Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Recent edits

@Crossroads reverted two of my edits. Let's discuss here.

1. This edit. The previous state of the article was such that we had: "Supporters of the typology include..." and "Criticism of the typology has come from...". Seeing that one of these was unbounded (include) while the other was bounded (has come from), I changed the criticism sentence, adding "among others" to the end of the sentence. Crossroads' objection, as far as I understand, was that "among others" had previously been removed from the supporters paragraph. In a vacuum that makes sense, but the rest of the paragraph details exactly who those others are. If "among others" is still objectionable, I would propose changing the wording in the critics section to something like "include", though I'm not sure exactly what the difference in meaning is between the two.

2. This edit. The previous state of the article included this paragraph:

A 2016 review found support for the predictions of Blanchard's typology that androphilic and gynephilic trans women have different brain phenotypes. It stated that although James Cantor seems to be right that Blanchard's predictions have been validated by two independent structural neuroimaging studies, there is "still only one study on nonhomosexual MtFs; to fully confirm the hypothesis, more independent studies on nonhomosexual MtFs are needed. A much better verification of the hypothesis could be supplied by a specifically designed study including homosexual and nonhomosexual MtFs." The review stated that "confirming Blanchard's prediction still needs a specifically designed comparison of homosexual MtF, homosexual male, and heterosexual male and female people."

This, to me, seems in need of a rewrite. Syntactically it's messy, and the quotes don't really add that much value. I'll enumerate a few specific issues I have with the paragraph.

• First, I think that the distinction between "gynephilic" and "autogynephilic" is important to this quote, as the review did not concern any of the other aspects of Blanchard's theories. I feel like "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are equally formal and don't seem to lose any detail, with the added benefit of the distinction from Blanchard's "autogynephilia", though I don't feel that strongly about this aspect of the article.
• Second, why is Cantor being mentioned? This feels like a too-close rewrite of the original source, and the fact that Cantor said it first seems completely irrelevant to me. I am frankly mystified as to why this spurious mention of Cantor has been in the article for so long, and as to why it was added in the first place (I was originally concerned that it was a self-promotional move by Cantor himself, but I checked and it seems the text was originally added by Flyer22). I guess it was just a close rewrite of the source material that went unnoticed.
• Thirdly, do we need a verbatim account of the two different specific studies they think might help? Not to mention that both of the quotes contain language that's a bit derogatory (referring to trans women as "MtFs", and the whole homosexual transsexual thing). Before someone links me to NOTCENSORED, them being offensive doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the article, but that combined with the fact that they add basically nothing to the article makes me lean towards exclusion.

I'd appreciate any input that people have to offer. Thank you, Srey Sros^talk 04:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I see now that the article has been altered a bit since I started writing that message. Hang on while I check to see if my comments are still relevant. Srey Sros^talk 04:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

My item 1 is still relevant, as that hasn't changed. The paragraph in number 2 is a bit better now that the Cantor mention is gone, but the part about the quotes still stands, and an additional problem that I have with it is that I feel like it's not clear from the text that the neuroimaging studies didn't confirm any part of his typology other than the fact that the brain structures of straight and gay trans women differ slightly from each other. Is there a way we could word it that makes that a bit clearer? Srey Sros^talk 04:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I stand by what I said about "among others", that it is WP:WEASEL. Who are these others, and how many are there? That is what readers will think. The context is very clear that Serano and WPATH are also critics. The first sentence of that paragraph is not bounded or limited. But "critics of the typology include..." seems okay.

As for the paragraph about the Guillamon review, the text has evolved in that short time, with a reduction in quoted text and removal of mention of Cantor, so the issue is solved.

Why do you call her Flyer22 instead of Flyer22 Frozen? And what makes you think James Cantor engages in self-promotion on Wikipedia? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

With your updated item 2 I changed one word that seems to solve the issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

According to Guillamon et al., "The review of the available data seems to support" Blanchard's specific prediction about brain phenotypes. The word seems is evidently deliberate, and the authors also take pains to say further research is needed on this point. Therefore we should't imply this part of Blanchard's theory is "validated", full stop. I fully support paraphrasing "nonhomosexual MtFs" etc., if for no other reason than to avoid over-relying on direct quotes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, Blanchard talks about sexual orientation in relation to a person's natal sex, not their present gender identity. So he calls gynephilic trans women (attracted to women) "nonhomosexual MTFs", even though these subjects would more likely identify as lesbians. Paraphrasing the quotes would clear up this ambiguity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

And I addressed this sort of thing in the archived discussion I've linked to. It is you who needs to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. The source also says forthrightly: Untreated MtFs and FtMs who have an early onset of their gender dysphoria and are sexually oriented to persons of their natal sex show a distinctive brain morphology, reflecting a brain phenotype. So why are you watering that down to "seems"? You can't cherry-pick a particular sentence that uses that word and use it to overrule their firm conclusions.

With the quotes, the meaning of those terms is well explained in the rest of the article. Paraphrasing quotes in topics like this is always fraught with the heavy risk of POV or OR. Stating "trans lesbians" or the like is WP:OR, because that is not what it says or means. The typology includes trans women who report being bisexual or asexual as autogynephilic, remember? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The main issue that I have with the paragraph as it currently stands is that the quotations are simply unnecessary. Why not paraphrase as "...however, more independent studies on trans women would be required to fully confirm Blanchard's hypothesis" or something like that? The specific verbatim descriptions of studies the authors would like to see just don't seem relevant to this article. Srey Sros^talk 05:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not watering it down to use the same terminology used by the source itself. Once again, Guillamon et al. are clear that more research is needed to fully confirm Blanchard's hypothesis. It would be improper synthesis to connect Blanchard's theory to the statement about Untreated MtFs and FtMs, which refers to a different set of findings than the ones supporting Blanchard's theory. The terms "homosexual" and "non-homosexual" are explained in our article in a later section. Paraphrasing doesn't present a POV issue if we stick to the intended meaning of the source; both WP:V and WP:NOR say to summarize source material in our own words as much as possible. "(Non)homosexual MtF" is unnecessary jargon here, especially when all that's required to clear up any ambiguity is to replace homosexual and nonhomosexual with androphilic and gynephilic, respectively. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I did reword one quote now, but the other should stay. The meaning of "homosexual" is indeed explained earlier in the section and rewording it is cumbersome. MOS:QUOTEs are very common in articles on controversial topics; the direction to summarize is not forbidding quotes for certain points when they worded it well or introducing POV is a risk. And covering that extant research has certain gaps is good; I'm surprised to see people advocate to remove it. It's also strange to see the persistent effort to whittle down to as short as possible a MEDRS review article that properly carries a good deal of WP:WEIGHT. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see the difference that you seem to see between "Critics include..." and "Criticism has come from... among others" but I'm happy with "include" if you are. I say "Flyer22" for the same reason I say "Cantor" and not "James Cantor". It's enough to refer to the person without any ambiguity, especially since there's a redirect from User:Flyer22 to User:Flyer22 Frozen. And I apologize if my phrasing wasn't clear enough regarding Cantor. I don't have any reason to believe that Cantor self-promo'ed on this article. I was afraid that he had, but upon checking it became clear that that wasn't the case. I was trying to make a point about how weird it seemed that that was in the article. Srey Sros^talk 05:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Blanchard quote about autoandrophilia

Let's discuss here. I added ([1]) some details about the theory's mentions in the DSM. I made a correction; the article incorrectly stated that with autoandrophilia was included as a modifier in the DSM. It was included in a 2010 draft of the DSM but not the final version. I added a quote from Blanchard, the chair of the DSM subgroup on paraphilias. For reference, here is the quote-related content I added (check the diff for the whole thing in context):

While with autogynephilia was still present in the final version of the DSM 5, with autoandrophilia was removed. Regarding autoandrophilia, Blanchard later noted in a Vice interview, "I proposed it simply in order not to be accused of sexism... I don’t think the phenomenon even exists."

References

@Crossroads removed those two sentences with the following summary: What happened later is discussed below. Vice is a poor source (WP:RSP) and his comments in an interview there are not WP:DUE. Note that the working group apparently proposed it; so it wasn't necessarily just him.

1. Question. Crossroads, I don't know what you're referring to when you say "What happened later is discussed below." Am I missing something? Is this content present somewhere else in the article?

2. Reliability. The quote was sourced to an interview he did with Vice. There is no consensus (WP:MREL) on Vice's reliability, so we must evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. In this case, I believe the argument for unreliability here would be that we can't trust Vice not to lie about what Blanchard said or otherwise misrepresent his comments. I don't think that holds water. I agree with this essay insofar as I believe we should treat it as a self-published source (i.e. we must not repeat Blanchard's factual claims in wikivoice, but it is certainly a reliable source for what Blanchard said).

3. Due weight. This quote is from the chair of the subgroup which proposed with autoandrophilia (perhaps the person who proposed it, if we believe his quote) providing insight into why it was excluded. It may seem odd to readers that both specifiers were proposed but one was removed for publication, and since we have a quote explaining why that happened it seems appropriate to include it.

4. Note. For reference, here is the full question-and-answer from the interview. I removed the middle portion for brevity but there's certainly an argument to include the whole thing as not to distort his meaning.

Question: Do you think autoandrophilia, where a woman is aroused by the thought of herself as a man, is a real paraphilia?

Answer: No, I proposed it simply in order not to be accused of sexism, because there are all these women who want to say, “women can rape too, women can be pedophiles too, women can be exhibitionists too.” It’s a perverse expression of feminism, and so, I thought, let me jump the gun on this. I don’t think the phenomenon even exists.

Thank you, Srey Sros^talk 20:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I Googled "autoandrophilia Blanchard" and one of the first book results was Classify and Label: The Unintended Marginalization of Social Groups from academic publisher Lexington Books, which quotes the same statement from the Vice interview. Seems rather WP:DUE indeed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is unambiguously WP:DUE and that Vice is a reliable source for this interview. Loki (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems very relevant and covered in academic secondary source sang found, is there still opposition to including it? Rab V (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

No critiques section?

Hi, still new to editing wikipedia, and I try to leave that up to the people who more experience making effective and informed edits.

I am wondering why the only section of this page that refers to criticisms of Blanchard's typology is headed with the title "Response from the transgender community"

This heading seems to undermine the legitimate academic credentials of the people making the critiques. Julia Serano is one of the primary referents in this section, and she has a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biophysics, but none of that is mentioned, and instead she's referred to here as a "self-identified" transfeminist" (is there any other kind?? There is no official accreditation of transfeminism!), and that's it.

Many other science articles on wikipedia have a critical response section where people with relevant academic credentials are cited. This article technically does that, but obscures the part about them having the relevant academic credentials. This section is full of citations from people with advanced degrees, but all of them are simply referred to as advocates and activists. I could write myself into this site, and have my opinions weighted just as relevant as people with advanced science degrees. Doesn't seem right.

I worry that the impression that this gives off is that there are no "real science" critiques to Blanchard's research, because all of the critics are just "woke sjws who hate science." Can we change this section to reflect the credibility of the criticisms being brought forward? I suggest changing the heading to simply as "critical responses", and referencing the most relevant credentials of the cited critics rather than just "activist".

Attercob (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Not to completely disagree, but there is coverage of the lack of acceptance which the theory has throughout the rest of the article too, so it is not quite as one-sided as it seems. I think you might be onto something with the headings though. I also agree that the way Serano is written about, while not incorrect, could encourage those who are already susceptible to it to feel that Serano is a partisan and unreliable narrator rather than a legitimate expert on these topics. Of course, those who feel that LGBT+ people are intrinsically unreliable narrators are going to think that anyway and we can't do anything about that. Nonetheless, we shouldn’t do anything to encourage it. I think that a split of the responses section into a section covering scientific responses and a section covering responses "from the transgender community" might be a good idea. Failing that, renaming the existing section as you recommend seems plausible to me. The one other thing I'd also like to see is an update to make it clearer that the alleged "two types" are part of the theory itself and are not widely accepted. A less attentive reader might read this article and think that the alleged "two types" are uncontroversially real, and that the only controversy is over whether Blanchard's explanation of them is correct, when they are actually Blanchard's own invention and not accepted by those who do not accept the wider theory. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"Criticism" sections tend to become POV magnets and encourage a non-neutral article structure. I had given myself the task of moving "critical" material into the main body of the text where possible. I see I have a long way to go. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

As DanielRigal noted, there is much criticism material scattered throughout the article as well. I have removed "self-identified", as I don't see any reason for it either. Sangdeboeuf, as noted by the OP, criticism sections are quite common, and they are not deprecated. "Reception" is a flat-out incorrect descriptor of the material in that heading, as the material is entirely negative, but the theory's reception is not entirely negative, as can be seen by the sources cited throughout; likewise, other negative reception material is elsewhere. As DanielRigal alluded to, a section about responses from the transgender community is fine, so I've titled it "criticism from the transgender community". Such a heading is not a POV magnet but is clear about what it covers, and indeed is generally about criticisms of the typology specifically written from a transgender perspective. "Criticism of terminology" is now its own top-level heading - again, about a specific type of criticism. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Is Nuttbrock's study really the only one?

We say in the article that In the only empirical study to present an alternative to Blanchard's explanation as of 2013, Larry Nuttbrock and colleagues reported that autogynephilia-like characteristics were strongly associated with a specific generational cohort as well as the ethnicity of the subjects (emphasis mine). However, it's not clear to me that this is true (or even what exactly it means, IMO). It's sourced to the Sanchez and Vilain source basically verbatim, but it seems like we contradict it directly elsewhere on the page. Veale et al did a study on autogynephilia in cisgender women in 2008 (and Moser did a very similar one in 2009) which are both empirical studies that suggest the alternate explanation that autogynephilia is common in all women and not related to trans status.

By my reading, this means the bolded statement is not true despite Sanchez and Vilain stating it, but I don't have a copy of that source so I can't say for sure what they meant by it exactly. (Also pinging Sangdeboeuf because per a recent edit they do appear to have a copy and might be able to clarify.) Loki (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source so I can only take this at face value. Even so, I can see several reasons to question the inclusion of this content.

1. 2013 was quite a while ago.
2. Can anybody really say for sure that other things did not exist at the time? It seems to me that the best anybody could claim is that they had looked and not found any. Perhaps they were unaware of those other studies. Anyway, there is no point in citing somebody who is clearly making a mistake. It can only mislead our readers or, if they notice the mistake, serve to make the source look foolish.
3. What does "an alternative to Blanchard's explanation" even mean? My understanding is that Blanchard seeks to explain a phenomenon that he made up himself and which mainstream opinion simply rejects as invalid/irrelevant. To say that nobody has an alternative explanation for "autogynophilia" is a bit like saying that nobody has an alternative explanation for Time Cube. Sure, they probably don't, but there's a good reason for that. The fact that serious thinkers don't want to spend time engaging with fringe theories is not validation of those theories.

My thought is to drop the "only empirical study" bit as both unreliable and not even relevant. We should probably keep what Nutbrock says but the main focus should be on the other studies showing that what Blanchard classes as "autogynophilia" is widely found in cis women if one looks for it in the same way as he looks for it in trans women. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That works for me. As I recall, the source was talking about an alternative explanation of the relationship between autogynephilia and gender dysphoria, but I don't have access to the full source, just a partial preview. It's certainly possible that the statement is incorrect despite being reliably sourced. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The Nuttbrock, Veale, and Sanchez & Vilain papers are all accessible through WP:LIB, through EBSCO. The first two have PDF links from the search page, for Sanchez and Vilain you need to click the link to "View record from Oxford University Press" before you get the full text. The Moser paper appears to be open access now through T and F. I'll hopefully get a chance to read these over the next couple of days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts basically match DanielRigal's: the qualifier "the only ... as of 2013" is both mistaken and also just not really relevant/important (especially a decade later). I changed it to just "a" study. Please make any further or more substantive changes as necessary. -sche (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I've checked out the Sánchez & Vilain source at The Wikipedia Library and the relevant statements appear to be as follows:

Blanchard (1985) attempted to understand what differentiated those who came out earlier in life and were mainly attracted to men from those who came out later in life and were mainly attracted to women.

Of the differences he found, one characteristic was prominent: the latter group more often reported a history of transvestic fetishism or an interest in cross-dressing to express sexual or erotic interests compared to the earlier group.

Blanchard (2005) concluded that the motive for many who transitioned later in life was rooted in an extreme paraphilia [...] Blanchard termed this phenomenon autogynephilia [...]

Although one report claimed to identify autogynephilia among women [...] the report was criticized because sexual arousal within a person for features they already possess is markedly different from arousal over physical features that they do not have (Lawrence, 2010b).

It should be noted that in the wake of the [The Man Who Would Be Queen] controversy, peer-reviewed articles criticizing Blanchard’s methodology have begun to emerge (Moser, 2010; Serano, 2010). To date, only one empirical report has offered an alternative explanation for Blanchard’s findings.

The report that Lawrence criticized appears to be Moser's 2009 study. There is no mention of Veale's 2008 study. Since both are obviously empirical studies, the key phrase seems to be alternative explanation for Blanchard’s findings, which I take to mean the history of transvestic fetishism among transgender women who transitioned later in life. However, the Sánchez & Vilain source is now almost ten years old, and there may be other empirical studies that challenge Blanchard's theory. So I'm in favor of dropping the "only empirical study" part; even if it's true, it's potentially confusing and probably not that important anymore. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

SRS in lead

The mention of Blanchard's, Bailey's, and Lawrence's opinion regarding sex reassignment surgery that was recently re-added to the lead section is based on Dreger's analysis of the controversy over TMWWBQ, not Blanchard's theory overall. Furthermore, Dreger mentions this by way of arguing against lump[ing] together the work of Bailey, Blanchard, and Anne Lawrence as a monolithic, containable, anti-trans-rights theoretic entity, saying their support for SRS is actually pro-trans-rights. Whether Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence are personally in favor of trans rights is WP:UNDUE for the lead section on Blanchard's typology itself; the only reason for putting it there seems to be to imply that criticism of Blanchard is undeserved, which is POV. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed that passage again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Blanchard's typology and asexuality

WP:NOTAFORUM. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to point out that one of the simplest ways to discredit the typology is to simply point out that there are a significant amount of asexual trans women an trans men, which by definition cannot fall under any of blanchard's categories— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e34:ec40:2d10:1531:13c9:71e9:21e4 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC) A very good point. I don't know what you mean by significant amount, but from what I've seen, it seems like this is a prevailing factor: a discomfort with being or becoming a sexual being in any, what's the word, anatomical/physiological configuration, and seeing reassignment as a "way out". But how could it be? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C85D:E443:C575:6519 (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Autogynephilic Gender Dysphoria

In the quote "He proposed that many late-transitioning trans women were driven to do so not by gender dysphoria, but by an extreme paraphilia characterized by an erotic interest in oneself as a woman (autogynephilia)." Implies Blanchard said Autogynephiles can't experience Gender Dysphoria which they can according to him so i suggest we change it too "He proposed that many late-transitioning trans women were driven to do so by a Gender Dysphoria caused by an extreme paraphilia characterized by an erotic interest in oneself as a woman (autogynephilia)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C64:677F:95A0:EC57:1EAD:B50E:10EB (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim that he said this? Loki (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The cited text by Sanchez says the following on page 44 Specifically, late transitioners may experience a type of paraphilia termed autogynephilia (or self-woman-love) rather than gender dysphoria, and on page 47 Blanchard (2005) concluded that the motive for many who transitioned later in life was rooted in an extreme paraphilia versus gender dysphoria. Emphasis from the original text.

The 2005 paper from Blanchard, cited by Sanchez in the second quotation, states on page 445 All gender-dysphoric biological males who are not homosexual are instead autogynephilic. citing a 1989 paper from Blanchard, and a 1987 paper from Clemmensen and Steiner.

So unless Blanchard has recanted his 1989 and 2005 statements, the Sanchez citation and our text seem to be correct. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: because the text proposed by both Transhistory [2] and the IP editor [3] does not match the Sanchez source, I have reverted the text to the long standing version as that is supported by the source. [4] It's possible that Sanchez is wrong, and that in the ten years since the source was published Blanchard has published other works to the contrary, however in lack of those citations to replace Sanchez we cannot use the text proposed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

In this very article it say according to blanchards typology Autogynephilic patients can suffer from Gender Dysphoria so the Sanchez text is a bit misleading Transhistory (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If the Sanchez text is misleading, then so was Blanchard's 2005 paper (linked above) where he reiterated his 1989 claim that All gender-dysphoric biological males who are not homosexual are instead autogynephilic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Am I missing something? He's clearly saying there that they are gender dysphoric. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you're missing something. Breaking down the sentence All gender-dysphoric biological males who are not homosexual are instead autogynephilic into chunks; All gender-dysphoric biological males who are not homosexual describes a population, are instead autogynephilic. states that the population described in the first half of the sentence are not gender-dysphoric they are instead autogynephilic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the "instead" is only operative on "homosexual", because otherwise he'd be saying they're both gender dysphoric and not gender dysphoric. He doesn't say "ostensibly gender dysphoric" or the like. If I said "all apples that are not red are instead green", I'm not saying the green apples aren't apples. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, however Sanchez clearly did not read it that way. Are there any secondary sources to both Blanchard and Sanchez, that assert that Sanchez is wrong, or indicate that Sanchez' interpretation is not the commonly held one? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I just looked at the 2005 paper and it's very clear in context that, at least as of 2005, Blanchard does in fact believe that gender dysphoria is a thing. So for instance, here's another time in the paper that it uses the same term: The core of the research consisted of three studies (Blanchard, 1985, 1988, 1989b). The participants were gender-dysphoric, biologically male patients who presented at the then Clarke Institute of Psychiatry.

That all being said, it's also obvious in context that Blanchard does not believe that "gender-dysphoric biological males" are women and consistently refers to them with male pronouns. By "gender dysphoria" here he seems to mean something a bit more literal than it's often used as today. He does not seem to think of "gender dysphoria" as a sufficient motivation for transition all by itself, so I think Sanchez's statement is still technically true, although misleading. Loki (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

COI editing and NPOV

FYI, one of the main contributors to this article has a professional conflict of interest with the subject of this article, being one of the primary supporters of the Blanchard typology. In 2021, there was a sockpuppet investigation, and his Wikipedia account as well as two of other sockpuppet accounts were blocked. The sockpuppet accounts were used to evade detection when editing. Establishing NPOV for this article may be a gradual process and require some ongoing effort.

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/James_Cantor
• Special:Contributions/James_Cantor
• Special:Contributions/Banglange
• Special:Contributions/Starburst9

Hist9600 (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The concept is used by some "gender critical" feminists to imply that some trans women are sexually deviant men

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038026120934690?journalCode=sora#:~:text=autogynephilia%20is%20still%20often%20touted%20by%20anti%2Dtransgender%20groups%2C%20including%20trans%2Dexclusionary%20feminists.

source says "autogynephilia is still often touted by anti-transgender groups, including trans-exclusionary feminists."

anti-transgendergroups/TERFS=/='gender critical'

'gender critical' is quotation marks is clearly weaslewords mm

diverse opinions exist, terf is a slur very few people self identify as.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0162243920924783 Mirddes (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I've changed it to simply "its proponents". It should be clear from the preceding text that those are in fact TERFs. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Mirddes, I don't understand this edit, and the edit summary doesn't help at all. Could you explain why you are proposing this change? It doesn't seem to be supported by the source given in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:FORUM, WP:NPA --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
no one self indentifies as "TERF", its a homophobic and hetrophobic slur used by woke activists to slander people who ideologically disagree with the modern religion. WP:NPOV i get called a sissy cis all the time for not identifying as a gender, i have a sex. it's blatant hate speech against political and religious opponents. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/01/20547/ Mirddes (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC) If you are among the WP:FRINGE minority of gender-denialists, that may place you in the esteemed company of some banned or blocked former Wikipedia editors, but it isn't a policy-relevant justification for the edits you have made to this article. Also, I am unaware of any versions of this article that used the term TERF in Wikivoice; it certainly isn't there now. Smells like a red herring Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC) can you please stop harrassing me, you've already posted on my talk page multiple times. either admit you have a conflict of interest in editing this article and are not capable of WP:NPOV or find a better source that supports the article as written. most people, are not WP:FRINGE, and think this nonsense is hilarious. i come here from a place of mutual respect and love for my fellow humans and only desire true nutrality. so long as you slander people who do not 100% agree with your ideology, you desere to be a wikipedia editor just as little as you claim i should be. Mirddes (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC) did i deny gender? or did i says "i dont identify as a gender, i have a sex" identify as whatever you want, thats what's great about reality. but slandering me because i dont identify with what you think i should identify with is absurd. Mirddes (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Look, if you don't want to identify as agender, more power to you. But insisting that "sex" - whatever that is - can and should take the place of social and cultural gender is quite clearly a FRINGE position - in relation to MEDRS scholarship on gender identity, for example. And people embracing that position typically do so with the goal of undermining transgender rights claims. If you weren't implying that "sex" should take the place of gender, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. No "slander" was intended. Newimpartial (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC) its silly feinging ignorance of the concept of biological sex, which the vast majority of the population takes for granted, as it is de facto synomoyous with gender. human rights are human rights, stop fighting a religious war. believe whatever you want, and everyone else will do the same. Please retract the WP:ASPERSIONS and stop your WP:EW Mirddes (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC) I haven't been harrassing anyone. Please retract the WP:ASPERSIONS and stop your WP:EW. Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

The "Criticism" section contains statements like:

[T]he Internal Revenue Service cited Blanchard's typology as justification for denying a transgender woman's tax deductions for medical costs relating to treatment of her gender identity disorder, claiming the procedures were not medically necessary. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, ruling that she should be allowed to deduct the costs of her treatment, including sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy

and:

One early proponent of the autogynephilia theory was radical feminist Sheila Jeffreys. The concept has been used to imply that trans women are sexually deviant men. The autogynephilia theory became popular on "gender critical" websites such as 4thWaveNow, Mumsnet, and the Reddit community r/GenderCritical

and:

According to the SPLC, the autogynephilia theory has been promoted by anti-LGBT hate groups. These include Family Research Council (FRC), United Families International (UFI), and the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds).

Are these "criticism"?

I maintain that statements of support and criticism of the typology should be folded into the general narrative, not segregated into a separate "criticism" section. This will make the article structure more broadly neutral. Statements like the above should go under a heading like "Reception" or "Societal impact". Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio from The Man Who Would Be Queen

Note for the admin processing the copyvio-revdel, the removed text contained a substantial block of text taken from Bailey, John Michael. The Man Who Would Be Queen. ISBN 9780309084185.. In the copy I have, the relevant text appears on pages 192, 193, and 194. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Also to note, this edit summary is misleading. The copied text was not meaningfully paraphrased or altered. There was some word inclusions, for example "ever" in the first question, some removals, for example the word "about" was removed from the second question where it originally appeared between the words "were as", and some substitutions, for example in the third question the word "nearly" was swapped for "almost". The order of the questions is identical to their appearance in the source text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Some questions are also broken into multiple questions, but otherwise I cede that my paraphrasing may have been too close. Snokalok (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh no I reworded it to paraphrase, so it’s not a copyvio Snokalok (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyright issues aside, TMWWBQ is not a reliable source for anything except Bailey's own opinions, which are WP:UNDUE in this case: (1) Bailey is a primary source for his own findings, (2) the book has not been vetted by the scholarly community, and (3) an imprint of the National Academies Press is not a guarantee of academic rigor. Bailey flat-out states on p. 145: We know little about the causes of either type of transsexualism (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. "Hunches" and vague prophecies are not science. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree with the WP:UNDUE for the reason that, this is a theory that most of the field of psychology has abandoned in its entirety, there are only a handful of proponents left, their opinions I'd consider to be of significant worth in covering. Snokalok (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What you or I personally think is of worth is beside the point; due weight means fairly reflecting the predominant views of reliable sources on a topic. If independent scholarly sources don't comment on Bailey's "method", we shouldn't either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree, what I'm saying is that given that Bailey was Blanchard's protege and is considered by many to be the main force responsible for the theory's propagation in the first place, his opinions on what actually constitutes an AGP are worth including. Snokalok (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If independent scholarly sources don't comment on Bailey's "method", we shouldn't either. Glad we agree on this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I more meant the first part, "What you or I personally think is of worth is beside the point; due weight means fairly reflecting the predominant views of reliable sources on a topic." Snokalok (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

To add on, if you have a theory that was come up with and spread by a couple people, those couple of people are the reliable sources on it, are they not? Like personally, I think blanchardianism is absolutely divorced from reality, but, regardless of that divorce from reality, Blanchard and Bailey are the "experts" on it, so aren't they the authorities on said theory? Snokalok (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

They may be, but they are still primary sources for said theory. Undue weight, again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

if you have a theory that was come up with and spread by a couple people, those couple of people are the reliable sources on it, are they not? Not entirely. If a theorem is the work of one person, or a group of people, they would fail the independent sources test. They have, whether knowingly or unknowingly, a vested interest in ensuring that their theory spreads. Any work produced by them will be inherently primary with regards to the theorem. While they may be experts with regards to what they have written, they may not be experts or considered experts with regards to the field in which they are writing. For example, while Mark Sargent may be considered an expert within the flat Earth movement, he is largely seen as a conspiracy theorist by those outside that movement.

What matters with regards to theories is how they are received by independent reliable sources, typically other experts in the same or a closely related field. If those independent sources believe the theory or a part of the theory is important, then they will generally comment on that. The volume and prominence of independent reliable sources that discuss those parts help us weigh the content to ensure we're not focusing on parts that are considered irrelevant by those independent of the original theory.

Back to the topic at hand, as far as I'm aware, no expert outside of individuals connected to Baily and/or Blanchard actually considers Blanchard's topology to actually be a credible theory. There have been many peer reviewed articles from several authors going into detail about the flaws in the theory, and the shortcomings in the experiments that Blanchard used when proposing it. With regards to the "test" that Bailey wrote of in TMWWBQ, has that or a modified form of it actually been published in a peer reviewed journal? Or have any independent reliable sources discussed it in positive or negative terms? Those are questions we cannot answer from the source book alone, and at minimum need to be answered before we could consider including even a paraphrased version of it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I think to some degree the disconnect we have comes from how we're approaching this theory - that is, I'm approaching it as "This is an article about what these five guys in a room somewhere believe. Let's thus document what they believe." Whereas you approach it from, "This is what the psychiatric community believed once. Let's document what the psychiatric community believed." Snokalok (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, Wikipedia's purpose is not to document everything said or written by some guys somewhere. To do so is to introduce undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

To answer your earlier question, Bailey and Blanchard are not automatically the most reliable sources on their theory. They are reliable only for what they personally have said and/or written. Why should we care about Bailey's method of differentiating groups of trans women if the academic community has mostly ignored it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean the entire article gives far too much credence to the theory in general if we're being honest, realistically it *should* be reported more strongly as a theory the field abandoned but right now it's reported as "The theory is supported by Blanchard, Bailey, and Cantor, but rejected by [Insert every major medical organization on the topic]", if anything we should be writing this article the way the ROGD article was written, even the strongest evidence for Blanchard's theory is weaker than anything Lisa Littmann ever had. But, since we're not, all I'm saying is that if the list of supporters is a couple major names against every major health org, then the opinions of those names are worth documenting.

Regardless, the consensus is against including it, so, not like it's going back in anyway. Snokalok (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If there is a concern that the article already gives too much weight to the views of Bailey and Blanchard, then uncritically copy-pasting even more of their statements seems oddly self-defeating. You are free to cite sources from every major health org saying the theory has been abandoned. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC) edited 05:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This article badly needs to be de-quote-ified

This article is just chock full of quotes from research papers, attributed directly to the people who made them. This is very bad practice. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize research, not literally report an academic dispute line-by-line.

Furthermore all the overquoting has vastly distorted the WP:WEIGHT here. The simple fact is that Blanchard's typology is scientifically highly controversial (language that appears in paper after paper) if not simply unscientific (language which appears in quite a few papers). Yet much of the article is devoted to a play-by-play of the details of the theory from the mouth of its supporters, or at best "supporters say... opponents say...", rather than saying in Wikivoice that it or parts of it are empirically dubious at best. Loki (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A while back there were numerous tags complaining of primary sources, which were then replaced with secondary ones. Anything missing in that regard is one thing, but your edits went way beyond that. For instance, you removed "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence have each argued that any trans woman who would benefit from SRS should receive it", which isn't even a quote and was cited to Dreger. There are other examples of material removed that was cited to a secondary source as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Not all the edits I made were only for de-quotification. Admittedly that edit summary was unclear, but the reasons I removed that line were that it was in a section about autogynephilia's relationship to gender dysphoria (so it wasn't relevant), and because it's part of the same pattern of the article in general giving way too much WP:WEIGHT to supporters of a marginal-at-best theory. Loki (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Crossroads' big revert

I've been working on the past few days to fix what I view as very significant problems on this page. Especially the quote problem I mention above, but also awarding way too much WP:WEIGHT to a scientifically dubious theory, having sections full of material irrelevant to that section, and being full of de facto criticism sections rather than the ideal method of integrating criticism into the flow of the article.

Recently, Crossroads reverted all of that work, taking the page all the way back to the state it was on April 5th.

While I'd like to discuss details here, because it's such a large revert, there's IMO not a lot of room for that. In order to get to details, we'd need to first establish whether we're starting with the new version or the old version (or some version in between), and therefore whether the revert as a whole was justified. I don't think it was, and I think based on recent discussions and the fact that the changes stood for a while at a page with lots of eyes on it, there's a high chance the consensus here is at least broadly with me. So, was that revert good or not? Loki (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

:Crossroads appears to be editing a lot of articles that engage with "gender critical" theories, including Irreversible Damage, Detransition, etc. He's also been arguing on talk pages such as the page for man arguing that trans people should be removed. He may be treading into WP:Activist here for "gender critical" issues such that it is getting in the way of reading the contemporary data about this issue.Computer-ergonomics (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I said whatsoever. This is a bunch of personal attacks and aspersion casting. I'm well aware of the contemporary data, thanks. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

In terms of my take on this, I think fully reverting a page in the way that he did is almost never justified unless the text that it is replaced with is uncited nonsense, which yours was not. Crossroads needs an evidence-based reason for why your edits need to be wholly reverted. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'd tend to agree that a big sweeping revert seems uncalled for, but let's go over it edit-by-edit and try to break down where disputes are, what everyone agrees is an improvement, and which parts could be tweaked.

Massive edit-by-edit analysis of the changes collapsed for length

"Why is this lead-worthy?": Agree that this seems to be pulling one sentence out of a source and giving it undue weight by putting it in the lead. And checking the source, there's an even more serious problem - the quote in context says that the consensus in the medical literature was that erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing or cross-gender fantasy excluded the diagnosis of transsexualism. The wording of the previous version, and its inclusion in the lead, implied (even if it did not overtly state) that Blanchard was the first to propose this, when what it actually says is just that that perspective is outside the medical consensus. And correcting that misapprehension makes it even less lead-worthy. This change to the quote seems like an obvious improvement (both quotes appear in the source, the old one and then the new one right after it; and both notionally support the relevant text, but the new one describes the locus of controversy in more detail.) "While Bancroft does say this, he says it as a side-comment, and further reading reveals he appears to mostly be referring to Blanchard's own work here. Besides that, this source is now nearly 20 years old and is not suitable to summarize the literature any more.". The edit summary speaks for itself and seems largely accurate. However, Pfeffer (which remains) supports almost the same point regarding the two historical classifications, and the bit cited to that is slightly off with this removal; we should probably just tweak the relevant text to rely entirely on Pfeffer. "This claim is contradicted by other sources and is frankly not super relevant here anyway". Yeah, nothing on the cited pages mention a relationship to dysphoria. Here, this seems like simple de-quotification. A lot of these quotes are effectively just piling on Blanchard; summarizing it is enough, we don't need to quote everyone and their dog saying how wrong he is. Here, similarly - a lot of quotes of Blanchard that don't add anything; and Gynandromorphophilia seems like a bit of a tangent with little coverage. Here, I can agree with being cautious about citing Veale-via-Lawrence, at least without attribution (and attribution here would make a ridiculous mess of this sentence). It also starts to feel like we are giving Lawrence undue weight - we're citing her nearly 30 times even in the revised version of the page. Is she that significant, or is she just being cited so often because she's one of the few available voices supporting Blanchard? In the latter case it could be a WP:FALSEBALANCE concern; giving a large amount of weight to one (otherwise reliable, but WP:BIASED) figure who is a strong proponent of this-or-that is one of the main ways undue weight can cause problems. Citing Lawrence a few times to represent that perspective is fine; including her opinion on essentially every aspect of the topic and giving her rebuttal to basically every point raised is not. Here, it's also just a passing mention in the source; they note in the very next sentence that research exists that contradicts it, and while their overall phrasing seems to side more with Lawrence than Moser, the overall paragraph hardly lends itself to the unequivocal statement extracted here. Additionally (and perhaps more importantly) the rest of the section includes numerous citations from after Sánchez' 2013 publication date that touch on the exact issue Sánchez is discussing; it doesn't make sense for us to summarize a section containing research from 2022 using a quote from 2013. This is largely just straightforward de-quotifying again and generally trimming some of the unnecessarily in-the-weeds back-and-forth. However, the summarizing Bailey and Kevin J. Hsu write that "it remains unknown whether any natal females experience autogynephilia"... as Bailey and Kevin J. Hsu dispute that "natal females" experience autogynephilia... is perhaps a bit eyebrow-raising; they were using excessively-cautious scholarly-speak, yes, but the distinction between "we think you failed to support your argument" and "we think you're definitely wrong" is still important. Here, yes, it would be good to avoid citing too much directly to Blanchard and Lawrence (the objections I had to relying too heavily on Lawrence obviously apply far more clearly to Blanchard.) Have any independent sources agreed with the way Blanchard and Lawrence situate their research here? The same basically applies here. We shouldn't be citing an entire paragraph to Blanchard in the first place; and this one seems to add little. We have better independent secondary sources that can summarize the history; we don't need to drop in quotes from him like this. Here, most of this sectioning is fine. I don't agree with the creation of a criticism section even temporarily; just doing the re-integration makes more sense; but see below, this was mostly done. We should move the last bit out of it and de-section that part. Here, this just seems like reasonable restructuring. Here, this was excessive blow-by-blow (and was another section cited almost entirely to Lawrence!) The ultimate conclusions are what matters. Here and here, this integration of criticism was, as I mentioned above, clearly necessary. Here, again, large paragraphs that were cited almost solely to Blanchard and Lawrence; and, as the edit summary implies, these are things we are already covering the key points of the background better using more independent sources. Here, this seems like reasonable restructuring. Here, these seem to be getting a bit into the weeds, yes. Also, overshadow here is used in an ambiguous way; in the source it is clear that Blanchard is just saying that it receives more attention in the popular imagination - either way it's just a one-sentence note and doesn't seem worth including in our summary. Here, Moser, at a glance, doesn't seem to support the whole paragraph; while citations to Blanchard could presumably be found, without secondary citations it seems like a tangent - the article shouldn't contain every single that Blanchard or Lawrence have suggested, or things where the only source that can be found are someone mentioning an aspect in passing while saying they're wrong. Here, the reasoning in the edit summary seems self-explanatory and straightforward, although perhaps it could be included elsewhere. Here, again, yes, an excessive quotation of Blanchard that is better summarized.

Overall the changes seem to be improvements; there are a few nits that might be improved on, and I suppose some people might disagree on how much we should be quoting Blanchard or how many citations to Lawrence are undue (I'd tend to think we're still over the line even now), but I'm honestly having trouble seeing how this entire set of changes could collectively be controversial enough to call for a sweeping revert. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The changes were reverted as part of the WP:BRD process and because practice generally is that the status quo remains during discussion if consensus has not been reached yet. Not much time had passed after your edits. You had not received support in this section either. Unfortunately doing many different things of many different levels of questionability at once makes it difficult to disentangle. My hope was that we could proceed more cautiously. We do now have a more detailed analysis by Aquillion which I don't have time at the moment to go over, but it's not generally a good idea to make numerous cuts in quick succession to an article with many eyes on it and which has been extensively discussed in the past. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Perspectives on gender and sexuality are changing very rapidly in the mainstream, and it's possible that changes to the status quo in many articles may be necessary as more people write papers and articles about these issues. Consider that when this article was created in 2006, the trans rights movement was not very mainstream, trans identity was less politicized, and a lot of trans research was more primitive than it is now. Increased numbers of trans editors combined with increased political scrutiny of transgender people and an increase in trans-centered research may cause some articles to need significant updates for a contemporary audience. It seems to be that you are doing this mass-revert tactic on a number of trans-centric articles, and I think it's worth noting that Wikipedia is a collaborative venture that strives to have the most updated and most fairly presented information possible. The people who are editing articles on your Watchlist probably care about the information on Wikipedia being accurate as much as you do. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I support the new version. The cuts made are very much supported by WP:MEDSCI and WP:FRINGE. This page really needed a massive trimming, as it summarized way too much individual studies in violation of WP:MEDRS. Galobtter (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that overall the changes were improvements, and I don't see any reason to revert all these. I support the new version (with the edits) as the better version. Most of the content removed was problematic for one reason or another, being based on side comments, or anecdotes, or statements veering somewhat off-topic. I'm glad we have some editors with a sharp eye for those things and willing to do some cleanup in these old articles. Hist9600 (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)