Talk:Homosexual transsexual/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

clarify tag (since removed)

Hello,again. I have reviewed your blocking case and it looks specious to me. In my dealings with you you have been reasonable and fair. I don't see the wrong in what you have done to warrant that. I hope it all pans out. (note: this is related to another subject.)

You placed a clarify tag by "The term homosexual is controversial because these transsexual people identify as heterosexual based on their gender identity." Just what is unclear? Perhaps I am so into the TS/TG thought pattern that I can't see how this phrase confuses. I originally had it read. The term homosexual is controversial because these transsexual people identify as heterosexual based on their subconcious sex."

Would it be clearer to you if I wrote. " The term homosexual is controversial because these transsexual people identify as heterosexual based their mental gender identity as opposed to their birth sex,"  ?

Thanyou for your cooperation. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, first it's not a blocking tag - it's just a clarify template - labeling it or me as "specious" is a leap of bad faith. To cut to the chase though, I think you might find language like "labeling transsexual people as homosexual is seen as controversial because homosexuality is traditionally contextualized as attraction to one's own gender; transsexual people are generally considered to be changing gender in some way." Frankly the whole article needs work but that statement was jarring for the confusion it engendered. If it's cleaned up it would explain that some transsexual people change gender and mainstream understanding of their sexuality would follow that their sexuality would change with that transition. ie. One's attraction to males while identifying as a man is seen as homosexual whereas attraction to males while identifying as a female is seen as heterosexual. To most readers, in my opinion, it's moving way too fast and with emotionally charged material. -- Banjeboi 23:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note. Moved from my talkpage to article talkpage. -- Banjeboi 23:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the Clarify tag. I was talking about you being topic blocked. :-| --Hfarmer (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Second I understand now that it's moving too fast. From the outside looking in having read and study this term so much it seems self explanatory. The term "homosexual transsexual" was not coined by transsexuals ourselves. It was coined by sexologist and is based on one idea of male to female transsexual eitology which sees it in relation to the eitology of homosexual males. It is not a self identity but a word used by sexologist to give a name to a phenomena they have observed.

Really calm down. I guess you are on edge having been topic blocked. Let me again reiterate that I don't see why they would block you. Based on my dealings with you up to this point you have been a very fair and reasonable editor. That tagging seems specious, capricious and unfair. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed my notes. -- Banjeboi 00:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite calm - no worries. I think the article should explain which sexologists - sounds like it was a select group or a minority opinion? That may help explain what's going on. The lede would also do well to explain who finds it controversial. That it's a term applied to transsexual people and not used as a self-identifier would also help. The lede (per wp:lede) should stand alone as an article explaining the overview summing up the major points and serving the reader to understand why the topic is notable as well as a summary of criticism. The rest of the article, once reworked and cleaned-up, then expands and drills down into details. It may help to look at beefing up the lede more even if the rest of the article is still being worked on. -- Banjeboi 00:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are all good suggestions. I will work on them over the weekend. It won't be easy to make a leade that is simply worded, brief, but self complete, that is not so simply worded that it is crude, yet the language only requires a 10th or 12th grade level education to understand. Oh boy. If I can do it all of this will be a good article indeed!--Hfarmer (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Strategies for reaching consensus on article scope

Thanks for the comments above. There are so many things wrong with this article, but the main problem is that it has been written in a manner that conflates a phenomenon that has occurred in every culture and time with problematic terminology of recent coinage, thus attempting to legitimize the terminology. I have used moron as an example: no one denies that people have always existed who satisfy the criteria of that former taxonomic category. The problem lies with the clinical bias and ideological underpinnings of the term "moron" itself.

All of these typologies and nosologies used to diagnose trans people are considered iatrogenic artifacts by critics. There are a tiny group of people who have latched on to these obscure categories as identities over the years ("I am a Type VI transsexual," or "I am a GIDAANT sufferer" etc.), usually because they like where they fit in the taxonomic hierarchy, or it's more socially desirable to them than some other taxonomic scheme. They tend to be quite tenacious about defending the legitimacy of the questionable taxonomy or made-up disease ("I have Harry Benjamin Syndrome," etc.), which has been the case on this article. The "experts" who create and promulgate these terms tend to be very protective of their taxonomies, too, which we have also seen on this article. As an example, the section heading "description by western science" is completely POV. It suggests that "western science" is some kind of monolithic entity that agrees entirely that "homosexual transsexual" is a legitimate term and category. Plenty of people in "western science" have taken issue with the term. This whole division of pre- and post-2003 gives undue weight to an out-of-print book. 2003 is when User:Hfarmer became aware of this controversy, and that's why this article reflects that POV. Hfarmer has said, "I know WP:OWN but damm it this article is my baby." That's why there's been this back-and-forth for two years here.

I believe this article should follow Wikipedia policy and only have as much general information as needed to contextualize the controversy about the term. The articles classification of transsexuals and transsexual sexuality should generally cover the taxonomies and sexual behavior, respectively. The top-level general articles should be Transgender and Transsexualism. Keep in mind that "homosexual transsexual" is a very obscure term only used by a few dozen "experts," ever. This article is a footnote to the more general articles, which should have summaries and links to this one but should not go into the level of detail this one will have once completed. Our goal here should be to describe the term as simply as possible, describe its use by proponents (including their attempts to associate the term with other times and cultures), and describe its criticism by opponents. All the extraneous stuff should be moved under the appropriate articles.

Since June I have limited my participation to this talk page (except to add the NPOV tag once this got completely unacceptable). I believe that remains the appropriate way to continue, but because of that, I'd love for a disinterested editor to assist with incorporating proposed changes from the talk page into the article once we have consensus. As always, comments and thoughts are welcome. Jokestress (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And which Wikipedia policy is it, that says that subarticles are only allowed to have the minimum necessary information for context? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. Jokestress (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it really helpful to continue the discussion which seems to have stymied the article for two years? What was happening up above with rewriting the lead was a step forward for the article. --Malkinann (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this discussion has actually been going on for two years. In fact, I'd say that it's been going on for something much closer to two weeks, although it's an issue that has come up in different ways in the past.

I also find nothing in NPOV that says that detailed articles need to be stripped of background information: more information is not necessarily an undue amount of information, and NPOV does not require that this article take into account the pathetic state of other related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No one is talking about gutting anything. The article as it stands asserts a specific POV: that the term "homosexual transsexual" has scientific legitimacy. Critics assert it does not because of the bias and ideology contained in its assumptions. The whole "history of the concept" section should be at Transgender#Transgender_people_in_non-Western_cultures and/or Non-westernized_concepts_of_male_sexuality. It's being used here as an attempt to legitimize this term. This article should summarize these related topics and link to both of those existing articles. This article should discuss how proponents try to graft these other cultural analogues to their medicalized disease model. The term "homosexual transsexual" did not come into use until 1974. We should cover how it came to be used by proponents, which would involve summarizing materials at transsexual sexuality and classification of transsexuals. This article is replete with factive POV assertions and a near-complete dismissal of the criticisms of this term. There is no balance here, which is why the whole thing is a massive NPOV violation. Jokestress (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On that point, I am inclined to agree. It seems that a lot of effort has gone in to finding references to support the POV espoused in order to make that position appear as if it is a referenced, neutral position. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Would it be enough to say at some point that 'so-and-so identifies the kathoey of Thailand, etc. as having some of the traits of the "homosexual transsexual", as these groups are generally x y z', as part of the discussion of how proponents further define "homosexual transsexual" people? --Malkinann (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all I argue that is really does not matter when a term for a natural phenomena was coined.

bout 12-14 Billion years ago the big bang occurred. It was only about 100 years ago that Einstein published his General Relativity and gave humankind the ability to understand that phenomena. HIV was causing aids LONG before either term ( HIV or AIDS) was coined.

Second of all I argue and show proof that this term was coined BEFORE 1974 and not by Blanchard. In fact Blanchard credits Magnus Hirshfeld for coinage of the term.

"Hirschfeld basically distinguished four main types of “Transvestiten,” according to their erotic interest in men, women, both, or neither. (The last type lacks erotic interest in other people but not necessarily all sexual drive.) Hirschfeld labeled these types the same way that he labeled non-transsexual individuals, that is, according to their biological sex. Thus, in Hirschfeld’s terminology, a male-to-female transsexual who was erotically attracted to men would be labeled a homosexual transsexual. I began my research by defining and labeling the same groups of male-to-female transsexuals identified by Hirschfeld: homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and asexual (i.e., transsexuals attracted to men, women, both, or neither, respectively)." - Origins of the Concept of Autogynephilia.

So as you can all see this was not recently coined. It was in fact observed that there are some qualatative and quantifyable differences between transsexuals which track to our various sexual orientations. Multiple researchers have confirmed this time and time again.

Third I argue that including the historical bits that I have does not legitimate this. Nor am I adding anything to legtimate this term as AJ would say. The groups that I have described in brief in this article are groups which have been described as being transgender/transsexual women who are primarily attracted to men. That is the bare definition of a "homosexual transsexual" requiering that the exact same phrase be used (no matter the home language of the researhers or the cultural context of the particular groups) is just not a reasonable requierment. Not reasonable at all. Such constraints are not used for any other groups. I have cited sources that describe the Katoey, Hijra, etc. as being homosexual in orientation.

Last I am going to argue that the idea that I have bent anything to fit some needs of mine is false.

Every last sentence I have in this article is referenced and either a verbatim quote, or has been paraphrased, or otherwise sampled to give due wieghts to their pov. I have simply attempted to present the matterials in a neutral if not always easily understood way. (i.e. not realizing that the term male to female transsexual would requier explaining in this day and age. ) AJ god bless her is NOT a neutral actor. She has a vested interest in all of this. She has more or less been neutral in her edits. However her own deeply held and actively promoted biases keep her from seeing a truly neutral article as being anything but horribly biased against her POV. She has her self convinced that a perfectly reasonable transwoman could disagree with her. Such is why she has to resort to these strange explainations for my behavior here.

Since my motivations have been made a topic of discussion let me address that. For the record... I have only ever weakly defended this terms scientific legitimacy. I have about it the same problems I have with most of psychology. The whole discipline quite frankly lacks rigour. Simply because of the utter impossibility of ethically performing meaningful experiments. I have problems with it such as why is autogynephilia a paraphillia? Who defines what is and is not a paraphillia? If it's just a matter of the taste of a culture at a given point in time then just what does it really mean to write of "comorbid paraphilias"? Why is it that the proponents of the term "homosexual transsexual" feel it suffices to postulate that the same root cause makes a homosexual transsexual and not just a homosexual? Perhaps in one case just a more intense version? How can they be so sure that some rare second factor is what makes a one androphilic male a MTF and the other simply gay? Why is it that so much research on causation seems to try hard to ignore the sexualorientations of TS subjects? Are they afraid of the ramifications it would have for this issue one way or the other?--Hfarmer (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, these are helpful comments. One exception is the ad hominem about AJ in the penultimate paragraph. I have read some of the talk page history, and I think Malkinann has read more. We don't need to be told that there has been conflict, and we certainly don't want to see it reopened. It is fine for editors to have different viewpoints on a topic, and even strong disagreements. The point is to find ways to work together so that the article represents the different viewpoints fairly and well. To do this effectively, ad hominem must be avoided on all sides. That also includes resisting the tempatation to respond to ad hominem arguments. Instead, refocus on the content. Geometry guy 22:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm precisely what did you see as an adhominem against AJ? Please clarify.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether your comments are true or not, in the interests of harmony, I suggest striking from "She has a vested interest" until the end of the paragraph ("my behaviour here"). These remarks all address the editor, not the content, and so do not move the discussion forward. Geometry guy 22:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed something that deserves a response. First of all a small number of us who had the internet in the 90's were somewhat aware of the controversy. However this term and phenomena was changed forever by Bailey's 2003 book. Arguably the concept that the term HSTS describes was known but did not really have a name in most peoples minds before that book. Another thing the comparison to the word "moron" is not really valid. There are a minority of people who find the phrase homo sapiens insulting because to them it implies the truth of biological evolution. The word moron unlike HSTS or homo sapens sapeins is intrinsically insulting as it is used now. "homosexual transsexual"....honestly I can only see it as being automatically offensive if one harbors a degree of internalized homophobia. Granted the way Dr. Bailey describes "Homosexual transsexuals" is either intentionally or unintentionally derrogatory (i.e. especially suited to prostitution. Unable to form long term relationships). But that can be done with any word. If somenone wrote a book which described Psychologist as all a bunch of perverts and mental defectives who only research other peoples minds in order to understand their own sick twisted brains. Would that make the word psychologist automatically become an insult? Of course not.

The word homosexual as it was used before and is really used now in this context only speaks of a persons attraction to the opposite biological sex. That's it that's all. At least that's all that means to me. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've un-redacted those "ad hominems" because they're not personal attacks. They are valid questions about Conflict of Interest, which you seemed to eager to lay upon me in the MSM article. If you cannot deal with people questioning your bias because you prefer to be classified under this taxonomy, then you should find another article to contribute to. --Puellanivis (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I now respond to your point. "Homosexual" means someone attracted to the same biological sex (I'll presume your use of "opposite" was in error, we all make mistakes.) However, defining biology such that I am "biologically the same" as a man is unfair, considering all the biological evidence against such an assertion. The term "homosexual" was chosen in transsexual circles to describe people who were attracted to the same people as their birth sex. Birth sex isn't the be all, end all of anything at all. There are men born in the Caribbean, and no one knows that they're men as children, because they have what otherwise appears to be an entirely normal vagina. Then, at puberty, the testicles pump out testosterone, virilize the child, they grow a "penis", and their testicles drop. They then adopt a male gender identity. Where is their "biology"? Seriously, before you want to start discussing the "biological sex" of a creature, or even of humans, I suggest that you start looking at the intersexed people of the world... because don't forget... a "perfect" definition of biological sex, not only has to cover transsexuals, but it has to cover them as well. --Puellanivis (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Three general comments that have bearing here:

1. Good scientists understand that terminology matters and should be scientifically accurate. To take Hfarmer's AIDS example, AIDS was initially called Gay-related immune deficiency. There were "experts" who didn't care what it was called, but good scientists understood that the term was not scientific and laden with bias, so they pushed for a more accurate term. That's what's happening here: proponents who insist on an older term vs. critics who take issue with its scientific accuracy and bias. Wikipedia's coverage of GRID is instructive here.
2. We can get into a long discussion about Magnus Hirschfeld at a later date, but as usual, Ray Blanchard has twisted what Hirschfeld actually said a century ago to fit his own beliefs. The two most relevant major references for Hirschfeld here are Die Transvestiten [The Transvestites] (1910), and "Die intersexuelle Konstitution [The Intersexual Constitution]", in: Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen (1923). Jarbuch was Hirschfeld's equivalent of today's Archives of Sexual Behavior controlled by Blanchard and colleagues as a bully pulpit. The Encyclopaedia of Sexual Knowledge (published 1934 by the Eugenics Publishing Company, Inc.) states that Hirschfeld distinguished ten types of transvestiten (page 402). In the Jarbuch, Hirschfeld created the first intersex nosology, describing it as "psychic transsexualism" [seelischen Transsexualismus]. If we are going to discuss Hirschfeld, we should quote Hirschfeld, not Blanchard's spin on Hirschfeld on some pro-Blanchard website.
3. The idea that use of this term was "changed forever" by Bailey's book is simply wrong. That book was certainly a tipping point which is helping to hasten a paradigm shift, but the fact that it is out of print after five years shows its level of influence. Framing the controversy about this term in that way is a huge WP:UNDUE issue.

@Malkinann: Yes, we should include any citations where authors use the term "homosexual transsexual" to apply to any demographic group. We do need to be careful that it's presented in a neutral manner, though. Taking your example, "Kathoey" has its own problematic connotations and is also considered controversial, and people who use words like "shemale" and "kathoey" would also use terms like "homosexual transsexual" uncritically. As an example, Ray Blanchard uses all three as "scientific" descriptors. Jokestress (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second Kahtoey is controversial?! Since when? To Who? Look at paragrah 35 of this. A transsexual woman success by the name of Nun Udomsak calls herself a Katoey. Again in her own words "I have been turned down lots of times, and I really don't know whether it is because I am a kathoey."--Nun Udomsak I could find dozens of similar links where transwomen, from Thailand refer to themselves that way. I just could not let that pass.

As for the term being changed forever by Bailey's book. That book hit the TS/TG community like a comet hitting earth. Before it there were dinosaurs after it there were skyscrapers. It was a watershed. Before the book saying that at least some (and many people assumed all) transsexuals were feminine boys, who grew up and became gay males or transsexuals was a commonly held idea. A stereotype that like all others is based on a piece of the truth. For most people it had no name here in America. Heck for most people even considering the existence of mtf transsexuals who were not attracted to men was met with utter confusion, or hostility. After that book and it's backlash. A backlash which organized TG resistance to a great level that is no longer the case. Partly because of the after math of this book. Would you really like to remove any reference to that fact. The real story of this controversy is that it mostly gave a common cause to groups of transgender folk who before often regarded eachother with hostility, and suspicion. You must remember what those days were like. (Abandon your false idea that I do not know of what I speak. I like you have been around long enough to remember much darker days than these.) --Hfarmer (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "kathoey" is controversial, as discussed in the article and in work by Jackson, Morris, Sinnott, etc. If you wish to discuss that controversy, please do so on Talk:Kathoey. As I have said numerous times, this article should certainly mention the out-of-print Bailey book and its use of "homosexual transsexual," but any assessments about its significance in the history of the term "homsoexual transsexual" need to be sourced. Jokestress (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

AJ?

Several times in this page, HFarmer has made reference to "AJ". Given that those are my first two initials (I'm often referred to as AJ or Alice Jane elsewhere), I at first assumed that this was a reference to me. Now I'm not sure, as the references don't make sense to me. HFarmer, if you are referring to someone else using the initials AJ, could you please use that person's wikipedia username to avoid confusion. Thanks. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about you not anyone else. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In the section above titled "NPOV tag: Issue 1- Phenomenon vs. term", you stated "Well AJ you are the one who brought up the word nigger." Not only did I not make reference to "nigger", but I wasn't even involved in the discussion at that point. Here are a few more quotes from this page where I was not involved at all: "Also I have not said it was not controversial. Just that it is not depracated just because AJ, Lynn Conway, and Diedre McCloskey don't like it."; "More hyperbolic statements from AJ surprise surprise."; "Now cut out the childish acting AJ, act your age."; "AJ The only person who is making this about me is you." Again, I wasn't involved in the discussion when any of these were posted.

When I did make a brief comment on this page, your response included "Nor am I adding anything to legtimate this term as AJ would say." and "AJ god bless her is NOT a neutral actor. She has a vested interest in all of this. She has more or less been neutral in her edits. However her own deeply held and actively promoted biases keep her from seeing a truly neutral article as being anything but horribly biased against her POV. She has her self convinced that a perfectly reasonable transwoman could disagree with her. Such is why she has to resort to these strange explainations for my behavior here."

Are you really asserting that all of these personal attacks are against me? --AliceJMarkham (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother.. I read the title of this section and assumed this was by and about the person who's initials are AJ in real life. The somewhat famous AJ. You know "jokestress". You thinking I was talkng about you is like someone using the initials JFK and somene named Jerome Frank Kaplan thinking it was about him! LOL! --Hfarmer (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"AJ" is "Andrea James," aka user:Jokestress.
(No, this is not outing. Jokestress identifies herself by name on her userpage.)
— James Cantor (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Toward a value-neutral lede

In addition to many other problems with this article, the lede is especially inaccurate as far as describing this term and the controversy in a value-neutral manner. The wording makes a number of biased assumptions that legitimize this terminology and assert its validity.

1. Use of "same sex" perpetuates the confusion.
2. One paper (Blanchard 1985) is cited ten times in the lede. That's a clear violation of WP:UNDUE.

I have proposed in the past that the lede comprise three paragraphs per summary style:

1. A value-neutral description of the term that summarizes the usage and controversy.
2. Use by proponents of the term
3. Criticism by opponents of the term

I believe that is the clearest way to summarize the article. Comments welcome. If we can come to an agreement on this, I can propose some language. Jokestress (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I support a rewrite of the lead. I would suggest having a read-through on WP:LEAD and WP:JARGON for ideas - the lead has to be accessible without being condescending, and must be a potted summary of the article's most important sections - an abstract, I'd call it. It's tough. Btw, I've tagged a couple of sentences in the lead with NPOV inline templates - they're either NPOV or have an off tone to them, I can't exactly put my finger on which. --Malkinann (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed first paragraph (explanation follows):

Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some behavioural scientists to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation. The term "homosexual" is controversial because it defines transsexual sexuality based on a person's assigned sex. These transsexual people consider themselves heterosexual based on their gender identity. Proponents primarily use this term to describe transwomen who are attracted to men, though they sometimes use it to describe transmen who are attracted to women.

This removes the POV language and keeps the first paragraph value-neutral. It replaces disputed terminology with language that does not reflect cognitive bias. Same citations, though I would also add Kessler and McKenna's 1985 book Gender as a citation for the concept of sex/gender assignment. The second paragraph would summarize use by proponents. The third paragraph would summarize criticism by opponents. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

looks good to me. Only thing is I would still link the "scientist who stdy..." part to sexology. Really good. I would be working her more but I just got really busy.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I used behavioural scientists to combine the references to psychology, psychiatry, and sexology in the current version, which don't need to be mentioned separately. It adds complication to split them out. Jokestress (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As part of the ongoing effort to avoid writing this article from the "in-universe" perspective, I'm not sure that we should assume that transwoman and transman are part of the readers' vocabulary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not necessary to get into that in the first paragraph or maybe in the summary. We could eliminate the last two sentences, and/or make them part of the proponents paragraph and provide a concrete example there. Jokestress (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WAID that transman and transwoman may not be in the readers' vocabulary, but I disagree that it should come much later in the lead than this, as it really helped my understanding - perhaps it could be better to go "Proponents primarily use this term to describe male-to-female transsexual women (transwomen) who are attracted to men, though they sometimes use it to describe female-to-male transsexual men (transmen) who are attracted to women." This introduces the terms in a way laypeople would understand, and then the article can go on to use transwomen and transmen with merry abandon. I would also add "at birth" behind assigned sex to try to give a bit more clarity to the phrase without the person having to leave this article. --Malkinann (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think something like that would improve understanding. It could be the other way around, if preferred: "...describe transwomen (male-to-female transsexuals)...". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Those suggestions all clarify this - here's a version incorporating those suggestions:

Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some behavioural scientists to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation. The term "homosexual" is controversial because it defines transsexual sexuality based on a person's sex assignment at birth. These transsexual people consider themselves heterosexual based on their gender identity. Proponents primarily use this term to describe transwomen (male-to-female transsexual people) who are attracted to men, though they sometimes use it to describe transmen (female-to-male transsexual people) who are attracted to women.

Additional comments welcome. If we're close, I can add in the citations in the draft. Jokestress (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps place "Proponents..." before "The term "homosexual"..."? --Malkinann (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A good general principle is to construct a position before deconstructing it. In this case a fair description of how proponents use the term is needed before an explanation of how and why the term is criticised. (But I'm happy to see constructive discussion taking place!) Geometry guy 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on your comments, it sounds as if you're suggesting a three-sentence first paragraph, followed by paragraphs on views of proponents and critics:

1. Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some behavioural scientists to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation. Proponents of the term define transsexual sexuality based on a person's sex assignment at birth. Critics of the term define transsexual sexuality based on a person's gender identity and describe these people as heterosexual or suggest using gynephilia and androphilia to avoid confusion.
2. Proponents primarily use this term to describe transwomen (male-to-female transsexual people) who are attracted to men, though they sometimes use it to describe transmen (female-to-male transsexual people) who are attracted to women. (Brief summary of use)
3. Critics of the term argue... (Brief summary of criticism)

Is that accurate? The only issue is that some critics also have issues with the term "heterosexual" and propose gynephilia and androphilia as workarounds. Does that confuse matters, though? Jokestress (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. We are simply suggesting reversing the order of two sentences. The more complicated construction you propose is not a lead section, but ideas for writing the body of the article. Your response illustrates the problem of trying to write a good lead while the body of the article is not ideal. I suggest trying to agree on an approximate lead based on the current one, then reworking the body of the article, then revisiting the lead to provide a good summary. Geometry guy 23:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with doing that, but I'd also like to have a clear consensus among a group of editors that this article should discuss the term "homosexual transsexual," and the article transsexual sexuality should discuss the general phenomenon of various types of sexual behaviors and identities among transsexual people. That's been a source of contention on Wikipedia for at least 2 years, and I'd love to hear the thoughts of uninvolved editors. My argument (outlined here) is that it's Wikipedia policy to present material in a value-neutral manner, and this article is about a term that is not value-neutral. As such, we owe it to readers to present all viewpoints without legitimizing or delegitimizing a contested term. Jokestress (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two ways of understanding your recommendation that the article discuss "the term". One is that Transsexual sexuality should have plenty of information on the phenomenon, and on other phenonmena, and that this article provide a reasonable level of context for the reader -- e.g., so that the reader knows that the idea of a transwoman attracted to men was not "invented" at the same time that the term "homosexual transsexual" was coined. (I support that understanding of your recommendation.)

Another interpretation is that this article have all general information removed so that it only contains information that is directly about the specific term itself (that is, the two words, and the researchers that coined the phrase). This approach removes significant context, history, and background information; the reader could not possibly understand anything except the linguistics without leaving this article to read Transsexual sexuality. I do not support gutting the first half of this article. There is no good reason to delete this information from this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, under your second interpretation, perhaps it points out a need for the two articles to be more synchronised? Jokestress, are you suggesting it would be beneficial to port some of the text from here to the other article? --Malkinann (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) I misunderstood what Malkinann was asking. I thought she was saying that the existing second sentence should start with "Proponents," which is why I rewrote it to start that way. I believe this is what she meant:

Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some behavioural scientists to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation. Proponents primarily use this term to describe transwomen (male-to-female transsexual people) who are attracted to men, though they sometimes use it to describe transmen (female-to-male transsexual people) who are attracted to women. The term "homosexual" is controversial because it defines transsexual sexuality based on a person's sex assignment at birth. Critics of the term define transsexual sexuality based on a person's gender identity and describe these people as heterosexual.

If that works for everyone, we can do that. As far as Geometryguy's suggestion for getting the article in order before writing the lede, the key issue there is discussed below. Jokestress (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for being unclear - this is exactly what I meant, and I like it. :) I also like how now it says 'critics of the term' rather than implying that all transsexual people are critical of the term. I think we're at about the stage where the references could be put back in, in preparation for it going into the article. --Malkinann (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. It constructs the position before referring to criticism of it, and it does so in a fair way.

A general comment may be in order. Wikipedia is not value-neutral. The neutral point of view is a point of view, namely the point of view that Wikipedia articles strive to achieve. This viewpoint calls for fair representation of significant views without bias. That isn't value-neutral. Some value systems suppress points of view that many find objectionable. The neutral point of view also calls for representation with due weight. This can be hard to judge, but is also a value. If the majority of transsexuals, professionals and reliable sources consider the term "transsexual homosexual" to be offensive and/or misleading, that doesn't mean the article should be written from their perspective, only that more weight should be given to their viewpoint. Geometry guy 20:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never liked the word "proponents". It makes this sound like a purely political issue. As if there aren't real scientific reasons (at least as Magnus Hirschfeld and many others since him saw it) for this sex based taxonomy. However I can see why it can make sense to use it. The latest version of the first paragraph is also good by me. Needless to say I agree with geometry guy about the meaning of "neutral" here in wikipedia. Neutral means unbiased. I feel that much of what I write for WP really is unbaised because if it weren't one "side" or the other would like it without reservtions. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please suggest an alternative word instead of proponents? --Malkinann (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "behavioral scientist" would be appropriate. Since just about every "proponent" is just such a scientist. Though that makes it sound like all "behavioral scientist" agree.... Well actually it appears in terms of defining the term. Writing "Behavioral scientist primarily use this term to describe transwomen (male-to-female transsexual people) who are attracted to men, though they sometimes use it to describe transmen (female-to-male transsexual people) who are attracted to women." How about that?--Hfarmer (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Replacing proponents with behavioural scientists, thus reiterating "behavioural scientists" twice within two sentences, seems to me to be creating a dichotomy of scientists against the world. What about rephrasing it in the passive voice? "The term is primarily used to describe transwomen (male-to-female transsexual people) who are attracted to men, though it is sometimes used to describe transmen (female-to-male transsexual people) who are attracted to women." --Malkinann (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

@Malkinann: exactly. "Proponents" and "critics" are all-encompassing, which is why I recommend them. It is more accurate. Some proponents of the term are not behavioral scientists (or scientists at all for that matter). Some critics of the term are scientists in various fields. Using all-encompassing descriptors avoids the attempt to make this seem as if it's "scientists vs. transsexuals," since that is the inaccurate POV put forth by the term's proponents. The passive voice suggestion is a problem, though, because it is important to clarify that this is how proponents have used the term. Critics have used the term in the exact opposite manner.

@Geometryguy: when I say value-neutral, I meant that Wikipedia policy is to avoid presenting controversial terminology (like moron) in a way that legitimizes its use. "Moron" is obviously not a value-neutral term, just as is the case with any other deprecated term used by psychologists. I'm not saying we shouldn't have an article on "moron" because it's offensive. I'm saying that Wikipedia should not assert a factive POV: "A moron is a person with an IQ of 51-70." Wikipedia should say "Proponents of the term once applied it to people with an IQ of 51-70." The second one is more accurate and remains neutral about the scientific validity of the taxonomy. That's what I'm saying should also happen here. I also agree that we should present both viewpoints in proportional measure (something that's not happening right now). Jokestress (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Outcome

The outcome of the mediation is that the case is closed due to one of the arguements, that of Jokestress, et. al. boils down to "i dont like it" This finding in favor of the position of myself and others means that this article must be written in compliance with the consensus of the editors who did not base their arguement on "I don't like it".

Furthermore in the course of the mediation disucssion new evidence on how this term, concept, and class of person exist in the real world came to light. In a news story about TG's from latin America seeking asylum a court case is mentioned. In immigration law there exist due to a court case the following category. "in a landmark ruling in 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals paved the way for transgender claims by recognizing "gay men with female sexual identities" as a group eligible for protection." -Border Crossers by SFtimes.com That sounds like a phenomena, a protected class of people under US Federal case law. There is no other way to interpret what the court meant for if that were not the case asylum would be denied. I think that a bit of this information should be included in the article in some form or fashion. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure the case wasn't closed because Hfarmer's argument boils down to "i dont like it"? Jokestress (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Because one you don't like this term. Hereford does not really make that so clear in his writing. One can take any number of things he wrote out of their context and make the case the finding was for you.

Second it turns out that the outcome of the mediation almost did not matter. Because evidence, which must always outweigh anything has come to light. In particular this is the text of a immigration court decision "The primary issue we must decide is whether gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico constitute a protected "particular social group" under the asylum statute. We conclude as a matter of law that gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico constitute a "particular social group"" - A. Wallace Tashima (Circuit Judge) [1]

There! Now how about that Mr. Fung? (Using Mr. in the above does not mean I am calling AJ Mr. That's a quote from the OJ simpson trial that I have been dying to use at some point. Why not now?)--Hfarmer (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case, they stated, "We need not consider in this case whether transsexuals constitute a particular social group," so its relevance on a page about the term homosexual transsexual is questionable. See Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000). Jokestress (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into the mediation outcome. I suspect the mediator simply got fed up. One of you "likes it", one of you "doesn't like it". That's no basis for reaching a compromise. Geometry guy 22:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Hfarmer's POV edits

Would someone (preferably Hfarmer) please revert all the changes made to the article by Hfarmer today? We are in the midst of working toward consensus, and the edits violate a number of policies and guidelines. They are all highly counterproductive to what we are negotiating on this page. Jokestress (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should that be? Every edit I have done today at this point has simply been to summarize the information found in the body of the article in the leade. The user Geometryguy said that this was needed on the good article review page. There is nothing new there. As for it's being POV. I'm sorry but it isn't. If it has a citable off wikipedia reliable source then it is not POV. You could argue undue weight and give a source which contravenes what is in the article. But you cannot really call it POV. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is another misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. Every source has a point of view, however reliable. Wikipedia has a point of view too, called the neutral point of view: it is a point of view which tries to represent others fairly, with due weight and without bias. Citing lots of reliable sources which favour one point of view is not Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Neither is it Wikipedia's neutral point of view to dismiss these sources as "biased" or "discredited". Show, don't tell. Describe the controversy, don't engage in it. Platitudes, I know, but neither mediators nor reviewers will be able to have any effective dialogue with you until you take them on board.

From a reviewer's point of view, the revised lead is too long, and has too many citations. It seems to go too far towards legitimizing this controversial term. I suggest substituting for the first paragraph discussed above and below, and brutally copyediting the rest down to half the size. Then I suggest that it is impossible to write a good lead until you have a good article to summarize. Go through each section, thinking about how to improve it so that you can write a better lead. Geometry guy 22:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Are seven citations needed for the first sentence in the article? As a reader, I find more than 2 or 3 citation marks per sentence to be intimidating. I have tagged some statements in the lead which I find to be NPOV. I have also reduced the amount of citations present in the lead by where a citation is repeated eg Blah blah blah,[cite] rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb,[same cite] fiddle dee dee.[same cite again] removing it, rendering it something like Blah blah blah, rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb, fiddle dee dee.[cite] Hope this helps. I would also like to draw everyone's attention to WP:TIGER, which says that "...we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." So although our passions inspire us to improve the article on the subject which is dear to us, in order for it to be of any use to people who don't see the subject quite as we do, we have to learn to step back, take a breath, and check our passions at the door as much as we can. --Malkinann (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

@Malkinann: Please review the proposed intro paragraph and minimized citations in the section immediately below this comment. Jokestress (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed-upon first paragraph with references

Per Malkinann's request above, here is the consensus-based first paragraph with references. I have included one reference for each sentence, which is all we need. Too many citations is a POV-pushing strategy, especially in the lede. In the cases of usage, I have included references for what I believe are their first uses in each context.

Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some behavioural scientists to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation. Proponents primarily use this term to describe transwomen (male-to-female transsexual people) who are attracted to men, though they sometimes use it to describe transmen (female-to-male transsexual people) who are attracted to women. The term "homosexual" is controversial because it defines transsexual sexuality based on a person's sex assignment at birth. Critics of the term define transsexual sexuality based on a person's gender identity and describe these people as heterosexual.

Comments welcome. Once we get this sorted out, we can figure out what the other two paragraphs should look like per summary style. Jokestress (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already figured. Talk about the present not the past. I have evidence that this is not just a term and your POV attempts to make it so will not succeed. I agreed upon this paragraph. The first thing I did to this article was to insert it. Look at the history. Then I modified it based on the evidence. Aside from two adjustments the lead paragraph in the article is the same one you have here. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your "adjustments" to the lead paragraph are not part of the consensus we have all been negotiating. I again ask you to revert today's edits and resume working productively toward an agreement on the talk page. Jokestress (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem this article faces is that there is a phenomenon, and a controversial name to describe it, and it is difficult to separate the two. We have the article Transsexual sexuality, but that is more general. So, Jokestress, what terms from reliable sources would you like to see used to describe transsexuals who are homosexual with respect to their sex assignment, and heterosexual with respect to their gender identity? Geometry guy 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We've had that conversation already. I believe that the term androphilic transwoman was proposed, but if you do an internet search on the exact (quoted) phrase, it's almost non-existent. It does not exist in any reliable sources (although I believe it would be appropriately descriptive without being insulting).

I have no objection to another article being created under a more neutral term -- but I do object to removing accurate, relevant, properly sourced information from this one, especially when it means removing information entirely from Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, no one is talking about removing information from Wikipedia, just moving it to the appropriate article so this one can be about the controversial term. Jokestress (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Phenomenon vs. terminology

(outdenting) @Geometryguy: Yes, phenomenon vs. term is exactly the problem, as I outline here and here. I believe our articles on the term moron vs. the phenomenon of mental retardation and the term Gay related immune deficiency vs. the phenomenon of AIDS are instructive examples.

The terms currently used by mainstream academics are gynephilia and androphilia. As an example of the experts who have become more sophisticated and accurate in their terminology, here is noted sexologist Milton Diamond:

Years ago Karlen and I (Diamond & Karlen, 1980) suggested that terms such as heterosexual or homosexual be used as adjectives instead of nouns identifying people. I have since recommended that the terms androphilic (male loving), gynecophilic (female loving) and ambiphilic (both loving) be used as descriptors (Diamond, 2002a). The first mentioned terms are often confusing when Intersexed or transsexual persons are described and it is not always clear if one is referring to the individual's original or final state. Also, the suggested terms can be used as adjectives without consideration of the original sex or gender of the person spoken of. The suggested terms also are not saddled with the taboo or political features of the hetero/homo/bi-sexual nomenclature and, again unlike the former terms, are not assumed to be a total description of anyone.

Sexologist Jim Weinrich said in an interview:

Ray Blanchard and his associates at the Clarke Institute of Psychology in Toronto have continued to nail down their position that m-f transsexualism comes in basically two flavors (“androphilic” and “gynephilic” or man-loving and woman-loving). This has been done in a series of clever questionnaires and plethysmogaphic studies. Along the way, taxonomic zeal got Blanchard to claim that female-to-male transseualism was always woman-loving. ..

Here's a few passages from a book by Ron Langevin (who used to publish with Kurt Freund at the Clarke Institute and is at University of Toronto) using the term and mentioning the confusing terminology:

Transsexualism and androphilia. Freund and his associates compared transsexual and nontranssexual androphilic men. […] In the Freund et al., study little to no reaction to females as evident in the transsexuals indicating the were not “bisexual” in erotic object choice nor were they gynephilic. However, this may simply reflect the subject selection procedure. Nine percent of the individuals who were gynephilic were excluded from the results. Thus, this study presents a biased picture that there are no transsexuals who erotically prefer women over men .

Barr, McConaghy and their associates examined penile reactions to males and females in three further studies . One report is an elaboration of another illustrating two cases of “apparent heterosexuality” in applicants for sex reassignment. Overall, the results support those of Freund et al that transsexual applicants for sex reassignment are generally androphilic preferring mature male partners. Nevertheless, they found some gynephilic transsexuals too.

Bentler (13) assumes without question that transsexuals may be gynephilic, androphilic, or asexual and devised a typology of transsexualism based on that distinctions. To highlight the terminological confusion that can result in this area, I will just note that almost all Bentler’s patients said that after surgery, they were “heterosexual”. This represents a complete reversal in self concept for the androphiles according to Bentler. What we do not know is whether they are judging their preference for men or women as women or as men. One can appreciate that meetings at gender dysphoria clinics must be quite confusing at times for the staff!

Other demographic information suggests that the transsexual can be either gynephilic or androphilic but is predominantly androphilic. [...] The best one can conclude from this available information is that androphilic transsexuals seem to be more numerous than gynephilic ones. However, it would be false to conclude that gynephilic transsexuals do not exist. Their small but persistent numbers suggests that something is amiss in the parallel of transsexualism to androphilia.

Preference for gynephilic male partners. Freund et al found that androphilic transsexuals reported less gynephilic experience than nontranssexual androphilic controls. Early androphilic development was associated with less subsequent gynephilic experience. This agrees with the claim of transsexuals that they have always felt like women and thus would have little desire for sex relations with women, even from an early age.

Langevin then summarizes the extensive uses of standardized testing around femininity and feminine gender identity with transsexual and nontranssexual people, which I mentioned to User:WhatamIdoing earlier. Psychologist Sandra L. Johnson writes about the relationship of "male transsexual" typology to psychosocial adjustment:

Valid and reliable scales measuring the typological variables of erotic partner preference (androphilia and gynephilia), cross-gender fantasy in association with sexual arousal (cross-gender fetishism), and degree of feminine gender identity in childhood were used. Results indicate a significant relationship between social gender reorientation and the feature of androphilia and between work adjustment and gynephilia.

Psychologist Uwe Wolfradt of Martin-Luther-University describes the typological variables of male-to-female transsexuals, including androphilia and gynephilia:

Johnson and Hunt (1990) examined 25 male-to-female transsexuals to determine whether introversion, depression, adjustment to work, and gender reorientation were associated with the typological variables androphilia, gynephilia, feminine gender identity in childhood, and age at onset of transsexualism. […]According to Devor, transsexualism may be an adaptive extreme dissociative survival response to severe child abuse. Similar to dissociation, depersonalization can also be considered as a defense mechanism to reduce negative affectivity (Wolfradt and Engelmann, 1999).

Wolfradt then summarizes Hartmann et al. (1997), describing their subjects as "persons with gender dysphoria disorders (androphilic and gynephilic males)". Dutch psychologist Ditte Slabbbekoorn uses "androphilic MFs" (for which the counterpart would be "gynephilic FMs"):

In line with these findings, we were interested to investigate whether male-to- female transsexuals (MFs), androphilic MFs in particular, would show more... (etc.)

I have limited my references to behavioral scientists who use "androphilia" and "gynephilia," specifically as a better alternative to "homosexual transsexual." People who are biologists, linguists, anthropologists, etc. have also weighed in on this problematic and largely deprecated terminology. I'll end with a passage from the Archives of Sexual Behavior that includes a quotation from sexologist Aaron Devor:

supporters of the Blanchard typology could: stop insisting that every trans person who doesn’t fit their schema is a liar; provide better evidence; stop using terminology that people find offensive (e.g., ‘‘homosexual transsexual,’’ which is also very confusing). As Devor (personal communication, September 9, 2007) said, ‘‘if what we really mean to say is attracted to males, then say ‘attracted to males’ or androphilic... I see absolutely no reason to continue with language that people find offensive when there is perfectly serviceable, in fact better, language that is not offensive.’’

Basically, use of "homosexual transsexual" comes down to a few holdouts at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry and their supporters vs. everyone else. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Jokestress (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is: Where are all the reliable source that uses the exact phrase "androphilic transsexual" or "androphilic transwoman"? I'd be happy to have a proper article on the general idea under one of those titles -- except that none of our reliable sources actually uses those exact phrases. WP:NAME says to use the most easily recognized name, as determined "by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Zero reliable sources using the term = don't use that term for the article's name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the big picture here. No one talks like that except a small group of sexologists with too much "taxonomic zeal," to quote a source above. The phenomenon is transsexual sexuality, the article Hfarmer started. The companion article is classification of transsexuals. I have given half a dozen examples of how and why academics avoid the term "homosexual transsexual." There are many, many more. The idea that a "homosexual transsexual" is a discrete category of transsexual sexuality is similar to those whose taxonomic zeal led them to claim "moron" is a discrete category of mental retardation. You're asking "Well, what's the new term for 'moron'?" Nothing replaced "moron," because it was a bad naming scheme, just as "homosexual transsexual" is. Jokestress (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Jokestress going to the trouble to list all these sources. There are a number of issues here.

• The statement that really needs a source is "Basically, use of 'homosexual transsexual' comes down to a few holdouts at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry and their supporters vs. everyone else." It's no good one of you (Js & Hf) citing lots of sources which say one thing, and the other citing lots of sources which say another. Wikipedia can't decide what is more correct, widespread, current, or scholarly. We need reliable secondary sources whose analysis we can cite.
• I can understand that there is a strong movement in a very relevant sector of academia towards using less confusing and more neutral terminology. However, Wikipedia cannot advance an agenda, we can only report on it. For instance, in the first quote Milton Diamond seems to be advocating the use of androphilia and gynephilia instead of heterosexual and homosexual in a general context, not exclusive to transsexuals. This hasn't yet caught on as far as I am aware! Again we need RSS. For instance, are there organisations, governmental or otherwise, recommending usage among sex counsellors and other professionals?
• Obviously "androphilic transsexual" means a different thing to "homosexual transsexual" (they both include male-to-female attracted to male, but differ on female-to-male). So, is it more notable to study transsexuals by the gender they are attracted to, or by gender difference? Or should we resist any attempt to combine and write separate articles on the four main possibilities with neutral titles?
• If we are getting fussy about the meaning of "gender" for the subject of attraction, why is the same attention not paid to the object? Apparently their gender is unambiguous. A male attracted to female-to-male transsexuals is what? Homosexual, heterosexual, androphilic, gynephilic? It is easy to get wrapped up in well-intentioned attempts to clarify psychology, but we can't engage in original research: Wikipedia cannot lead the way, or support those leading the way. It can only report on the work being done, and how it is received.

Consequently I don't find the AIDS and moron comparisons compelling. In twenty years time, Jokestress's viewpoint may well be what we find on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and all we can do for now is describe the current situation, however confusing that may be. On the other hand, we should also not legitimize terms like "homosexual transsexual". The removal of the word "controversial" from the first sentence is unacceptable. Geometry guy 20:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer your comments in order:

• That statement is to give you background on what's going on, not something I have proposed to be put in the article.
• This is a very obscure debate in a neglected corner of the tiny field of sexology. It's a footnote to a footnote. Most sexologists don't even care, let alone the mainstream media. Most transsexual people don't care, either, though transsexual people as a group vehemently oppose the term and its pejorative baggage. The only reason I care is because I am very familiar with the literature, and this article as it stands completely misrepresents the issues. There has not been much discussion of this outside sexology, except by people critical of the term. "Homosexual transsexual" is not used in the mainstream media, nor is "androphilic transsexual."
• Transmen are generally ignored/invisible, both in sexology and in society in general. Theories abound as to why. Transgender women are probably the most sexualized group of people in the world, largely because the typical classification of transsexuals by "experts" traditionally categorizes us by transsexual sexuality. Using these taxonomic schemes as article titles reifies and legitimizes these contested concepts.
• Someone attracted to trans people is called a "transfan" or "admirer," though the current execrable Wikipedia article is at the wholly unacceptable name tranny chaser. The fine folks who brought you the above convoluted naming scheme like to throw around silly words like gynandromorphophilic or gynemimetophilic, etc. Regarding splitting transsexual sexuality into four articles or something along those lines, I continue to maintain that this article should not take a stand on the validity of the term, and that just about all the activity on this article of late has been to push the POV that this term is scientifically valid. Splitting transsexual sexuality by sex and/or sexual orientation would further reify these concepts.

I'd like to see the agreed-upon first paragraph added to the article as a first step. I am abstaining from editing in the article space at this time in order to facilitate consensus, so would you be willing to put it in? Jokestress (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have boldly placed the draft paragraph into the article and fixed up the references which became broken when I put it in. Further polishing of it can be done in the article space. I'm beginning to feel like this article could have words to avoid - for example, "The basic concept is that these transsexuals were always attracted to the same sex.", which I've removed from the lead seems to me to condescend to the reader and it is confusing. It also has an overly conversational tone to my mind. I'll put a note about words to avoid in the GA reassessment, as the words to avoid guideline must be adhered to for GA. --Malkinann (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all. I support the idea of changing the title of this article. It would take it out of the mode of thinking that many are in right now. That is this being only about Dr. Blanchard's theory. It is not. Nor is it just about sexuality. It is about a group of people who at this time, in many reliable sources are defined in terms of their sexuality. Though other cultural or socio economic terms could be used they just aren't. Because androphillic transsexual does not appear as such in reliable sources and homosexual transsexual does that tips it in favor of "homosexual transsexual". From the standpoint of a wikipedian I have to agree with Geometry Guy on that.

As for defining this as an article about a term, or a class of people...a phenomena, I have found a court precident that must have been used coutless times, which had to have taken into consideration all kinds of scientific and cultural evidence, which states plainly "homosexual males with female gender identities are a particular social class of people based on immutable characteristics" (best recollection). I hope that reference was not removed be cause REST ASSURED I WILL NOT LET that kind of information be deleted without a fight. It is hardly a open and shut case for AJ to say that this is only the POV of two or three people in Canada.

This will be my last comment for some days. Can someone explain how "The basic concept is that these transsexuals were always attracted to the same sex." is condecending? There are people in the world who hear the term homosexal transsexual and think of it as a doble use of the same word. I would hazard a guess that the words transgender, transsexual, homosexual, transsexual, gay, fa...t,... and so on are all synonyms to 60% of Americans! Trust me you have to cut big ideas and long words into small baby bites to ensure understanding. I mean look at the now archived featured article review. In all candor one of those people thought that the article as it was said that "all homosexuals were transsexuals".  :--? --Hfarmer (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hfarmer, I tried to be careful to not remove citations when I ported the draft paragraph into the article. I re-added the two citations which were broken when I ported it, and I checked the number of citations pre-port and after. The words "basic concept" I find are condescending, and I find it confusing to think of transsexual people being attracted to the "same sex", because of the tension between a person's sex assignment at birth and what they believe themselves to be. If you don't have a firm grip on the difference between sex and gender, which many "cis-gendered" (is this the right word? people who don't have a problem with the sex they were assigned...) folks don't, you're stuffed. So you can imagine that when I find the "basic concept" to be confusing, I feel condescended to. The fact that you refer to it as being cut into "small baby bites" reinforces my perception that it is condescending. I feel it is clear enough when it's said that it refers to transwomen (mtf people) who are attracted to men, and transmen (ftm people) who are attracted to women. --Malkinann (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see. You want the wording to take a more trans affirming perspective. The following in my mind applies to all TG/TS related articles on WP. Try and look at this from the perspective of "Joe the Plumber". Suppose Joe comes here and wants to find out information about transsexuals. Well to joe and allot of people like him, I would say a majority of people in the world, LGBT people are all gay, queers, faggots. This is not even in a totally hostile sense, for many those are the words they have. These are people who look at a transsexual woman who is attracted to men, and they would describe that person as a gay man who is attracted to men and dresses like or immitates a woman. In short gay, gayer, gayest, and so flamming that they could power the eastern seabord for 50 years. Which perspective should Wikipedia contain?  :-? Well believe it or not I prefer the first transaffirming perspective, you do and I know Jokestress does. However our preference is not what guides what we write here. WP policy is for a neutral point of view. That even goes down to the wording as well as the sources and content used etc. By saying the "basic idea of a homosexual transsexual is that they are a biological male who is sexually attracted to other males but lives as a female (has a female gender identity)" I was putting in one sentence that even joe the plumber could understand, and which is true to the sources.

The sources, many many sources, define a homosexual transsexual MTF as a male who is attracted to other males (kinsey 5-6), who also has a female gender identity. I put that sentence into the article specifically because a reviewer, for Featured Article Status said that they did not know what the article was even about. The read the whole thing and could not even say that. Do you understand where I am comming from on this?--Hfarmer (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I want the article to not condescend to the reader, be they the hypothetical "Joe" or anybody else. In the "editorialising" section of the words to avoid guideline, words like "basically" are said to express a point of view. --Malkinann (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Further reading section?

Might it be useful to assemble a further reading section in the article in preparation for the now inevitable-seeming rewrite? The sources could then be incorporated at leisure into the article and then deleted from the further reading list per protocol. --Malkinann (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be a good idea. Would you say that's the next thing we should focus on to keep the momentum going, or something else? Jokestress (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite inevitable? This is WP the articles are in principle in a constant state of rewrite. Are they not? Nothing here is every really "final". That said I think that the further reading section could be a permanent part of this article (or any other) making sense out of the formal references can be a bit cryptic much of the time. Providing links that people can just casually click on is IMO always a good idea.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

More WP:OWN/violation of consensus by Hfarmer

Yet again, User:Hfarmer is continuing a long-running pattern of editing in the article space without discussing those changes here first. That is counter-productive to developing a neutral article. Regarding all these claims about US case law, as I said earlier, that case specifically states it is not about transsexuals: "We need not consider in this case whether transsexuals constitute a particular social group." So its relevance on a page about the term "homosexual transsexual" is questionable. See Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000).

I am refraining from editing the article at this time, and my repeated requests for Hfarmer to do the same have been fruitless to date. Would someone revert all those unilateral POV edits until we reach consensus on what goes in the article? Jokestress (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed the changes before see above. I mention Giovanni Hernandez-Monitel VS INS a few times. You wrote.

"In that case, they stated, "We need not consider in this case whether transsexuals constitute a particular social group," so its relevance on a page about the term homosexual transsexual is questionable. See Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000). Jokestress (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)"

I have a few questions

1. Who is the "they" you mention?
2. It seems you have accessed the record of all testimony on the case (page 225) how is that?
   1. The actual ruling has only 25 pages.
   2. Nowhere does what you wrote appear in it.
3. What does appear in the ruling?

"The primary issue we must decide is whether gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico constitute a protected "particular social group" under the asylum statute. We conclude as a matter of law that gay men with female sexual identities

in Mexico constitute a "particular social group "

Are you saying that mere testimony in this case negates the actual verdict of the judge. You do know that court does not work that way. Many people on the stand said OJ was guilty but the Judges's decision or jury's verdict is what always carries the day. Does it not?

Now that judge did not use the word "transsexual" However clearly that is what is meant in this ruling. Consider the story that lead me to that ruling. Those ladies are for all the world transsexuals. Every one of them hase been judiciated to be defined as a "gay man with a female sexual identity" If they were not they would not have assylum.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

1. "They" = Circuit Judges A. Wallace Tashima and Melvin Brunetti. 2. You are misreading a case citation, as discussed here. You are also wrong when you claim "Nowhere does what you wrote appear in it." 3. It appears in the decision written by Judge Tashima. Jokestress (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Symantics Jokestress symantics. How does this quote again not say what it says?

"The primary issue we must decide is whether gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico constitute a protected "particular social group" under the asylum statute. We conclude as a matter of law that gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico constitute a "particular social group " and that Geovanni is a member of that group. His female sexual identity is immutable because it is inherent in his identity; in any event, he should not be required to change it. Because the evidence compels the conclusion that Geovanni suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution if he were forced to return to Mexico, we conclude that the record compels a finding that he is entitled to asylum and withholding of deportation."

"...men with female sexual identities..." That's a MTF transsexual.

You also say that "" appears in the decision by judge Tashima. Please click on the link in the citation that I have provided. text of judges decision in Geovanni Hernandez-Montiel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service via UNHCR's ref world. You cite page 225 It's only 25 pages long. Was that a typo? And on page 25 what you say appears does not. As a matter of fact take that doccument which is the actual decision of the judge NOT the whole trial testimony that I think AJ is using and do a search for "We need not consider in this case whether transsexuals constitute a particular social group". It appears no where. Now AJ could you please check again what you are actually refering to and provide a hyperlink. So that I may examine this statement in context.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the links I provided that explain how case law citations work? You still don't seem to understand that 225 does not refer to a page number. Take a look at footnote 7 in the document you linked. You will find that you are wrong, and that the judges indeed state that the case is not about whether transsexuals constitute a particular social group. If you want to make an article titled Gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico and can find enough reliable sources, go for it. And please don't try to appropriate muxe into your medico-juridical paradigm as you have with other non-western social constructs, because muxe are not all gay and do not all have female sexual identities and do not seek asylum. The INS case's relevance to this article is questionable at best and in my opinion irrelevant. Jokestress (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)