Talk:Homosexual transsexual/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Here it is people

Well ths is the best I can do. Anyone should feel free to edit this for themselves.--Smartgirl62 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen here could we please at least discuss things before trying to co-opt this article into another article about autogynephillia. --Smartgirl62 18:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added to the external links section more works by Bailey. I will read them and try to integrate what they say into the article. Not knowing the theory we are writing about but critisieing it would be ignorant. Like saying General Relativity is hard and mathemaical. I dont like math. Therefore it must be a crock. --Smartgirl62 18:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that we need this article. It sounds like the term is in very limited use, and in any case, homosexuality and transsexuality are different things, even if they do sometimes occur together. Exploding Boy 21:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I recommend a merge and redirect, since the term is almost exclusively used in apposition to "autogynephilia." We might also think about a larger page on transsexual taxonomy, since this concept is basically a variant of the primary/secondary transsexual and the Benjamin Scale. The published literature employing this term is almost all BBL-related. Jokestress 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

An article on transsexual taxonomy seems like a very good idea. Also Benjamin Scale. Much of this article seems to be just a book review of The Man Who Would Be Queen. -- Karada 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but can we get the people most concerned with the autogynephillia article to agree on a version of that article which also includes reference to the so called homosexual transsexual. That's what I worry about. Further more what's to say an article on transsexual taxonomy (a even more raely used term) would be less controversial?

As for how much I referenced TMWWbQ I did that because it is one of very few plain language sources of information on this theory. Most of the rest of the informaiton on the internet is composed of either rants in favor of the theory or raves against the theory. This article was an attempt to explain this side of the coin in a neutral fasion. I am sure any real died in the wool supporters of this theory would look at this article and be just as upset by how I characterized it. --Smartgirl62 22:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Then the article needs rewriting. The aim of the NPOV process is to generate articles which report other people's opinions and beliefs, without having any opinion of their own as to the "truth". The only exception to this is where there is no substantial controversy, which does not apply in this case. See the Scientology and Jesus articles for how this can work, even for very controversial subjects. -- Karada 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree tottally. I was trying to be as Npov as I could be. It is hard for one author to be Npov about this. Anyone can feel free to edit the heck out of this article. Just do not turn it into another article about autogynephillia and autogynephilles.

If any one is interested I have written up a few paragrahps on my talk page about why I have the POV I have on this. It's not because I am evil or whatever. Just personal experiences. Reading it may help us understand eachother and wor together better.--Smartgirl62 13:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Some good investigation

Some good investigation jokestress. I actually learned something I did not have proof of before. That not all HSTS are the same. But you seem to have converted the whole article into a rail against the term. There are a good number of transsexuals who do not totally object to it. Why? Because they are tired of having to give a big long dissertation to explain just what the heck then are. Saying we are HSTS conveys to the listener. "I am an anatomical male who likes men and wants to live as a woman." I will not excise whatyou have written. I will try to soften it a little and express the fact that not all TS's are shocked and apauled at it. --Hfarmer 00:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This article should be about the term itself, which is not in wide usage for reasons cited in the intro. The concept of two types based on sexuality can be addressed in transsexual sexuality. Jokestress 01:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

But then so should the article on Autogynephilia. The reason that the term HSTS is so rare on the internet is that HSTS's are not nearly as active on the internet. I also want to point out an other interesting point of connection a study I cited was cowritten by Nuttawut Udomsak [1] who is referd to here[2] as a successful transsexual woman by Lynn Conway. A rather interesting connection in all this jumble of chaos. I mean a strident critic and a supporter of BBL theory able to be civil. Unfortunately too rare. Don't you think so?--Hfarmer 02:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The "transkids" site is not a reliable source. It's little more than an anonymous LiveJournal. The Winter/Udomsak article is mentioned on the kathoey page and does not specificially use the term "homosexual transsexual." If you have a published source where she calls herself a "homosexual transsexual," please provide it. Jokestress 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on she's from Thailand for Christ sake. She would not use our exact terminology. I know she knows english very well but never the less for something so personal I think she would use her mother tounge. Hence the work Katoey which translates to "lady boy". That is as close as one can be. --Hfarmer 03:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The reference absolutely belongs on kathoey. If she talks about sex, you can put it on transsexual sexuality. If you don't have a published citation where she calls herself a "homosexual transsexual" or uses that term to discuss something, it doesn't belong here. This is about that specific term used by a dozen or so researchers in published sources. Jokestress 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Transkids site

Transkids is not reliable per guidelines. We can leave it as an external link for now, but it doesn't meet the criteria for sources. Jokestress 04:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No Mas

Some other person will have to stand up for the HSTS arguement. I have shouldered this cart by myself for too long. I am worn out. No mas. --Hfarmer 01:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

More Mas

Ok I have gotten a second wind. I have some time to work on this. I will let the editors at large consider the following for a while...

One thing missing from this article (and the one on autognyphilia btw) are examples hard examples of who was being referenced by those terms. But it is not probable that anyone would take either of those terms as a identity and casually reference themselves as such ever. To remedy this I propose adding to the see also links for this article the following. These reccomendations are based on these groups of people's simmilarity to people I have seen and known here in Chicago that were or would have been considered likely HSTS by Bailey.

Kathoey The Kathoey of Thailand seem to be one group of people that Blanchard had in mind when he orginated this theory.

Hijra (South Asia) is the wikipedia article. The article written by non hijira seems to define them as not being Ts but just being a very soft definition takeing in all male bodied people who are not staright. B.S. I have meet such persons here in Chicago. They are transsexual and I am pretty certain of how Bailey would classify them.

Two-Spirit Another group that has been at least on wikipedia redefined in wikipedia from being transsexual (and sometimes intersexed) to being every male bodied non straight person. B.S. These people would have been transgender if not strictly transsexual.

As for a western context the article on Transgender youth seems to come closeest. It covers transsexual females as well which BBl theory does not.

It seems to me that these are all groups of people who would fit the demographics of bening HSTS. I Imagine these links being added like follows.

Some examples of groups of people that would probably be homosexual transsexuals are, Kathoey, Hijra ,Two-Spirit, and transgender youths in the western world. The goal of this would be to give some concrete idea of who this theoretical construct was meant to describe.--Hfarmer 21:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (25, Sha-ban, 1427 AH).

All of the above is original research unless you have a published source that says "hijra are homosexual transsexuals, "kathoey are homosexual transsexuals," or "two-spirits are homosexual transsexuals." Your desire to link those demographic groups with this clinical term does not preclude the need for a citation calling them "homosexual transsexuals." Those people are generally described as transgender in published literature (hence the way the other articles are written), but if you have a citation, we can certainly include it. Jokestress 22:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish there were enough people to put this to a vote here. I know we have discussed it before but I really would like you to please give this matter one more good looonnngg think. Consider the following link. [3] Scroll down to this reference "Sinnott,M. (2002). Gay versus kathoey: homosexual identities in Thailand. International Institute for Asian Studies. Newsletter 29.". Click the associated link to [4]. In which a Thai person defines the word kathoey.

"Kathoey means an indeterminate gender or a combination of masculine and feminine gender, and is usually translate into English as either ‘hermaphrodite or ‘third sex’. In contemporary usage kathoey is commonly used to refer to man who appears to embody what are understood to be feminine characteristics. ‘Homosexuality’ (rak-ruam pheet) is a mid-twentieth-century addition to the Thai vocabulary but is largely understood as existing within this model of gender inversion represented by the kathoey (Jackson 1997) Therefore, homosexuals are commonly understood to be emotional kathoey, such as men who feel they are women, or women who feel they are men. (| Gay vs. ‘Kathoey’: Homosexual Identities in Thailand bottom of column3 and top of column4)"

I could put the word "homosexual transsexual" into that paragraph and it would still mostly make sense. Aside from the data on the origin of the words they have the same definition. Therefore they are the same word. Were "homosexual transsexual" a better known term they might use it and save some typing. The reference I used places the kathoey in the category of a homosexual male bodied person who additionally wants to be treated as a woman. How much more HSTS can one get?

--Hfarmer 04:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in that article does it use the term "transsexual." In fact, it states that kathoey means "hermaphrodite", "third sex," and "transgendered." It also states that homosexuality as a concept has only been part of their vocabulary for 50 years, where the much older term kathoey is about the "primacy of gender (visible markers of masculinity and femininity) rather than sexual behaviour per se." That's where this article makes the clearest point in terms of its title "gay vs. kathoey." The term "homosexual transsexual" is part of a typology based on sexual behavior, where kathoey is about gender identity and expression. Jokestress 08:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And this highlites a point of fundamental disagreement between us. I read that passage above and see a description of a group that under BBL theory would be the very definition of homosexual transsexuals. Rather than argue this point I will point out the following. There are obvious references to individuals who have been ID'd by Bailey as being HSTS but I am reluctant to put them here like that. I would want to talk to, at least attempt to contact these people first and see if they would be comfortable with being refered to in that way in context of this article. I would say "These are some people that J. Michael Bailey Bailey has refered to as "homosexual transsexuals" "My Story by Victoria",and "Maria's Story" who were respectively called "Juanita and "Maria" in The Man Who Would Be Queen. Like most so called "homosexual transsexuals" they do not self identify as such and see themselves as being simply women". Seems neutral to me, stating an undisputable fact that Bailey refered to them as such. Also ironic due to where I found those links, eh. :-/ I suppose I could go to Pilsen and ask around without giving away why I would be looking for one of these people.... I imagine these people do not want to be reminded of this crap though. Let me think on this for a day or so. (I suppose likewise could be done with the autogynephilia article with a reference to Anjelica Kieltyka. I mean I have at least emailed every major player in this book,and the controversey and recieved responses from most so why not seek them out as well?--Hfarmer 06:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are obvious references to individuals who have been ID'd by Bailey as being "homosexual transsexual," then those can go in with citations. The kathoey article above never uses the term "homosexual transsexual," and Bailey never uses the term "kathoey" in his book. You are trying to conflate things that are not connected in published citations. The transgender youth article can discuss these more general issues, but the bottom line is that "transgender" does not mean the same thing as "transsexual," and either does "kathoey." Jokestress 07:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(outendenting) Finding these people to see if this is ok by them would be a daunting task even knowing the general area of Chicago they are in. By design there is not enough information avaiable that I know of to find them. So I will blatantly rationalize and say that whatever damage could have been done to them by this was done years ago in TMWWBQ. What could mentioneing that it happened do? --Hfarmer 13:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

But first I will try to be sure I match the right person to the correct reference in TMWWBQ. --Hfarmer 14:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am an idiot. For one of these people there is a known email address. I will try it. --Hfarmer 15:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're clear on original research yet. If there there are obvious references to individuals who have been ID'd by Bailey as being "homosexual transsexual," then those can go in with citations. These need to be verifiable references in reliable sources. You don't need to get permission from anyone for adding proper quotations and citations in Wikipedia, because you should not be doing that kind of original research. Email correspondence is not a reliable source and constitutes original research. I have met several of the women you linked to earlier and been to their homes, but anything they told me at that time constitutes original research unless I have published it somewhere. Anything you add to Wikipedia should already exist. Much of the stuff you have previously added to Wikipedia is basically your personal opinion and interpretation. That's not acceptable. You need to limit additions and contributions to citing the work of others. That's the fundamental premise behind the entire project. If you want to write something that makes a case for your belief that kathoey are "homosexual transsexuals" or whatever, set up a blog and go for it. If you want to write here, please stick with information and citations as described in the three key links above. Jokestress 16:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but what I am talking about is not my original research. Like I have said I have been looking on, from a safe distance, as these events unfolded. So I personally remember many things that I do not try to write into this article as well. What was emerging from my memory was the following document that I read shortly after it was published on Dr. Conways' website. I barely recalled it but I found it. [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/SecondComplaint.html "A Second Woman Files

Research Misconduct Complaints Against Bailey:" Via Lynnconway.com]. The following is quoted from there.

"This woman has since contributed her story to the "TS Successes" pages, where she is known by the name "Victoria"......In appreciation for his help in obtaining the SRS approval, I agreed to participate in a lecture program for Dr. Bailey's Human Sexuality class. along with Anjelica. I thought I was representing myself as a healthy, well adjusted and proud Hispanic heterosexual Transexual woman. Not until I read Dr. Bailey's book did I realize that my experience as "guest lecturer" in front of his undergraduate class was nothing but a "Freak show", displaying me as research subject/"exhibit B" - "Homosexual" Transexual, which I am not. Anjelica Kieltyka was misrepresented as research subject/"exhibit A", "A" for "Autogynophilic", which she is not. What she is, what I am, are two proud transexual women, one Lesbian and the other Heterosexual. To have Dr. Bailey display us as examples of his recent research and have his students see us in that context is unconscionable, and for Anjelica and I, more then humiliating. We were unwittingly exploited by participating in Bailey's "Freak Show" as examples "A" and "B" of the science of "Gender-bending". The damage to our lives and the lives of all the other Hispanic Transexual women who were unwitting research subjects and "guest lecturers" is irretrievable."

(This makes me wonder where all the black TS's Bailey interviewed are. Much talk of hispanics here. Do they not care or do they not want to expose themselves? Probably the second one.) Is this enough of a link. Here I have one "Victoria" telling us that Bailey did refer to her as a "homosexual transsexual". Such seems to be a very firm link to me.

Allow me to clarify that my desire to get approval of what I would put here regarding them is because I do not want to get sued. Sued in Cook county circuit court for libel, slander, defamation or whatever. I do not want to get a knock on my door and have a irritated hispaic woman get in an altercation with my angry black mama. So before I execute any of this I intend to do due dilligence to get feedback. This may sound far fetched to you however consider the following. Where I write to you from now is only about 5 miles from where Anjelika Kieltkela went to highschool. What I am saying is I do not want to P.O. people I could potentially run into on the street.--Hfarmer 07:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So, how do you propose we present this? Please write the sentence below, and I'll take a look. Something like "One of the women labeled "homosexual transsexual" by J. Michael Bailey in his book (book page ref) filed a formal complaint (conway ref) that led to a full investigation by his university (tribune ref)." How's that sound? Jokestress 07:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay I have been wresteling with getting my new pc to work with my setup. Ok I would take the very setence you gave above and do the follwoing. "One person identified by J. Michael Bailey, In The Man Who Would Be Queen as a "homosexual transsexual" was Maria". If you know of a link to the Chicago Tirbune and inventigating Beiley feel free to add that.--Hfarmer 03:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Need a better critic?

The only cited critic isn't actually using her real name. I have a lot of sympathy for her choice, but it makes her an unreliable, unverifiable source, no matter how True™ her view is. Can we find a professional in the field who is willing to criticize this idea on the record? I'd be much happier if we could find a professor of something or another who is willing to declare that it's all nonsense, but I'll settle for anyone with a real name. Surely we can do better than an anonymous person with a website. WhatamIdoing 04:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC) The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.