Jump to content

Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

both autogynephilic and homosexual transsexuals were shown to benefit from transition

The 3rd sentence of the article is currently: "Blanchard's typology broke from earlier ones in that neither group was considered falsely transsexual; both autogynephilic and homosexual transsexuals were shown to benefit from transition." The sentence cites this article, page 415:

Dreger AD (June 2008). "The controversy surrounding 'The man who would be queen': a case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the Internet age". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 37 (3): 366–421.

On page 415 is the following text, which I assume is the basis for the citation:

The controversy over Bailey’s book has allowed his critics to lump together the work of Bailey, Blanchard, and Anne Lawrence as a monolithic, containable, anti-trans-rights theoretic entity known as ‘‘the Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence theory’’. But this strikes me as a blatant mischaracterization at several levels. First, in a move I think could only be labeled pro-trans-rights, Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence have each actively argued that the chief determinant of whether transwomen should have access to SRS is whether or not individual transwomen are better off. Blanchard and Lawrence have done the work to show that they generally are better off. (In-text, parenthetical citations omitted.)

The second part of the sentence, "... both autogynephilic and homosexual transsexuals were shown to benefit from transition" implies that individuals classified "autogynephilic transexuals" and "homosexual transsexuals" prior to SRS treatment demonstrated positive post-treatment benefits, and, most importantly, the sentence implicitly lends legitimacy to Blanchard's classification scheme by associating it with "positive" research results. Instead of citing Dreger (2008), I suggest referencing a study (or a systematic review or meta-analysis) based on a clearly defined classification protocol, including reporting interrater reliability statistics, that was employed prior to SRS treatment and which also conducted post-treatment outcome assessments. Otherwise, page 415 of the Dreger article does not support the statement (the second half of the sentence). // I do not mean to reprehend Dreger's excellent article. I simply don't see it supporting the statement.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think in context, we might want to reword it to something like Dreger states that Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence all agree that any trans women who would benefit from SRS should receive SRS, since the important claim in context is not whether trans women actually do benefit from SRS, but that Blanchard et al agree that is the case. Loki (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Well said. I agree.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I adjusted the statement because presenting the reader with "SRS" and not explaining what that is will confuse them, but I am fine with this: Alice Dreger stated that Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence all agree that any trans woman who would benefit from sex reassignment surgery should receive it.[3]:415 Putting "trans woman" in singular also sounds more grammatically correct to me. Crossroads -talk- 03:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Nice! This is a great example of three editors working cooperatively to achieve higher quality prose.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup tag(s) for this article

For the record, I believe this article should be tagged with a cleanup "banner" (tag) indicating that its neutrality is in dispute. I stated in my edit note (when I added the {{POV}} tag), "In the spirit of compromise I am adding only one cleanup template, although I believe the article merits a "multiple issues" tag" (diff). Nonetheless, another editor undid my edit. I had also previous added a "multiple issues" tag with the following cleanup indicators (tags): {{cleanup rewrite}}, {{review}}, {{tone}}, {{verbosity}}, and {{unbalanced}}, also deleted by another editor. I am not going to engage in an edit war, therefore I will not add any cleanup tags to this article, even though I believe the article suffers from several problems. Instead I will focus on individual edits on the article's content.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

My comments on the state of the article are seen here and here. I'm linking to them because I'd rather not repeat them. You added Template:POV, not Template:Cleanup. And to repeat what I stated when reverting you, this supposed POV has not been demonstrated. Template:POV is clear about how it is supposed to be used. Simply claiming that there is a POV issue is not enough. I'd rather not have an RfC on tags, but we might have to have one. And I would ping editors from the #"Controversial" in lede section to weigh in if we did have such an RfC. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand your criticism. Yes, as I wrote, I added {{POV}}, which produces this banner: .   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Eh? My criticism is you talking about adding a cleanup template in the edit summary, but adding Template:POV as if POV issues rather than personal opinions have been demonstrated on this talk page on the matters you take issue with and as if there is consensus on POV issues in the article. And stating "this article should be tagged with a cleanup 'banner' (tag)" in this section when Template:POV is a different template. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I very much agree this article still has a pretty clear POV. It also does need some significant cleanup, since again, it's written as if it was a battleground for an edit war. But the edit war appears to be one that the Blanchard side mostly won, since it's a long article about all the details of and support for a marginal theory that isn't used in practice and which major organizations in the field say lacks empirical support, with a mostly separate "criticism" section. Which is to say, I think it's more precisely a WP:UNDUE issue. Loki (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
"A pretty clear POV" tells us nothing. That's just your opinion. And we both know you would consider this article a POV issue no matter what. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the need for any tags, including the POV tag. Template:POV states, The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. We have multiple editors on each 'side' already and are all set in that regard. It also states, The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. (Emphasis added.) I'm just not seeing any specific issues that are actionable other than the ones we've already been handling. If there were any, then we can fix them now. This isn't one of those articles with few watchers where an editor might happen upon it, notice the issue, not know how to fix it, and tag it for a future editor to clean up. It also states, The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. Almost all of the primary sources were expunged a while back; what remains, as far as I am aware, is based on the WP:Secondary, WP:Scholarship sources about this topic. It's those sources that have "won". Crossroads -talk- 04:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen - I think I discovered the source of our misunderstandings. I am using the adjective, "cleanup", as in "cleanup tag", and "cleanup template", and to refer to template messages listed at WP:CLEANUPTAG, but you are referring to Template:Cleanup specifically. I shall henceforth use the most precise wording possible during our discussions on this talk page to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It's more than that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Question? I don't know what you mean.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Rewriting article for conciseness, balance, and encyclopedic tone & content

I made edits (diff) to make the lede more concise, accurate, and balanced (neutral point of view, avoid "wikivoice", etc.).

I added a multiple issues cleanup tag indicating that the article ...

I made some further edits and gave edit summaries:
  • [1] Tightening up in-text attribution
  • [2] Even though you've been engaging on the talk page, this ultimately has the effect of WP:Drive-by tagging: "Adding tags for non-obvious or perceived problems—without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed". Let's discuss issues there instead.
  • [3] Bringing back previous lead content per WP:Lead: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." It makes sense to cover *and cite* its supporters and critics, and the reasons for each.
  • [4] What sources say "hypothesized"? It wasn't just hypothesized; supporters argue that it has been experimentally supported. Also, when removing lead content you mentioned discussing on Talk. I will, but I will also follow WP:BRD.
Crossroads -talk- 16:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Which tag or tags seem appropriate to you?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The prose is clunky and longer than necessary. I'll work on a revision that I will post here first.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I did get a bit overzealous. My bad.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: the three previous brief comments by Markworthen were in reply to edits 2, 3, and 4 in my previous comment, respectively. I repaired mine per WP:TPO. Also, no tags are needed, as explained below by Flyer22 Frozen; I will also say more. Crossroads -talk- 03:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I replaced "hypothetical" (which you'd taken out) with "proposed" which I hope conveys the intended meaning without implying that the existence of the theory itself is hypothetical.
Oh, I like "proposed"! It is a significant improvement to what I had written.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I also feel that at least some of those tags ought to be there but I'm not entirely sure which. I would say the general overall problem with this article is that it feels like it's written by someone who wanted to stuff everything Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence ever said about their theory or their critics into a single article, and then someone else added a bunch of stuff those critics said "for balance" without taking any of the dubious stuff out.
Which is to say, I agree it has some kind of NPOV issue, and I also tend to agree the tone is off. Could go either way on the WP:SOAP tag: it sorta feels like it was originally written by someone on a soapbox and maintains some of that DNA, but there's enough from critics of the theory now I'm not sure it's really 100% soapboxy. Loki (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
That is a superb analysis of the article's shortcomings Loki. Thank you.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
None of the tags belong. And proposing to add the tags without being "entirely sure which" is poor practice and can be considered using tags as a bad badge of shame, which is something Template:POV advises against.
Regarding "someone who wanted to stuff everything Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence ever said about their theory or their critics into a single article"? The article gives important background detail on the matter and summarizes the research without leaving out important detail. That is what we are supposed to do. I see no WP:NOTEVERYTHING violation in the current version.
I'm fine with going with "proposed" as a compromise. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. I did not add the cleanup templates as a badge of shame.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
But were you the one who proposed to add the tags without being "entirely sure which" should be added? No? Then that part of my comment does not apply to you. If you agree with adding tags without being "entirely sure which" should be added, then that part of my comment does apply to you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. I hope we can work toward compromise/consensus.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
To be clear for others, Markworthen is disagreeing with the second paragraph of my "23:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Markworthen, per WP:TALKO, could please not cut into people's posts, like you cut into Crossroads's "16:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)" post and LokiTheLiar's "16:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)" post above? It makes for confused reading...even with you signing the comments you interleaved. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
And if I do it the way you want, other editors will complain. It's a no-win scenario, which is why efforts have been/are being made to improve the structure and organization of talk pages.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
No, they won't. They overwhelmingly complain when editors cut into their comments. And I am among those who complain when it's done. The piece I pointed you to at WP:TALKO came about as a result of an extensive RfC. Despite the fact that I asked you not to cut into people's posts and pointed you to WP:TALKO, you cut into my post. I moved my post back to the way I had it. I'm not going to sign each of my points just to make the text easier to read because you cut into my post. I again ask that you do not cut into people's posts. I will not discuss things with you like that. There is nothing at all difficult about adhering to WP:TALKO and replying to points underneath a person's reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, since you asked again I will comply with your request. But I will not be surprised if another editor objects.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "not entirely sure which" suggests a person with an open mind.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen - I also don't follow your "poor practice" --> "badge of shame" statement. It does not compute.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

If you do not understand how it's poor practice for a person to propose to add the tags without being "entirely sure which" should be added, I don't know what to tell you, except that templates such as Template:POV are explicitly against such a thing and the vast majority of Wikipedia editors would state the same in an RfC. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Commenting more on this in the following section. Crossroads -talk- 03:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen - Well, it's just your opinion anyway, so I'll move on.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not "just my opinion." We do not add tags like that. I do not see what could not be clearer about what Template:POV states. And I see no need to point to other templates that state similarly. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

C-class for WP:PSYCH & WP:LGBT

I changed the quality rating for WP:PSYCH and WP:LGBT (I am a member of both WikiProjects) from B-class to C-class. The article does not satisfy these B-class criteria:

B-Class Criteria 2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. - The article reads like a grad student literature review. It is significantly longer than necessary with excessive detail. In addition, the point of view is not neutral, despite the inclusion of a criticism section and mention of disagreement in the lede. The scientific evidence for Blanchard's typology is limited, to put it generously.

B-Class Criteria 6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. - Suggested goal: Copy edit the article for concision and clarity (using plain English as much as possible).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with this assessment. I've read many grad student literature reviews, and have to deal with WP:Student editing often. This article isn't like those badly written Wikipedia essay articles or grad student papers. This is a controversial topic, obviously, and the article relays both sides in ways that satisfy WP:Due. The detail is just enough to adequately relay the topic. We shouldn't be downsizing in any way that will be a disservice to readers. And I would not be for any downsizing unless it is justified with solid arguments.
Cutting the lead like this was not a good move since it left the lead inadequate and not in accordance with WP:Lead. It's good that it was reverted.
As for the statement that "The scientific evidence for Blanchard's typology is limited, to put it generously."? Similar can be stated of the evidence against it. I've read it all. Like you stated in the section immediately below this, "Some of his hypotheses have generated empirical support and some haven't, a conclusion true of most prominent scientists." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Flyer22 Frozen - I disagree with your assessment of the article's quality. Your other captious remarks are off-topic.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
They are not. How you think commenting on you commenting on the lead when you brought up the lead, and commenting on your "The scientific evidence for Blanchard's typology is limited, to put it generously." piece, are off-topic, is beyond me. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
trash Redundant   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"Controversial" in lede

There is a clear consensus against the original proposal of using the word "controversial" in the first sentence of the article. (t · c) buidhe 05:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I suspect this will end up as an RfC eventually, but I'd like to try to discuss it first:

Should the first sentence of this article read Blanchard's transsexualism typology is a psychological typology... or Blanchard's transsexualism typology is a controversial psychological typology...? (i.e. should the lede include the word "controversial"?) Loki (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  • My argument for including "controversial" is that we have something like half the sources in the article souring it. Plus the article itself is structured in a way that makes the controversial nature of the theory pretty damn clear. If we can't call a theory that has well-sourced support and criticism sections in the lede plus a sourced explicit note that it has been the "subject of controversy" controversial, I don't know what could possibly qualify. Also, out of just the first 10 sources, sources 1 (Bancroft 2009), 3 (Dreger 2008), 5 (Dreger 2015), 7 (Sanchez and Vilain 2013) and 10 (Serano 2010) all directly describe the theory as controversial, 9 (Nichols 2014) describes the theory as receiving criticism, and I couldn't check 2 (Lawrence 2013) or 8 (Bailey 2003) since they're full books I don't have access to. Loki (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No. This is a violation of WP:LABEL, which specifically lists "controversial" as a word to watch. Regarding Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies., are editors really going to claim that as long as we are not describing a person, it's no longer subjective, vague, or value-laden? It's still in the words to watch, which applies regardless of the subject, and is still value laden, which means it is best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. It just comes across as telling the reader what to think and especially as poisoning the well. How many sources call it controversial in the very first sentence describing it? If few or none do so, it's WP:Undue weight and hence POV too. Crossroads -talk- 20:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Okay, building on my last sentence, the proper point of comparison is not how many sources call it controversial somewhere in the text (which the article has long done), but how many call it controversial in the first sentence about it, which is what is now being argued for. Since LokiTheLiar brings up the first ten sources, let's now re-examine them and ask, does the descriptor appear in the lead sentence? If not, then where?
    • (1) Bancroft 2009: No. Does not appear until 6th sentence, 2nd paragraph about the typology.
    • (2) Lawrence 2013: No. Does not appear until page 40.
    • (3) Dreger 2008: No, surprisingly. While "controvers[y/ial]" appears in the paper's very title and abstract, and throughout the text, after checking these with "find", these all appear to be about Bailey's book The Man Who Would Be Queen, which is a distinct topic. The book's presentation of the typology differed from that of other sources, as the previous Bancroft source noted, and much of the criticism of the book is about things that are not part of the typology (such as its use of certain trans women as examples).
    • (4) Guillamon et al 2016: No. Appears nowhere regarding the typology.
    • (5) Dreger 2015: No. Appears in 3rd sentence of the paragraph that describes the typology.
    • (6) Cantor & Sutton 2014: No. No mention of controversy anywhere in the text regarding autogynephilia or regarding the typology of gender dysphoria.
    • (7) Sanchez & Vilain 2013: No. The two groups of the typology are first discussed on page 44. The term 'controversial' appears in the 3rd sentence of a paragraph about Blanchard noting the differences, but this is after other paragraphs about a "bimodal trend" and "dichotomous labels". It does later list autogynephilia as one of several "controversies" on page 46.
    • (8) Bailey 2003: No. Discussion of the typology begins on page 145. "Controvers[y/ial]" in regard to the typology does not appear until page 179.
    • (9) Nichols 2014: No. The first page only refers to Bailey's book as controversial, a full paragraph after describing the typology. It does say that Blanchard and Lawrence have "come under attack" and "received criticism".
    • (10) Serano 2010: Mostly yes. Autogynephilia is called controversial in the first sentence of the main text, but not in the abstract.
    • While #5 and #8 are not academic WP:Scholarship, the others are. The vast majority do not call the typology controversial right away in the first sentence describing it. To seize on the Serano source and ignore all the rest is a violation of WP:Due weight. We need to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES. Crossroads -talk- 22:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know why you bothered to do this, since there's obviously no requirement anywhere that a RS for a WP:LABEL must say the label in the first sentence describing it in the source. Nor is there any requirement that any RS source any claim in a specific place within that source. That would be absurd. This is an obvious attempt to move the goalposts once you've realized how strongly the RSes are against your position. (As for your other arguments: it certainly is a value-laden term, which is why WP:LABEL says to only use terms like it with abundant reliable sources. But we have abundant reliable sources, obvious goalpost-moving notwithstanding.) Loki (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It is you who is moving the goalposts by using sources that describe it (or a book which is a distinct topic) as controversial somewhere as proof that we need to call it controversial in the first sentence. The dispute is not about the use of the term in an absolute sense, but about it being in the lead sentence. Placement in the source is therefore highly relevant. As for WP:LABEL, again, there is a requirement for in-text attribution for such labels. Crossroads -talk- 03:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • That is still not how this works. I agree, the existence of enough reliable sources to defeat WP:LABEL doesn't necessarily mean we should describe it as controversial in the first sentence of the article. For that we go to WP:LEDE, which says The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Or in other words, the lede should reflect the rest of the article, and the rest of the article (even the rest of the lede) certainly seems to think the theory is controversial. Loki (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No, per Crossroads's excellent arguments. And this pseudo RfC should likely be turned into an actual RfC. This, this, this and this back and forth (followup note here) will get this article full-protected. And I might request that. Like I stated in my edit summaries, "[WP:LABEL] obviously does [apply to calling a concept controversial]. We already go over the controversial aspect in the final paragraph [of the lead]. Where are the academic sources stating that [this typology is] controversial overall [rather than especially in the transgender community]? Just like other terms at WP:LABEL, editors apply the term 'controversial' to things other than people [and therefore WP:LABEL with respect to 'controversial' to more than just people]. This is partly why we have the WP:Criticism essay. [I] will leave a note about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch." I will also notify Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for wider input. Take note that LokiTheLiar already notified WP:LGBT. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I might also eventually will also leave a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) since this concerns interpreting a guideline and the "controversial" part of WP:LABEL might be reworded as a result of this. I'd been thinking for sometime that an editor might try to state that "controversial" doesn't apply beyond referring to people simply because the example given in the guideline is a reference to "an individual", and that this part of the guideline should probably be reworded. I crossed out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine above (although this topic does somewhat fall within their realm, such as with regard to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources and autogynephilia's inclusion within the DSM), but I might contact them eventually. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • A few of the sources above mention it's controversial among scientists as well. We also do mention that there are scientists who both support and oppose the theory, but at least a gesture towards establishing some idea of the size of each side (i.e. that it's not an overall well-accepted theory with a few detractors) is IMO important for avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE. Loki (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Good point Loki. I agree. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm obviously aware that some professionals disagree with the typology. But which sources specifically state "controversial among scientists"? And which scientists? I haven't seen the typology be controversial among sexologists in the general sense. Notice that I stated "especially in the transgender community"? I've seen the typology be more so controversial within the transgender community than among sexologists. And, yes, it's obvious that we shouldn't make it seem that the typology is some well-accepted thing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Our citation quote of the Nichols source is Blanchard and Lawrence have received criticism from transgender activists, but more significant is that sexologists and sex therapists are now critics of the theory. I am one of those critics, and so this review is written from that perspective. Loki (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Stating that "sexologists and sex therapists are now critics of the theory" does not equate to the typology being controversial among sexologists in general. That is my point. Obviously, he's not speaking of all sexologists...since prominent sexologists such as James Cantor support the typology. I also notice "now" in that sentence. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No, but the fact it is controversial should be (and does appear to be ) covered in the lede. Putting it in the first sentence puts that judgement in Wikivoice right away which affects the tone off the bat as it makes our article sound like we (Wikipedia) are being judgmental off the bat. After introducing its principles, then introducing the fact it's controversial in Wikivoice isn't an issue and seems to be a requirement to summarize the article. --Masem (t) 23:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No - Showing the controversial nature of the theory will educate readers more effectively than telling them that it's controversial. ¶ Side note: IMHO the lede contains more detail than necessary, but I don't know a lot about this topic so will defer to other editors to write a more concise lede, if desired.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I read some articles and book chapters to enhance my understanding of this topic. In doing so, I realized I was more familiar with the literature than I had recalled at first.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blanchard comments on the now-deleted autogynephilia article

In a tweet from today, Ray Blanchard writes: "Although autogynephilia is one of the most common erotic variations in men and a major risk factor for gender dysphoria, it does not have its own page in Wikipedia, but rather is ensconced in a page entitled “Blanchard's Transsexualism Typology.”". He then implies it may have been censored. (inb4 someone says a tweet isn't a source – I posted this for interested editors not as an edit suggestion!). Sxologist (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Anybody typing "autogynephilia" into the search box will be redirected straight to the appropriate part of the article where the concept is explained fairly. Given that it is a non-mainstream concept which only makes sense within the context of his personal typology it makes sense to cover it here as a part of that typology. It doesn't really have an independent existence that would justify a separate article. Our coverage seems more than fair. If he thinks that this is censorship then that is up to him but I don't see it as a concern for us. I suspect that many other people with non-mainsream theories would be glad to be covered to such an extent. If the concept were to gain greater mainstream acceptance then the situation could change but, at least for now, I don't see any need to change the way we handle this. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Blanchard can be pointed to Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology/Archive 5#Request for Comment on material in Autogynephilia vs Blanchard's transsexualism typology vs Transsexualism for why there is no Autogynephilia article. He's obviously not familiar with policies guidelines like WP:No page. Either way, as seen in that archived discussion I linked to, my argument against having an Autogynephilia article has not a thing to do with censorship. If it did, I would not have challenged the view that autogynephilia Blanchard's typology falls under WP:Fringe, stating, "The causes of transsexuality are not well understood; there is no general agreement about what causes it or even what doesn't cause it (except perhaps that rearing doesn't influence a person's true gender identity), and a number of sexologists and other researchers support Blanchard's typology. But, yeah, Blanchard's typology is controversial in the transgender community (although there are some transgender women who support the typology)." Autogynephilia's mainstream enough to be in the DSM-5. Also, I'm not stating that any person who argues that autogynephilia falls under WP:Fringe is trying to censor the topic; I was just pointing out that my argument against creating an Autogynephilia article wasn't coming from a biased/personal viewpoint on the concept. On a side note: While what Blanchard states about Wikipedia will be interesting to some, having a discussion about it falls under WP:Not a forum. A discussion like this can inflame things. I know that it's noted that the post was not made as an edit suggestion. But editors (and some readers who happen to look at this talk page) were still going to discuss it unless the post was ignored. I don't think it had a chance of being ignored. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

RationalWiki

Thread retitled from "Should be listed under Pseudoscience".

Blanchards Typology is no longer up for debate its long been considered unfalsifiable pseudoscience as Rationalwiki has said since 2008 https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Autogynephilia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transvampire (talk • contribs) 11:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Rational Wiki is not a reliable source. That doesn't mean that they are wrong, it just means that we can't use them as source material. Of course, they have a list of references for their article and some of those are potentially valid for us to use as references.
One of the frustrating things here is that Blanchard's "typology" is so unhelpful that serious scholars generally don't want to waste their time engaging with it and so there isn't a large enough corpus of genuinely scholarly work debunking it as pseudo-science for us to determine an academic consensus. Serious scholars don't think that it needs much debunking and they have other things to be getting on with. Of course, the people on the sharp end of it don't see it that way. It feeds into a lot of unnecessary nonsense that makes their lives worse and frustration with that is completely understandable.
I understand the desire to get categories like "pseudoscience" and phrases like "discredited" into the article but we don't have the unimpeachable sources required to back up such definitive categorisations or descriptions. In the longer term, I'm pretty confident that such sources will emerge. History will not be kind to it. In fact, it may be that it will be the historians and not the scientists who make the final judgement on it. In the meantime, the article does a good job of making clear that it is just a proposal and that it is not very widely accepted. We note that critics like Serano regard it as "unscientific" and summarise the reasons for saying that. That is as far as we are able to go for the time being. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Very nice answer. - Daveout(talk) 17:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree! A wise, cogent explanation DanielRigal. Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Although Blanchard's theories are WP:FRINGE by Wikipedia's definition of the term, I agree we can't call them "discredited" or "psuedoscience" in Wikipedia's voice: the sourcing just isn't there. One word that sources *do* often use, even sources that are pro-Blanchard, is "controversial". WanderingWanda (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's how WP:FRINGE applies here. Specifically, WP:FRINGE repeatedly indicates that controversy means among the relevant experts. Within Blanchard's field, this is settled science, and new articles integrating it continue to be entirely consistent. (Having now accepted it, the field has largely moved past trying just to identify its existence and essential characteristics.) The idea is contested, however, by activists who dislike the political implications they perceive.
Regarding "how history will perceive...", I cannot help but wonder when. The (now banned) editor who brought these battles to WP said exactly the same thing...almost 15 years ago now, regarding research that Blanchard began publishing about >15 years before that. There have been very many revolutions in sexology over these 30+ years, but Blanchard's work continues to stand up. If relying on future evidence were how science worked, we could claim the Earth is 5000 years old. Such thinking is simply refusing to accept the actual evidence. The concern with how one will look is exactly the subjectivity that science seeks to avoid. It is just as true for activists as WP editors. The more worried about one's looks, the harder to be honest.— James Cantor (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Do you seriously believe every single bi or lesbian trans woman is AGP. How do you respond to rationalwiki calling your theory unfalsifiable pseudoscience?Transvampire (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I seriously believe (1) the content of the evidence, (2) that the claim on rationalwiki is unsourced and from a page already tagged for not being properly sourced, and (3) that you will be a better editor in this topic if you calm down.— James Cantor (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Within Blanchard's field, this is settled science. Tell that to Guillamon et al., who write. "to fully confirm [Blanchard's] hypothesis [of brain dimorphism], more independent studies on nonhomosexual MtFs are needed". Blanchard has written that his own "theoretical statements" about autogynephilia need further empirical research to resolve. Carla Pfeffer writes that there is "little empirical basis" for autogynephilia as a sexual identity. Smith et al. (2015) write that there are "substantiated doubts about the validity of such a classification", citing Moser (2010). Sánchez & Vilain describe the theory under the heading of "Controversies". Doesn't sound very settled to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
None of those quotes says what you are claiming they say. Guillamon is calling for more research to continue confirming Blanchard's ideas, which is perfectly fair. But to interpret "not yet fully confirmed" to mean "disconfirmed" is a complete failure of NPOV. Whether autogynephilia is an identity is irrelevant: It was the activists and not Blanchard basing things on identity: That is, there is no evidence to support the activists' view of autogynephilia, not Blanchard's. The others also fall along exactly the lines I described: Non-sexologists are making political comments, but are not providing evidence (and you cite none). Vilain is indeed a genuine sexologist, and he is strong supporter of autogynephilia. He outline the controversy exactly as I described here: the controversy is among the activists, not the researchers.— James Cantor (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, FWIW, the research Guillamon was calling for has now been conducted and published in the years since he wrote the above:
  • Burke, S. M., Manzouri, A. H., & Savic, I. (2017). Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Nature: Scientific Reports, 7:17954. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-17352-8
  • Kim, T.-H., Kim, S.-K., & Jeong, G.-W. (2015). Cerebral gray matter volume variation in female-to-male transsexuals: A voxel-based morphometric study. Clinical Neuroscience, 26, 1119–1225.
  • Manzouri, A., & Savic, I. (2019). Possible neurobiological underpinnings of homosexuality and gender dysphoria. Cerebral Cortex, 29, 2084–2101.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I didn't say "disconfirmed", I said it wasn't "settled". Charles Allen Moser is a sexologist, whose substantiated and peer-reviewed criticisms of the theory are noted by Sánchez & Vilain and Smith et al.. It's not clear what further "evidence" I need to provide to show that the theory is controversial among researchers. Blanchard and Lawrence have both argued for autogynephilia as a sexual orientation, i.e. an identity as Pfeffer (2016) uses the term. To dismiss her chapter in The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies as mere "political comments" is the real NPOV failure, I think. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
(1) I didn't mean to attribute the word "disconfirmed" to you personally, but to the thread. I apologize if it so seemed, but you nonetheless prove my own point, not yours: "Settled science" is not the standard here. As you can see, the accusations have been about complete dismissal as pseudoscience, which your own descriptions contest. (2) Moser is a GP in full time practice in San Francisco. He is a kink activist who writes, as I keep saying, commentaries about his political views (mostly about how no atypical sexual interest should ever receive a diagnosis), not evidence on this topic. (3) You answer your own question. What I ask that anyone show is what the relevant WP policy asks for. (4) You are not responding to the other parts of my comment, so must conclude the silence on those points to mean you concede them.— James Cantor (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Forgot: I need to call out the language slippage again: Blanchard and Lawrence do point out that autogynephilia is akin to a sexual orientation, but (as I said) they did not compare it to an identity. That Pfeffer demonstrably misapplies the term is neither here nor there for the actual evidence. I am not dismissing a chapter as mere political comments. I am pointing out that the WP standard pertains to the experts on the topic itself, who are the sexual scientists, whereas "LGBTQ Studies" is a political discipline focused on the implications of those findings rather than on the findings themselves. Political scientists can certainly comment on the implications of a sexuality being a brain phenomenon, but they are not qualified to know whether an MRI study on that sexuality was correctly conducted.— James Cantor (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
If "settled science" is not the standard, then why bring it up? "Sexual orientation identity" and "sexual identity" are other terms for sexual orientation. Which is not an issue that a brain scan has ever been able to diagnose (feel free to correct me there). I think you had better take your complaints about LGBT studies to RS/N. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
(1) In contesting the term "disconfirmed" you wrote "wasn't settled." Rephrase it however you wish: It does not change my point, nor any of the other points for which you have no response. (2) No, those terms are not synonyms: Different authors define them in different ways, and one cannot apply one author's definition to another author's statements. (3) I have already posted the current neuroimaging evidence above, and they answer your question. (4) That question is entirely irrelevant to my point: I do not contest LGBT Studies as an RS. I point out that political experts are not scientific experts and that the WP standard for scientific topics is for acceptance among the scientific, not the political, sources.— James Cantor (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
If you look over your own comments in this thread, you will see you were the one who called the theory "settled science". I responded to your comment specifically, citing sources that show otherwise. I'm not making any comment on whether Blanchard's theory is "fringe", "disconfirmed", or "discredited".
Pfeffer (2016) refers to the idea that so-called autogynephilic trans women are "primarily attracted not to women but to the idea of themselves as women" as a description of a sexual identity category. This is exactly how Blanchard and Lawrence describe autogynephilia as an orientation. Where do the MRI studies support this notion?
Minor point, but Pfeffer is a sociologist. Sociology is not the same as political science. Nor does being a "kink activist" disqualify one as an expert in sexology, especially when one's work has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. If you want to go that route, though, feel free to epress your doubts at RS/N. I think there's a strong case for reliability in the fact that Moser's paper has been cited by other researchers, notably Smith et al., published in a high–impact factor biomedical journal. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem responding to each point, but this all now seems quite moot: Even if I say you are correct on each of these remaining details, nothing changes about what WP policy indicates as the correct action. (1) Yes, I am the first to use here the phrase "settled science." But being settled science isn't the issue (it's not the WP standard). In not saying the Blanchard typology is fringe (etc.), we are not disagreeing. (2) The description of being "primarily attracted not to women but to the idea of themselves as women" is indeed a match between Blanchard/Lawrence and Pfeffer, but that was not the issue: The issue was whether this constituted an "identity" or "sexual orientation." Those are things said by Pfeffer, not Blanchard/Lawrence. (3) The MRI studies are cited above.[5] I don't believe Moser has said anything on this since their publication. (4) Pfeffer being a sociologist does not change anything: My point is that the relevant opinions are from the scientists who study sexology/typology. Exactly which non-relevant field Pfeffer comes from is non-relevant. (5) I didn't say kink activists can't have relevant opinions, I'm disagreeing with your calling him a sexologist. (6) Having work published in any given journal is not what makes one a topic expert: The Journal of Homosexuality publishes very many opinion pieces. Moreover, as I said, the point is moot: I do not and have not asserted there exists unanimity of opinion. As one lists the various authors, the ones who have full time research positions on the topic are the ones who agree, with those disagreeing coming from other fields and primarily commenting on political implications. You have not presented anyone as an exception to this pattern. (7) I have no issue regarding whether Moser's comments get repeated by other commenters. What matters is, despite all the commentary over these 30 years, all the actual evidence and the general community of scientists engaged in researching these issues agree, and the evidence continues to grow rather than contract over time.— James Cantor (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We can argue about whether the WP:FRINGE policy technically applies, but in any case autogynephilia theory isn't in the scientific mainstream. If you search PubMed for "transgender" you will get over 7000 results. "gender dysphoria"? Over 3000. "autogynephilia"? 31, with about half written by Blanchard himself, promoting his own theory. Germ theory this is not. Then there are the various critiques that have appeared in peer reviewed publications to consider. Critics have pointed out that Blanchard never used scientific controls (one of the bedrocks of good research), that Blanchard's own data contradicts his model (Blanchard had to assume that a large subset of his subjects was lying in order to fit everyone into his binary model, arguably rendering the model unfalsifiable), etc. These are all things we need to keep in mind so that we don't give this theory WP:UNDUE weight or make it out to be more accepted than it is. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

None of that is relevant: The number of articles on a topic will always be larger than the number in a subtopic (by definition). The number of non-experts commenting on a topic will always outnumber of experts conducting research on the topic (flat-earthers outnumber astronomers). And, as I said, none of this is relevant: The number of cites is not how WP decides things. The OR about the content of Blanchard's article is incorrect, but also irrelevant still: Your (mis)interpretations is not what goes on the page. The problem is not the about making it out to be more accepted than it is, but activist groups working to make it seem less accepted than it is. The evidence for continues to mount (as cited above), and there has yet to be a single counter-argument from anyone who is not easily identified as an activist with only meager if any credentials as an expert at all.— James Cantor (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Lengthy quote

Is the detailed case history of "Philip" that relevant to the article? Blanchard (2005) describes this patient's case as having "strengthened my conviction" that the idea of being a woman was a common erotic fantasy for some men, but this seems unrelated to any typology of transgender people. Blanchard is also not an independent source. Suggestions for a more on-topic paraphrase of this excerpt would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The concept of autogynephilia has to do with things other than its being theorized by some to cause a change of gender identity. The article makes this clear even in its first sentence. That Philip was a man thus does not disprove its relevance. And this particular (and short) example is used commonly, including a mention in Anne Lawrence's book: [6] It's fine to quote one example, and it's from the 2005 paper which overviews the topic. It's independent enough because it's published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; it's not like it's his blog or something. Crossroads -talk- 04:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. That is exactly why I think Autogynephilia should be its own page (like all the other paraphilias), with whatever other pages (cross-dressing, transsexuality, etc.) detailing its application to those topics. However, because most people who know of autogynephilia at all know it only from its relevance to transsexualism, it has wound up here. To me, this represents a POV fork.— James Cantor (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology/Archive_8&oldid=1079613666"