics, and sexology (another of Cantor's area of expertise) may address biomedical aspects such as sexual dysfunction. Cantor is also involved in neuroscience. And there is nothing "soft" about neuroscience. Furthermore, since there are different types of sciences, and being a biologist with an expertise on fruit flies doesn't mean that the biologist is qualified or more qualified to speak on matters of the mind, whoever states "Serano is more qualified to critique a scientific study than someone in the soft sciences like James Cantor or Ray Blanchard" is wrong. People rely on psychology and psychiatry for a number of things with regard to mental processes and mental health. They don't rely on people with an expertise on fruit flies for that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
You just did say it. On top of what Flyer said, hard vs. soft is supposed to categorize fields, not people. Once Serano crossed over from biology to psychology, she entered a "soft" science. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. And if you actually follow science, you'll notice that "soft" sciences (e.g. cultural anthropology and linguistics, sociology and social science, psychology and economics, etc.) are more and more undoing blunders by "hard" science misapplications. A good case in point is genetic analysis of (and misanalysis of, and loaded assumption-making about) ancient DNA leading to a firehose of mutually contradictory wannabe-breakthrough papers on the origin and dispersal of the Indo-European languages and the cultures speaking them. Every other quarter, it seems, someone rushes some mathematics- and haplogroups-based "eureka!" paper to Nature or some other high-end journal biased towards number-crunching (and blind to socio-political agendas), only to be met with well-founded objections that it doesn't actually align with the linguistic and archaeological evidence. A good though fairly dense summary of the situation can be found here – a monograph (though in the top 1% of all papers at Academia.edu, and probably the top 0.5% if you include previous editions), written by a hard scientist (a biologist and geneticist). When it comes to modern-population study, including gender-identity stuff, similar patterns are emerging, though even more muddied by socio-politicking. 2601:643:867F:5370:E44A:534:D1D4:338C (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how one could say that: Her activism is the basis of her notability, and it is so indicated on her BLP. How other news outlets describe her is subject to the same question: Is there any reason to think that her (frankly failed) career as a biologist studying fruitflies is anything other grandiosity to make her opinion seem more weighty than it should? That (some) news outlets simply transcribe whatever an activist's press release contains does not change the editorial policies here.
I have no opinion on hard versus soft sciences. Because I have a background in math and physics, I have been able to do research unlike many of my colleagues in psychology. I don't think this is relevant, however. What matters for mainpage content is what does a reader need to know in order to contextualize what they are reading. I believe the correct answer is within what Serano says. The list of criticisms on the page are largely political (e.g., "undermined lived experience of transsexual women, contributed to pathologisation and sexualisation of transsexual women, and the literature itself fed into the stereotype..."), and to the extent she makes scientific claims, they are easily shown to be false. For example, where Blanchard developed the typology using a series of cluster analyses (see mainpage) she declares instead, "the subtypes were not empirically derived." That isn't a scientific criticism, that is simply denying the existence of the evidence. She is entitled to her opinions, of course, but I think it is clear that these are the opinions/expressions of an activist, not a scientist.— James Cantor (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources are the best guide for what facts are relevant, and reliable sources frequently mention her background in biology. If you want to correct the record, publish a paper on it and then we can cite it here, but belittling her career on the article talk page doesn't add anything. Serano actually attributes the stuff about the lack of empirical basis to Wyndzen (2003). I can't find the paper she's referencing, but as far as I can tell, Blanchard only used the cluster analysis to divide subjects on the basis of their sexual orientation. He didn't use it to develop the typology. Nblund talk 21:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
You are speaking past me. I never said there was a record in need of correcting. I am addressing only how the existing record should be described according to WP policies. That would be to use the basis of her notability and her association with the topic: her activism. The alternatives either exaggerage ("background in biology") or belittle ("slam poet") her relevance. Neither is relevant to her statements at all; only her activism is. Finally, using the cluster analysis to divide subjects by sexual orientation and to collapse them showing that only two groups wrt to autogynephilia is exactly how he developed the typology. Again, this is simply to be in denial of the published evidence, already documented and cited right in front of you.— James Cantor (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
But you haven't cited any aspect of the existing record. Wikipedia policies say that the best guide here would be other reliable sources. Other reliable sources consistently mention her background in biology. You personally disagree with those sources, but you haven't actually offered any alternatives beyond your personal opinion that the sources are exaggerating. This is somewhat beside the point, but: the clustering was used to identify people based on their sexual orientation, the assumption that sexual orientation is the only characteristic that matters is already baked in to the analysis. As Moser notes this is "equivalent to distinguishing men from women by finding a statistically significant correlation between the presence of a Y chromosome and gynephilia". I assume Serano is referring to the same issue. Nblund talk 23:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

NPOV and consistent identifiers of BLPs

There is ongoing editing of the mainpage regarding how best to identify the people whose views are being expressed. Debating each person individually is not likely ever to lead to any consensus on any of them, as any decision on each would impact the decisions on the others. The logical step would be to achieve a consensus for how people are appropriately identified, and then to apply that to each. Judging by past comments and discussion, the issues needing mutual address are (do please add any others):

  • whether/when to identify a person's gender status
  • whether/when to identify a person's profession
  • whether/when to identity the basis of the person's notability/relevance to the topic

Of course, the primary issue is how to do the above NPOV, informing but not prejudicing the reader as to the subjects' credibility/authority.
— James Cantor (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions here, and I could also be open to simply eschewing names in the lead all together and just mentioning the arguments. Moser is described as sexologist here. The main publications discussed here from Veale and Nuttbrock are from the Archives of Sexual Behavior, which is the same journal where Blanchard published his three main papers on this topic - so I am struggling to see any justification for portraying them as somehow less credentialed. As far as I can tell, this is an issue where recognized experts disagree, so we should try to structure the article in a way that avoids implying that this is a debate between experts and "trans activists." Nblund talk 19:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that profession is essential for relevance, and the basis of notability/relevance is also good if it doesn't break up the flow of the text or add unnecessary detail. Gender status is iffy, but I think as far as Anne Lawrence is concerned, that's part of her notability on the subject. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 13:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
For context, I think this thread is partly in response to my changes to the lead here and here, and to the body here. I agree that we should prioritize professions, but none of these people are professional trans activists. Lawrence's gender ID might be relevant for the body, but it's not even mentioned in the lead of her BLP, and it seems reductive to single her out for her gender ID when she's done academic work on this topic. Nblund talk 14:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, the text stated, "the openly transgender health care provider and sexologist Anne Lawrence." So it mentions her professions as well. And the lead also implied that Serano is transgender. I think specifying that Lawrence is transgender was done to make clear that some transgender women support the typology. Lawrence isn't the only trans woman who supports it. But she's notable and is an example of a trans woman who supports the typology. I would have removed "the," though. Use of "the" was recently added in front of "openly transgender." I would have removed "openly" as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the lead classified Serano and others as a "trans activists", but it didn't note her gender ID. Why not point out that the other supporters are cisgender men? Personally, I'm not sure its helpful to include the mention of specific names (other than Blanchard) in the lead anyway, but mentioning Lawrence's gender ID kind of seems like its trying to make an editorial point without attributing it. Lawrence is cited a bunch in the body, but her gender identity doesn't really come up until halfway through the article. Nblund talk 15:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Reverts: Wording

Crossroads: I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to here, so its not clear to me what you want to have a discussion about. The changes here seem relatively common-sense. Blanchard's typology is contested (Bailey's even more so) and so in-text attribution seems obvious. We definitely attribute the findings of the critics of the typology, so I'm puzzled as to why we would treat Blanchard any differently. I think my changes were fairly straightforward as well: the text I removed here, for instance, is simply not supported by Bailey's book. So why would we include it? Nblund talk 16:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this, to focus on the lead first, I don't agree with simply stating "The typology is controversial" and moving it to the second paragraph. For one, per WP:LABEL, we should explain why it's controversial. The "In the transgender community, the typology has been the subject of controversy, which drew public attention with the publication of Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen in 2003." piece does a better job of that than "The typology is controversial." And having "The typology is controversial" moved away from "The typology received increased attention and debate when J. Michael Bailey published a popular science book based on it called The Man Who Would Be Queen in 2003." piece comes across as disjointed to me. If one objects to "in the transgender community," I must state that the vast majority of the controversy is there. I haven't seen the typology be nearly as controversial in academia in general. And, in the lead, we should at least state something about the transgender community's feelings on the topic. WP:Scare quotes should be avoided. Using quotation marks when the terms are used as categories is fine, but that category usage in the lead stops at "Blanchard's typology broke from earlier ones in that neither of the groups were considered 'false transsexuals'." Or before that. Using words as words is obviously fine, but that's not what I'm talking about when referring to scare quotes. As for "who published evidence showing significant differences between the two groups, including sexuality, age of transition, ethnicity, IQ, fetishism, and quality of adjustment.", I can see why one thinks that's one-sided. One solution is to add why some think the typology is faulty, beyond simply stating "who say that the typology is demeaning or inaccurate."
Beyond the lead, I don't mind changing "natal males" to "people assigned male at birth." The "while 'non-homosexual' refers to natal males who are attracted to other people than men or who are attracted to neither men nor women" piece should be changed to "while 'non-homosexual' refers to people assigned male at birth who are attracted to other people than men or who are attracted to neither men nor women" rather than removed altogether. The Terminology section is there to inform both on the typology and so that readers understand the terminology when reading the article. I'll have to look at the other changes more closely and see if I have anything to state on them. I await Crossroads1's opinion. And James Cantor's as well.
Nblund, the "Reverts" heading of this section is vague. So I changed it to "Reverts: Wording" for better clarity. Still vague, but has more clarity. If you object, you can revert of course. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think Flyer's suggests here are quite apt regarding the description of the controversy, the use of scare quotes, and the logic of the better positioning.— James Cantor (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I reverted because there were so many changes made, and the ones that seemed reasonable were mixed with ones that seemed questionable. I by no means am stating I disagree with all of the changes. I do believe there is room for adjustment. Here are the issues that jumped out at me:
This edit: Use of scare quotes, and editorializing up front with "The typology is controversial". Flyer22 Reborn elaborated more on that.
This edit: Unexplained replacement of terms with longer terms that were not even used in the sources. By this, I mean the expungement of "natal males", "crossdressing", "postoperative", and the like in favor of longer terms. It hasn't been shown that these terms have fallen out of use in the scientific literature. Some such wording however could still be adjusted.
Blanchard found that anatomic autogynephilia was changed to Blanchard considered anatomic autogynephilia, thereby changing Blanchard's conclusions into his presuppositions.
Excessive in-text attribution, resulting in constructions like: Blanchard categorized trans women into two groups: homosexual transsexuals who, according to Blanchard, are... and Blanchard concluded that both what he termed... and Kurt Freund argued there were two distinct types of male-to-female transsexuals: one type, he concluded....
We don't need to italicize every occurrence of certain words. It is not just about words as words; the words are being used to describe the concepts the article is about, even though the validity of those concepts is contested. And there is certainly no need to italicize uncontroversial words like "gynephilic" or "heterosexual".
This edit: As just one example of Nblund's removals, I checked it. [1] It seemed supported enough to me, although the sentence could be tweaked, and p. 171 should be added. Between that and this, where Nblund described what is clearly a 3 page paper on another paper by Veale as merely a "single sentence speculation on the implications of someone else's research", these removals seemed too hasty, so I reversed them along with WanderingWanda's edits. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this, why are we sometimes saying "trans women assigned male at birth"? Isn't this redundant? -Crossroads- (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I support using "natal males" over "assigned male at birth" (or "trans woman") because (1) it's shorter and simpler (2) it's what the sources use (3) presumably the study participants were grouped by actual (natal) sex rather than by the original sex markers on their birth certificates (4) not all natal males with dysphoria or autogynephilia identify as trans women (5) "natal male" turns up more often in google ngrams than various forms of AMAB.(I'm not testing just "assigned male" because of false positives like "we assigned male participants to three groups") Cheers, gnu57 06:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Seconding this. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • natal male: the term is sometimes contested. Searches on Google Scholar and Google News show that it's used less often in sources than "assigned male at birth" or "trans woman". (News: "natal male": 42 results. "assigned male at birth": 2,750 results. "Trans woman": 112,000 results.) (Scholar: "natal male": 1,280 results. "assigned male at birth": 2,320 results. "Trans woman": 5,510 results.) (While I was writing this, the Google Ngrams results were posted. I'll just note that Ngrams don't seem to count anything written in the last 11 years.)
  • It hasn't been shown that these terms have fallen out of use in the scientific literature. Wikipedia is written for a general, not a scientific, audience. (WP:PLAINENGLISH.) This is another reason to not use "natal males", in particular: the fact that it's barely ever used in news pieces shows that it's scientific jargon, not plain english for average readers.
  • The typology is controversial: To me, this is a reasonable summary, not "editorializing".
  • Changing found to concluded: WP:SAID specifically says to avoid words like "find". Blanchard's typology is disputed, to say that he "found" this or that is to strongly imply that it is true. It's taking a side in a dispute, which is a violation of WP:NPV.
  • crossdressing: there is nothing wrong with the word per se, but we are often talking about trans women, and woman wearing women's clothes is not "crossdressing". Replacing the word with "wearing women's clothing" or similar is more accurate and neutral. Even if one disagrees that "crossdressing" is incorrect, there's no reason to oppose "wearing women's clothing" on factual grounds. And per WP:OR we are empowered and encouraged to put things in our own words.
  • postoperative: again, there is nothing wrong with the word in itself, but categorizing trans women as either "preoperative" and "postoperative" is very old fashioned and shouldn't be done in Wikipedia's own voice. See: page 13 of the GLAAD Media reference guide, or the similar guidance in the the Reuters style guide.
On each bullet point:
1st: Gnu57 addressed this well, and Flyer emphasizes below that natal males/assigned male at birth people is broader than trans women. Not all instances should necessarily have been kept, some were changed by you into "trans women", and I carried this forward.
2nd: PLAINENGLISH seems to favor the avoidance of longer phrases that are less common in the language in general. These terms aren't unknown jargon. My point about scientific literature was to show that RS have not rejected these terms.
3rd: No further comment.
4th: Yes, but you changed "found" to "considered". "Concluded" is fine as a replacement. But "considered" changes the meaning too much.
5th: I can see that, but one occurrence speaks of "gender identity patients" who may or may not actually be trans women (perhaps non-binary, perhaps they didn't have a female gender identity as such). And several occurrences of "transvestic" were also converted even though this isn't really referring to people with a female gender identity.
6th: We're not under those style guides, and PLAINENGLISH would seem to favor postoperative. It isn't that "old fashioned" and besides, the researchers did it, not us. But I am more or less neutral on this.
7th: I reduced these to just "trans women". -Crossroads- (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Trans women assigned male at birth" is redundant. It should just be "trans women (people assigned male at birth)." Editors also need to be careful using "trans women" and "people assigned male at birth." The latter is broader, because it may include cross-dressers or non-binary people. When research is talking about both trans women and cross-dressers, then "people assigned male at birth" makes sense to use. For now, there is no consensus to deviate from "natal males," though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Response re "natal males" Please note that the string <"natal male" OR "natal males"> returns 2,450 hits on GScholar, compared to 2,310 for "assigned male at birth". Clicking through to the last page of the News results, I get 72 natal male(s) vs. 242 AMAB. On PMC, I see 109 NM vs 2 AMAB; on SpringerLink, 353 NM vs. 183 AMAB; on JSTOR, 221 NM vs. 61 AMAB; on Pubmed, 53 NM, 0 AMAB; on ERIC, 5 NM, 0 AMAB; on JAMA, 1 each; zero of either on SAGE; Boolean searching didn't work for me on Semantic Scholar, Elsevier, Sciencedirect, or CambridgeCore. Take the numbers with a grain of salt, though: some of the NM papers are talking about natal dispersal, and some of the AMAB ones are referring specifically to intersex issues. I did find this language guideline advising against using NM, but it seems generally impracticable: for example, it also deprecates "persons with gender dysphoria" (as apparently that "reifies" dysphoria). I think the guideline particularly exemplifies a general problem in these terminology discussions: ignoring the map-territory distinction between sex marker/assignment and sex. Cheers, gnu57 20:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Bailey e-book

For anyone, like me, who has been struggling to find a free copy of The Man Who Would be Queen, and has better things to spend their money on, Alice Dreger has a PDF of it available on her website: http://alicedreger.com/autogyn. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm creating a separate section for discussing my edits here, because it seems like we're dealing with slightly different issues.


  1. Diff 1 (IQ claims). Here's what the source says: Zucker found several predictors of adolescent GID: lower IQ, lower social class, immigrant status, non-intact family, and childhood behavior problems unrelated to gender identity disorder. Clearly he's implying that these factors that are present among adolescents with GID also common among "homosexual transsexuals", but that isn't what the source says, and it clearly doesn't support this kind of matter-of-fact claim.
  2. Diff 2 (immigrant background). Which cites the same passage (presumably), and also cites a later section where Bailey attributes the claim to one of his informants.
  3. Diff 3 (fetishitic arousal): Can someone quote where this is supported by the text? Bailey says that paraphilias tend to co-occur, but that's obviously not the same thing.
  4. Diff 4 (internet use) The cited paper is three pages long, but most of it is not about internet use. The authors comment in a concluding section that the study they're criticizing strongly supports the hypothesis that MtF transsexuals who are active on the Internet overwhelmingly are autogynephilic. In fairness, the paragraph offers a little elaboration on the idea, but it doesn't mention "support groups" at all, and ultimately I'm not sure why it is meaningful.

CrossRoads Can you point to quotes that support these interpretations? At best, it seems like they should be attributed to Bailey, but I'm not actually even sure its true that Bailey is saying these things. Nblund talk 15:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's my take:
Diff 1: In context, Bailey is comparing HSTS to gay men, not to AGP. The IQ and immigrant-status differences, among others, are invoked as factors explaining why some feminine or gender dysphoric boys persist in this into adolescence. It is not clear that this comparison is supposed to hold with AGP, so I cut these points. I replaced "immigrant status" with "socially marginalized" to better fit the source.
Diff 2: This is based on way more than what Alma says. Bailey writes: They mostly come from poor, broken families, and family rejection is common. About 60 percent of the homosexual transsexuals and drag queens we studied were Latina or black....there is clearly something to the idea that homosexual transsexuals are used to living on the margins of society. They have, in fact, had to learn to cope with rejection and disapproval since childhood, because of their extreme femininity. And more. So he did a lot more research than just talking to Alma.
Diff 3: I adjusted the wording, but the relevant quote is: autogynephilia seems to be a type of paraphilia....Second, paraphilias tend to go together. If a man has one paraphilia, then his chances of having any other paraphilia seem to be highly elevated. He then mentions a higher likelihood of having two specific paraphilias if one has autogynephilia.
Diff 4: I cut the support groups part; the paper by Veale that Bailey and Lawrence are reinterpreting does mention support groups, but they appear to be real world ones, and Bailey and Lawrence don't mention them. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, this is a start. Regarding 2: I realize he did more research, but he's basically saying in that passage that he finds the idea plausible based on anecdotal evidence. I don't believe he purports to have actually taken a random sample to validate this. The wording in the article says that they are "more likely" but its not really even clear who he's comparing them to. 4 kind of has the same issue, but the in-text attribution is helpful for that. Nblund talk 14:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Bailey (2003)

I don't think we can use The Man Who Would Be Queen for any statements in Wikipedia's voice, and even attributed statements are probably WP:UNDUE. The controversy over this book is just too great, Joseph Henry Press is a general-interest publisher, not an academic press, and there's no sign of peer review. As Alice Dreger (2008) reports, the book was called "not science" by Kinsey Institute director John Bancroft (and Dreger herself). I've removed the passages sourced only to the book and moved it to "Further reading". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, at least it's a secondary source. I'm more concerned about the article's overuse of primary sources written by Blanchard and co. WanderingWanda (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Most of what you removed was not presented in WP:WIKIVOICE. It had WP:In-text attribution. And material such as "On the basis of the different features they exhibited, Blanchard concluded that the various gender transpositions—male and female homosexuality, heterosexuality, transvestic fetishism, and gender dysphoria—are individual manifestations of two phenomena." should be reported on in the article. Otherwise, we leave out important content regarding the topic. Per WP:Preserve, we should look to preserve material that should be retained, and that includes trading out poor sources, questionable sources, or otherwise contested sources (as in contested in the literature) for better sources. In other cases, per WP:Primary sources, we can use primary sources as long as we are careful with them in the ways outlined at WP:Primary sources. And we obviously should try to not overly rely on primary sources. In September, I brought up use of primary sources in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The argument to WP:PRESERVE certain material does not explain why this specific material should be retained, nor what makes it important content. That we can use primary sources as long as we are careful does not imply we should use any given source. As noted earlier, we rely on secondary sources. But secondary sources still have to meet our standards for fact-checking and accuracy. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, sources that have been "vetted by the scholarly community" are generally considered reliable. This is not the case with Bailey's book. Therefore, statements about "various gender transpositions" etc. need better sourcing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I already stated why something like the "on the basis of the different features" text should remain. I stated, "Otherwise, we leave out important content regarding the topic." I did not state that we should use this source or any other source. I was making it clear that we preserve "any of the facts or ideas [that] would belong in the 'finished' article." If one cannot see how "on the basis of the different features" material, for example, belongs in the article, I don't know what to tell that person. And when it comes to accuracy, Wikipedia obviously does not mean "accurate, according to one's worldview." As noted here and here, Wikipedia isn't so much concerned with one's truth. If the Bailey book reports on Bailey's and others' findings accurately, that is what accuracy means in this case. But regardless, I mentioned "trading out poor sources, questionable sources, or otherwise contested sources (as in contested in the literature) for better sources." And James noted below that "the material sourced to Bailey can also be sourced to any of many other secondary RS's, including the relevant chapter in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
If one cannot see how "on the basis of the different features" material, for example, belongs in the article, I don't know what to tell that person. This amounts to "because I said so". It is not a logical argument. Wikipedia obviously does not mean "accurate, according to one's worldview." This is simply a strawman. If the Bailey book reports on Bailey's and others' findings accurately is for the scholarly community to judge, not us. Feel free to add any academically vetted sources to the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
It amounts to "the editor does not understand the topic enough to know what should be retained and probably shouldn't be editing the topic." But in your case, I think it's simply a matter of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. And you always invoke "strawman" while applying it yourself. And I can see below that Mathglot echoed my supposed "strawman"; evidently, we both felt it necessary to state, given your "accuracy" comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
...the editor does not understand the topic enough to know what should be retained and probably shouldn't be editing the topic. Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Feel free to adduce reasons (preferably based in reliable sources and/or Wikipedia policies, but just about any reason is better than none) for why "On the basis of the different features they exhibited, Blanchard concluded..." is important enough to keep. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Not an opinion. And I gave a reason. Not my fault that you don't want to accept it. Anything I state about why it belongs would be disregarded by you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
So then you're simply WP:STONEWALLING because you aren't willing to support your position with reasons based in sources and/or policy. Feel free to re-join the discussion when you feel capable of making constructive suggestions and assuming good faith. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
So then you're standing by the "this doesn't belong because I said so" and "this doesn't belong because of my usual misuse of policies and guidelines" arguments? Got it. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT arguments aren't constructive. Nothing I argued is WP:ILIKEIT. But it's not like we usually interpret policies and guidelines in the same way anyway. At least others in this discussion are noting your flawed arguments so that I don't have to. And as I've told you before, WP:AGF goes both ways. Stating that what people are arguing is without merit isn't necessarily failing to assume good faith anyway. If it was, then WP:AGF applies to your commentary about me supposedly arguing without merit/stonewalling. I wonder how long we are going to keep the unnecessary back and forth between us going this time. Hmmm. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
That's not at all what I'm arguing. To sum up, Bailey is a primary source for his own findings (many of which are not about Blanchard's theory itself), the book has not been academically vetted (quite the opposite), and it comes from a general-interest publisher rather than an academic one. For all these reaons, the statements cited to Bailey are unduly weighted. Saying this amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT reflects faulty judgement at best and dishonesty at worst. I try to assume others' good faith as well, but there are limits. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I and others have been clear. Your arguments are faulty for reasons others have already noted. And I'm sure that Crossroads will have more to state. There is no point in me elaborating, especially given how you interact with me. Furthermore, what you and I were arguing (meaning our responses to each other) is not about what Bailey concluded. The "On the basis of the different features they exhibited" piece is about what Blanchard concluded. That you cannot see why it is important to relay what Blanchard concluded, for example, is a problem. And to repeat, "I mentioned 'trading out poor sources, questionable sources, or otherwise contested sources (as in contested in the literature) for better sources.' And James noted below that 'the material sourced to Bailey can also be sourced to any of many other secondary RS's, including the relevant chapter in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. '" So your commentary about sourcing is just more unnecessary commentary. Your usual "reflects faulty judgement at best and dishonesty at worst" condescension and aspersions have no place here. There is no "assume good faith" when it comes to how you interact with me; so do not pretend that there is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
You are free to consider my arguments faulty. But saying so ad nauseam is not a basis for consensus. The closest any of the above points have come to being addressed is Crossroads' statement that the publisher is an imprint of NAP (which I have since responded to); I'd also generously consider the comment we may need to rely more on primary sources as relevant to my arguments (while still disputing inclusion of Bailey's findings).
Inclusion of what Blanchard concluded is a question of due weight as determined by reliable, secondary sources. There's no policy-based reason for including it just because Blanchard said it; quite the contrary.
I do hope that other users have more to state; consensus is arrived at through reasoned discussion. But that itself is not a reason to include the material; arguments aren't sides in a tug-of-war.
Stating that the material sourced to Bailey can also be sourced to any of many other secondary RS is not the same as providing those sources. I have received the Oxford Textbook chapter from James Cantor, and plan on working it into the article shortly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Your arguments are faulty. Others have noted why. Thanks for your permission to continue to consider them faulty. A word of advice, though? It's best to not be hypocritical with comments such as "But saying so ad nauseam is not a basis for consensus." Also no need to ping Crossroads since he's watching the article. But if he doesn't mind being unnecessarily pinged, that's his preference. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
These repeated assertions that the faulty nature of my arguments has been "noted", without explaining how, is the kind of empty bluster that no one is obliged to consider in weighing consensus. If one can't respond to good-faith objections with reasoned arguments, sources, and references to policy, then they have left the working out of consensus to others who can. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
"[W]ithout explaining how" is another faulty argument. As for the rest, it's just more of your aspersions. How long do you want to keep this pointless back and forth going? Until you have the last word? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Where was it explained? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
And reverted. Yes, wikivoice should be used very little in this article. But the book is a secondary source, as WanderingWanda points out above. As I also said in my edit summary, the book is a huge part of the typology's notability and of the discourse related to it. It is thus very WP:DUE, and it is POV to hamstring the article by censoring it. I did add some extra attribution though.
As for "the controversy over this book is just too great", the controversy over the book is the controversy over the typology, but we don't send the article to AfD because it is a controversial topic. Your description of Joseph Henry Press is somewhat misleading; it is an imprint of the National Academies Press, publisher for the United States National Academy of Sciences. With Bancroft and Dreger, Dreger also reports: "Several people I spoke to about the IASR meeting told me that Bancroft’s remarks did not reflect anything like a consensus of the people in IASR". Dreger does comment on how the book sometimes reports on scientific studies and sometimes is just relating stories ("the way in which Bailey refers offhandedly and irregularly to his methodology"), but in any case, as I said above, there is no basis for cutting out the book entirely. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The material sourced to Bailey can also be sourced to any of many other secondary RS's, including the relevant chapter in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. I'd be happy to email copies to anyone interested.— James Cantor (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@James Cantor: I glanced at that chapter in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. Unfortunately not all of it is available in preview. I'd be grateful for this or any other sources you can email me here. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Sent.— James Cantor (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The statement wikivoice should be used very little in this article is inaccurate. Statements can be in WP:WIKIVOICE when they represent the consensus of reliable sources. The controversy over the book goes beyond the controversy over the typology, as Sanchez & Vilain (2013) and Bancroft (2009) state directly. Whether the book (and its controversy) is a huge part of the typology's notability says nothing about whether it's reliable, or how Bailey's statements satisfy due and undue weight. The remark about AfD is a non-sequitur; this is about accurately representing the views of reliable sources, not eliminating (or "censoring") controversial topics.
Being an "imprint" of the National Academies Press means that Joseph Henry Press has at least some editorial independence; the two should not be considered equivalent.[2] Per WP:SOURCES, we treat academic sources as more reliable than general-interest publishers.
Dreger does cite several anonymous sources alongside Bancroft, which we should be wary of. The only elaboration on the "consensus of the people in IASR" that Dreger gives is about the tone of Bancroft's comment and "civilized discourse" in general, not the merits of his points or of Bailey's book itself.
In Defending Bailey against accusations of misconduct, Dreger in fact says "what Bailey did in terms of learning and relaying the stories of [...] transsexual women was neither systematic nor generalizable", that Bailey "had no interest in scientifically investigating Blanchard’s theory", and that the book "doesn’t even rise to the level of bad science, because it doesn’t even pretend to test or develop a theory". Given this, why should we care what Bailey says about what "gay men" or "homosexual transsexuals" find sexually attractive, for instance? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
To the extent that in-text attribution was used, and the fact that TMWWBQ is widely cited, no matter whether it is accurate or not, it seems okay to include it. OTOH, I notice that WP:MEDRS hasn't come up in this discussion yet, and it probably should, and might trump in-text attribution. Mathglot (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
This topic does fall within the medical realm due to its psychology aspect, but it isn't a heavy medical topic (with so much of it concerning a societal, including political, debate), which is why if it were tagged with the WP:Med WikiProject tag on the talk page, Doc James would remove it. Anyone is obviously free to ping him and ask him if he would remove it. No need to just take my word for it. I mention this because WP:Med has been clear about what is within its scope and why. Just because an article isn't directly within its scope doesn't mean no part of it should adhere to WP:MEDRS, though. On the topic of WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDDATE tells us that its instructions for keeping an article up-to-date "are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." This topic is one such case where little progress is being made and where few reviews are being published and where we may need to rely more on primary sources than we do for other topics within WP:MEDRS's scope. Doc and a number of other WP:Med editors (including myself) apply this aspect of WP:MEDRS to a variety of topics within WP:MEDRS's scope. When it comes to history and society and culture stuff (which this articles deals a lot with), WP:MEDRS is also more relaxed on that (but more so for history material, which WP:MEDDATE specifically mentions). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus for summarily removing the book, as none of the 5 other commenters here have supported that. It is a reliable source for reporting what the proponents of the typology believe, and including that is WP:DUE. As Mathglot noted, it is widely cited for this purpose. And as I said, it is a huge part of the discourse about the typology. As for the "various gender transpositions" bit, the book is being used to show this is a part of Blanchard's theory. It is due to mention, but could be sourced somewhere else. Same goes for the idea that 'homosexual transsexuals' are androphilic, which is a major point in the typology; as for gay men not generally being attracted to trans women, I am baffled as to why this is an issue.
Mathglot's point about MEDRS is important. Still, that blade cuts both ways, hard. Also, as James Cantor noted, other sources exist for these statements. In any case, there is no basis for just removing the book and all statements sourced to it. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Consensus isn't determined by a majority vote. Is TMWWBQ widely cited for these specific statements? If so, it would be good to add some sources to this effect. The context of the citations is important. As for reporting what the proponents of the typology believe, WP:FRINGE applies. Regarding gay men not generally being attracted to trans women, this[3] is a sweeping and subjective claim that is not substantiated in any way. It's like editing Lesbian to say "straight men find lesbians generally unattractive". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC) (link added 14:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC))
"It's like editing Lesbian to say 'straight men find lesbians generally unattractive'." What???? Stating that is like stating "gay men [are] generally [not] attracted to trans women"? And "this is a sweeping and subjective claim that is not substantiated in any way"? What???? What gay men find and do not find sexually attractive is supported by years and years of research on the biology of sexual orientation and conversion therapy/sexual orientation change efforts. Gay men are sexually attracted to male sex characteristics/secondary sex characteristics. They are gay males. If a trans woman passes as a woman, what is it that the gay man finds sexually attractive about that trans woman? What literature supports it? Unless you are talking about a trans woman who has not physically transitioned or is at a certain point in her transition, and have valid sources to support you, your argument about gay men is completely off. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not making any argument about gay men. I'm saying the statement doesn't belong in this article. If there are truly years and years of research on what gay men find attractive, then it should be a trivial matter to find some quality WP:SCHOLARSHIP directly relating it to this topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
You aren't? Didn't look that way to me. And I don't see what years and years of research on what gay men find attractive has to do with the topic at hand. I do see what it has to do with the argument you made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
That's nice, but this isn't a forum. Can we all stick to the topic of improving the article, please? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, following WP:NOTAFORUM might have kept you from absurdly going on about how "this is a sweeping and subjective claim that is not substantiated in any way" and is "like editing Lesbian to say 'straight men find lesbians generally unattractive'." That's not sticking to the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
What you call "absurd", I call a common-sense reason why the statement is WP:UNDUE and doesn't belong. Bailey's book is described as a collection of case studies, not a scientific investigation of sexual attraction or sexual orientation. As such, it cannot be used for generalizations about Bailey's research subjects. If there are actual peer-reviewed or other scholarly RSes that directly comment on whether "gay men find the femininity of homosexual transsexuals very unattractive" in the context of Blanchard's theory, feel free to present them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing that is common sense about "this is a sweeping and subjective claim that is not substantiated in any way" and is "like editing Lesbian to say 'straight men find lesbians generally unattractive'." None at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Then it should be easy to refute, by simply substantiating the disputed claim. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Makes no sense considering that your "this is a sweeping and subjective claim that is not substantiated in any way" and is "like editing Lesbian to say 'straight men find lesbians generally unattractive'" pieces are what I challenged. Your claims are not the subject at hand. And either way, the sexual orientation literature does not support you. Indeed, I wonder what literature you think at all supports the notion that gay men often or typically find trans women sexually attractive and why. If one is speaking of non-passing trans women, those with all or some features that gay men would find sexually attractive, that's different. And again, it would need a valid source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Where did I say anything like gay men often or typically find trans women sexually attractive? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
You stated, "Regarding 'gay men not generally being attracted to trans women', this is a sweeping and subjective claim that is not substantiated in any way." Like I noted, it is not at all a sweeping and subjective statement when it comes to the literature on male sexual orientation. Your statement makes it seem as though gay men often or typically find trans women sexually attractive. I mean, you did challenge the statement that gay men generally are not sexually attracted to trans women. And I'd rather not play a semantics game that you did not challenge this because you were supposedly focused on "gay men find the femininity of homosexual transsexuals very unattractive." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I challenged it because it's unduly weighted in the article. The article is not about gay male sexual orientation. One could conceivably see it that way if one assumed that Blanchard and Bailey are correct in describing MTF transsexuals as "gay men", but that is exactly what makes the theory so contested in the first place.
Sweeping here means "marked by wholesale and indiscriminate inclusion". As in "a sweeping generalization about 'gay men'", i.e. the kind of statement that needs ironclad, peer-reviewed evidence to back it up, not a series of anecdotes like the ones Bailey presents. And it's subjective because it's evidently based on Bailey's interpretation of what trans women told him about themselves rather than any objective laboratory measure. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
You challenged a valid comment that Crossroads made (specifically his "gay men not generally being attracted to trans women" wording). And in that regard, your "this is a sweeping and subjective claim that is not substantiated in any way" statement is not at all supported by the literature. If you want to keep things on topic, then keep them on topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Evidently we have our wires crossed. The statement I challenged was part of the article contents. I called it "sweeping and subjective" by way of responding to Crossroads' remark about being baffled as to why this is an issue. In other words, I explained the issue regarding the article's contents. If the literature proves me wrong in the context of this article, then kindly show where. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mathglot: including a source with little regard for whether it is accurate or not seems to open the door to fringe views. Ultimately the standard is whether a source has a reputation for accuracy, not whether we personally judge it to be so. It would be good to know in what context the book is so widely cited, assuming that's true. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf:, Fringiness is not measured by accuracy. I think this is probably just a semantic disagreement, and we actually agree on the principle. Because in fact, Wikipedia does not assess whether something is accurate or not, it merely relies on reliable sources to determine what articles may say in Wikpedia's voice, with the majority and minority views being included per WP:DUEWEIGHT. In fact, a fringe view, such as, say, objects shrinking and getting heavier as they speed up, or dinosaurs going extinct because of an asteroid, may turn out to be the accurate one in time, but Wikipedia does not weigh in on accuracy, only reliable reporting. Mathglot (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, well, my point is that source(s) with little reputation for accuracy are not considered reliable, and therefore citing them leads to undue weight. I agree that whether a claim is capital-T "true" or not is less important than sticking to quality scholarship. According to Dreger, Bailey's statements about transgender women are "not science". Why would we include such statements in an article on an ostensibly scientific subject, even with attribution? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Statements cited to Bailey (2003)

The following statements from the article appear to be based on Bailey's own "findings" as described in the book, rather than an evaluation/interpretation of Blanchard's theory/research (the pages aren't available in preview):

1.) Bailey states that homosexual transsexuals begin transitioning earlier in life,.[1]: 162  generally before turning 30, which accounts for their supposedly better adjustment. He states that they are also more likely to come from poorer, non-white, or socially marginalized backgrounds...[1]: 183–184 

2.) Bailey argued that homosexual transsexuals are unlikely to transition if their appearance as women would be very unattractive.[1]: 181 

3.) [T]he two kinds of transsexuals rarely interact with each other [online] or appear in the same spaces.[1]: 146 

4.) Bailey writes that gay men find the femininity of homosexual transsexuals very unattractive,[1]: 76–79  and that the homosexual transsexuals themselves are very attracted to masculinity that they have trouble finding in gay men; and that as a result, homosexual transsexuals may be partially motivated by a desire to attract straight men.

  1. ^ a b c d e Bailey, J. Michael (2003). The Man Who Would Be Queen. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press. ISBN 0-309-08418-0.

In addition to the problems mentioned by Dreger and others, Bailey is evidently a primary source for these statements, which are not about Blanchard's typology itself. They are therefore unduly weighted being in the article at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC) (struck part of the above, 08:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC))

A number of flawed arguments regarding what we shouldn't include and why. I don't even know where to begin. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
How about responding with reasons why you find the arguments flawed, as per Wikipedia:Consensus? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Looking over the discussion above, I see that Sangdeboeuf has continued the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tactics as before. Again: Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you....Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with". We have already explained why TMWWBQ can be used occasionally in this article with in-text attribution, as we do; we don't need to explain to Sangdeboeuf's satisfaction, because they could simply never be satisfied and use that as a veto. Quoting WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity.
Regarding TMWWBQ, I stand by this: It is a reliable source for reporting what the proponents of the typology believe, and including that is WP:DUE....[I]t is widely cited for this purpose...it is a huge part of the discourse about the typology....[Certain things are] due to mention, but could be sourced somewhere else. You of course have the right to reply to me and say if you disagree, but if it's not convincing, neither I nor anyone else is obligated to spend time replying again and again until you are satisfied. You individually not being satisfied does not justify removal, as the 5 other participants in this discussion about removing the book did not agree with the proposal. And don't try to argue it's not a consensus because you still disagree - in that case, see the first paragraph of this reply. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I also stand by the statement that Crossroads made above, that starts with "I stand by". Afaic, consensus is established, and further discussion is pointless. Sangdeboeuf, if you feel that it's worth your time, you can always create an Rfc on the topic. Meanwhile, I don't see that busy editors ought to waste any more time with this. Just my 2¢. Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I think an RfC is an excellent idea, and the logical next step assuming no consensus here (I'd refrain from evaluating the present "consensus" as an involved participant). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The parts I quoted are not describing what the proponents of the typology believe; not everything proponents believe is relevant anyway (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Crossroads is apparently confusing satisfaction with substantive engagement with opposing arguments; they have not addressed the arguments that (1) Bailey is a primary source for his own findings, (2) the book has not been vetted by the scholarly community, (3) an "imprint" of the National Academies Press is not a guarantee of academic rigor, and (4) being a huge part of the discourse does not in itself make a source reliable. Nor have they explained why these particular statements are duly weighted. As for sourcing Bailey's claims somewhere else, I'm open to hearing what those alternative sources might be.
Curious about the (so far unproven) claim that Bailey's book is widely cited for describing what proponents of the typology believe, I decided to check the citations on Google Scholar. Looking at just the first page of results, this does not seem to be the case:
In Imagining Transgender: An Ethnography of a Category, David Valentine cites the book as an example of "somewhat questionable ... scientific thought" (p. 61), later writing, "I refuse [Bailey's] assertion that transsexual women are 'really' homosexual men" (p. 239).
In Transgender Emergence, Arlene Istar Lev calls "[Bailey's] descriptive language ... [steeped] in sexist and homophobic commentary" (p. 100), labels as "disturbing" Bailey's assumption that gay men and transsexuals "are lying or denying what he has deemed the 'truth'", and questions Blanchard's and Bailey's attempt to "fit all transsexuals into [their] schema", while noting the book's polarized reception (p. 136).
A paper co-authored by Bailey, "A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal", cites the book as a source on transsexuals' "male-typical pattern of sexual arousal" along with "evidence that psychosexual differentiation is multi-dimensional" (p. 742). Not an independent source, and this isn't a specific reference to Blanchard's theory.
Eric Anderson, author of In the Game: Gay Athletes and the Cult of Masculinity, cites Bailey for the idea that "boys must vigilantly adhere to behaviors coded as the opposite of feminine at all times, something also described as fem-phobia" (p. 28). Not particularly relevant to this topic.
In Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences, Rebecca M. Jordan-Young mentions Bailey as a proponent of various ideas relating to sexual orientation, such as the attention given to "sex-reassigned children without hormone disorders" (p. 75), a proposed "sexual orientation center of the brain" (p. 160), the questioned existence of true bisexuality (p. 170), and sexual orientations as "discrete categories" (p. 171). The author rebuts all these ideas in turn. Not very relevant to Blanchard's theory.
In Assuming a Body: Transgender and Rhetorics of Materiality, Gayle Salamon states in a footnote that Blanchard's & Bailey's autogynephilia theory "replicates with suprising faithfulness" the narcissistic theory of homosexuality, citing Bailey as an example of a "trend" and the augogynephilia theory as a "misreading" and "rejected by most" trans women (p. 198). A fuller description isn't available in the preview, but this seems more or less to be a dismissal of Bailey's claims.
In "Queer Diagnoses", Jack Drescher has a footnote on the controversy surrounding the book and the attacks on Bailey (p. 429). Nothing about the typology itself.
In The Lives of Transgender People, Genny Beemyn and Susan Rankin name Bailey and Blanchard as researchers who consider transsexuality a mental illness, rebutting this view on the next page (pp. 5–6). Not relevant to the typology.
In "Questioning Gender and Sexual Identity: Dynamic Links Over Time", Lisa M. Diamond and Molly Butterworth cite Bailey, among others, for the idea that "the primary 'dilemma' of all transgender experience is a conflict between one’s psychological gender and one’s biological sex", which they reject, citing "increasing evidence that dichotomous models of gender fail to capture the complexity, diversity, and fluidity of transgender experience"; they further cite Bailey as an example of how "conventional understandings of transgender experience, particularly those drawn from the narratives and experiences of self-identified transsexuals ... suggest that transgender women and men typically feel they were born with the 'wrong body'", which they counter with contrary findings of "multiplicity in gender identification". It's hard to see how "conflict between one’s psychological gender and one’s biological sex" and feelings of being "born with the 'wrong body'" are especially relevant to Blanchard's typology. "Autogynephilic" and "homosexual" transsexuals are not mentioned.
In The Transgender Phenomenon, Richard Ekins and Dave King discuss the "storm" over publication of Bailey's "popular account" of Blanchard's theory (not "scientific" or "scholarly" account), and the campaign to discredit the book (p. 88); they identify specific criticisms of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence on p. 90. Their focus throughout is on social trends and history, and how the Bailey controversy fits into such trends. They only use Bailey as a source on the typology itself vis-a-vis the practice of "lumping". This might plausibly be relevant to the statement "transgender women who are attracted to men are part of the same fundamental phenomenon as the most feminine gay men", but one would have to check the book itself to make sure, since the two citations are 16 pages apart.
The independent RSes summarized above do not generally cite TMWWBQ as a source on the typology itself. The ones that do, such as Lev, Salamon, and Valentine, are careful to note the book's controversial reception as well as point out what they see as flaws in the book's arguments. These are reasons not to cite TMWWBQ as the sole source for any important claims. Once again, these are just the first ten results from Google Scholar, representing works that are well-cited themselves. If there is other scholarship that cites Bailey as a source on the typology, I'm open to hearing what it is. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTEVERYTHING is entirely subjective, so if everyone else thinks the info is relevant, it amounts to just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Same goes for the feelings of others that it is WP:DUE; if only you disagree, then it is just your opinion and insisting on it is IDONTLIKEIT. I think "no consensus here" is unlikely, given that 5 out of 6 gave no agreement the book should be summarily removed, which sure looks like a consensus against removal of the sourced content. It also does not bode well for an RfC. In any case, the RfC would be premature, as I didn't yet replace some of the Bailey references with other sources, as I said would be good. I may even cut one or more, depending on the context in Bailey's book. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Repeated assertions based on feelings ... that it is WP:DUE are also entirely subjective. Funny how that works. I've given multiple reasons based in policy and reliable sources why the book should not be used as a sole source; this directly refutes the comparison to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the best argument for retaining the information is a head count, that doesn't bode well for inclusion. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I haven't really dug into the sources myself yet, but if the statements that Sangdeboeuf quoted are just Bailey's own musings about trans people, and aren't based on Blanchard's research, then I actually side with with Sangdeboeuf on removal. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I got hold of a copy of TMWWBQ to check the above statements, and most are indeed just "musings".
#1 should be "According to Blanchard", since Bailey credits him with the idea that homosexual transsexuals begin their transition earlier (p. 162). We have much better sources for this statement already. The part about "better adjustment" and "poorer, non-white, or socially marginalized backgrounds" (pp. 183–4) is based on several personal observations and anecdotes, not published research.
#2 seems to rely on Bailey's assertion that "homosexual men who want to be women tend not to enact that desire useless they can pull it off" (p. 181). He mostly supports this with personal observations and anecdotes, as well as Blanchard's finding that "homosexual transsexuals tend to be physically smaller" than autogynephilic ones. He doesn't cite any specific research by Blanchard for this, which is par for the course in the rest of the book as well.
#3: Bailey doesn't say where this idea comes from. He just says, "the two types of transsexuals rarely show up side by side ... they do not use the same 'gender clinics' ... [and associate] nearly always with their own type" (p. 146).
#4 looks like pure original research. The pages cited are part of a chapter on "gay femininity"; Bailey doesn't say anything here about gay men's perception of homosexual transsexuals at all. Instead, he summarizes some of his own research on gay dating preferences, suggesting a "bias against femininity" among gay men (p. 77). He also quotes the actor Jaye Davidson, known for a role as a transgender woman in The Crying Game (not for being transgender himself), as saying, "Homosexual men love very masculine men. And I'm not a very masculine person" (p.79).
I didn't find anything resembling the second part of the last statement, which doesn't cite a source, although Lawrence's idea that homosexual transsexuals pursue sex reassignment surgery (SRS) out of a desire for greater social and romantic success is covered in the article already. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Some more problematic statements using TMWWBQ as a sole source:

5.) Bailey also argues that autogynephilia tends to appear along with other paraphilias.[1]: 171–172 

Bailey is quite a bit more circumspect here, stating, "Because some [paraphlias] are harmful, I hesitated to link then to autogynephilia" (p. 171), though he does list autogynephilia as a type of paraphilia. On p. 172, Bailey says that men who perform autoerotic asphyxiation are "apparently" both masochistic and autogynephilic since they are often found dressed in women's clothing, and that "autogynephiles ... are more likely to be [sexual] sadists". He doesn't cite any studies in support of either of these claims, nor does he say anything about autogynephilia being linked to other paraphilias in general. This seems to have little to do with Blanchard's typology in any case. (Interestingly, Bailey then speculates on a biological cause for paraphilias based on his "gut feelings", admitting the evidence is "scanty". Some food for thought there.)

6.) Bailey and [Kenneth] Zucker write that non-transgender gay men are also often very feminine when young, but usually learn to live in a more masculine role when they grow up. They argue that homosexual transsexuals differ because they encounter early adversity that prevented them from defeminizing.[1]: 178–179 

This appears to be WP:SYNTH of material from different parts of the text; on pp. 178–9 Bailey describes a study by Richard Green that sought to "predict which boys would become transsexual adults" that specifically chose "feminine" boys as subjects, then research by Kenneth Zucker (not citing any specific study) that "found several predictors of adolescent GID [gender identity disorder]" linked to early adversity. There's nothing specifically about adult masculine roles or comparing "homosexual transsexuals" to any other group based on this research. Separately on p. 184, he says, "The early chaotic backgrounds of so many homosexual transsexuals may help explain why they do not defeminize the way that most very feminine boys do", relating this to their chances of a "conventionally successful future". No specific studies are cited for this claim.

7.) J. Michael Bailey argues that this terminology is appropriate because, according to Blanchard's typology, transgender women who are attracted to men are part of the same fundamental phenomenon as the most feminine gay men.[1]: 146 

On p.146, Bailey doesn't call them "part of the same fundamental phenomenon", whatever that is; he says they are gay men, full stop. And not "according to Blanchard's typology" either; Bailey just says outright, "Succinctly put, homosexual male-to-female transsexuals are extremely feminine gay men, and autogynephilic transsexuals are men erotically obsessed with the image of themselves as women." The idea here that trans women aren't really women is one of the main reasons the book is controversial in the first place. Having this in the § Criticism section implies that Bailey was specifically responding to criticism, which would be improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC) (edited 06:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC))

If there are any lingering doubts on whether we should treat TMWWBQ extremely skeptically as a source, Bailey himself states on p. 145: We know little about the causes of either type of transsexualism ['homosexual' or 'autogynephilic'] (though we have some good hunches about one type). But I am certain that when we finally do understand, the causes of the two types will be completely different. Obviously, "hunches" and vague predictions of future knowledge are not the same as science. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology

@James Cantor: Thanks for that source. On page 603 where you write that autogynephilia "nullifies" attraction to women or produces "secondary interest in men", and that autogynephilic MTFs are "not conspicuously cross-gendered in childhood", etc., is this a summary of Blanchard's interpretation of his studies' results, or your own independent evaluation of his findings? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

1. No: I wrote that (or conveyed Blanchard's idea that) asexual transsexuals represent cases in which the autogynephilia nullifies the gynephilia, and that bisexual transsexuals represent cases for whom the autogynephilia has produced a secondary interest in men or pseudobisexuality. I did not (and Blanchard did not) say anything as broad as what you describe.
2. Both, really. I've read the original studies, Blanchard's view and reviews of his own studies, and I come to the same conclusion of the evidence as Blanchard (and Bailey, and Lawrence...).— James Cantor (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Re: #1, this is actually what I meant: that the "nullification" and "secondary interest" apply to asexual and bisexual MTFs respectively (I guess I should have said "and" instead of "or"). James Cantor seems to confirm that this is Blanchard's idea. Since the basic idea here of autogynephilia as an overriding sexual orientation is challenged by Moser (2010) — "How individuals develop their specific sexual interests is a basic and unanswered question in sexology ... autogynephilia does not seem to be an orientation overshadowing other traditional orientations" — I think we should present this with in-text attribution to Blanchard; that way we avoid the suggestion that this is settled science. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
No, that would be to repeat the same mistake: Neither Blanchard (nor I) said anything as broad as how Moser mischaracterizes. He is fighting a straw-man.— James Cantor (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Attributing controversial ideas to their source is rarely a mistake; it's part of NPOV. How does the idea that autogynephila "nullifies" gynephilia in asexual individuals not imply that it's an orientation "overshadowing" another orientation? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Blanchard did not say, and I did not say, anything about asexuals in general (or about bisexual in general), as Moser (and you) erroneously describe. This is not attributing an idea to its source, it is making up an idea that's not in the source to begin with.— James Cantor (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
We seem to be talking past one another; I was not referring to asexuals in general, but to asexual transsexual individuals such as you describe on pp. 602–603: The asexual individuals represent those cases in which the autogynephilia nullifies or overshadows the person's erotic attraction to women. This seems to be contradicted by Moser's statement autogynephilia does not seem to be an orientation overshadowing other traditional orientations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. In Moser's quote, he is talking about autogynephilia in general overriding sexual orientation in general, whereas Blanchard was referring to more specific situations. To pit Moser's comment against Blanchard's (or my summary of Blanchard's) is to make them, erroneously, appear to be in disagreement when they are actually non-sequiturs.— James Cantor (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Moser evidently reviewed the same papers you cited in that paragraph (Blanchard 1985 & 1989). I think we can assume he's aware of the specific situations Blanchard describes. When he says autogynephilia does not overshadow sexual orientation in general, that would logically imply that it doesn't overshadow sexual orientation in any specific case, such as in asexual individuals. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I have known both of these men for two decades and have read nearly all of what they have written. I have as solid an idea of what they meant and mean as a person can. Nevertheless, I would never ask anyone here simply to trust me, whereas you feel perfectly comfortable insisting on what you merely assume. To demonstrate the falsity of your assumption, let us return to the content of the RS's: Your quote of Moser edited out this part: "according to Blanchard's (1993a) definition of orientation, autogynephilia does not seem to be an orientation overshadowing other traditional orientations" (italics added). If you go to Blanchard (1993a), you will see that Blanchard never provides a definition of orientation in the first place. (!) He does, however, say autogynephilia might be characterized as a sexual orientation (and that orientations encompass behavior). So: No, I would not assume anything of Moser, and I suggest sticking to the actual contents of the RSs rather than any assumptions about their authors.— James Cantor (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I haven't read the 1993 paper, but Moser quotes Blanchard as saying that orientation includes "courtship, love, and cohabitation with a partner of the preferred sex; for autogynephilic men, it includes the desire to achieve, with clothing, hormones, or surgery, an appearance like the preferred self-image of their erotic fantasies". Regardless, the meaning of "orientation" seems straightforward. The basic questions are: (1) Is gynephilia a sexual orientation? Yes. (2) Did Blanchard state that gynephilia could be overshadowed in certain cases? Yes. (3) Does Moser state that AGP is unlikely to overshadow other orientations generally? Yes. Based on this, I don't think we can present the idea that "autogynephilia nullifies or overshadows [asexual transsexuals'] erotic attraction to women" as uncontested fact. Even Blanchard himself says whether the basic idea is true "can be resolved only by further research". All I'm suggesting is that we use in-text attribution for this statement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Citation style

Many of the citations in this article are formatted in the Vancouver style with the |vauthors= parameter. Since this is a social-sciences topic, and since most of the available sources seem to prefer APA style, it seems logical to use that style in the article. When using the drop-down {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} templates in the edit window, something like APA style is already the default, at least for author names. If there are no objections, I'll switch the remaining Vancouver-style citations over in the coming days. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology/Archive_6&oldid=944462137"