Talk:Homosexual transsexual/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Proof of Use in Psychology by psychologist

user:Mattisse claims in multiple edit summaries made in the last day that this workd is not used in psychology and no psychologist are mentioned. Apparently they did not read any of the references or wikipedia bio's of any of the people in this article. As far as providing references, and for the sake of the "collected referecnes on this page... here are all of the references that are now in the article.I will just point to the wikipedia bio's. Ray Blanchard has a PhD in psychology, J. Michael Bailey has a PhD in psychology, Many of the references are from journals of psychology, written by people who are not either of those two mentioned, nor beholden to them. Journals of psychology. (Look at the references in the article to see this) That is enough to show that this word is used in psychology and psychiatry by psychologist. For that reason I am going to revert what you wrote. Heck It borders on a sort of stealth vandalism. Vandalism made to look like constructive help when any person of good faith no matter how they have felt about this at least stipulates that this is in psychology. That is why I am reverting your last edits. They are misinformation at best.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• In any of the references is it shown that the term "Homosexual transsexual" is used by professional psychologists? Show me what diagnostic manual it is it. None of the article titles you reference from journals in Psychology use the term. Prove that the writers using the term are psychologists and that they are using the term as a diagnostic label. Also, remember that Psychiatry and Psychology are not the same discipline. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, despite your comment here, I would be surprised to discover that you actually believed that clinical psychology was synonymous with psychology; anyone with any sort of background in the field is fully aware that clinical work is only one aspect of the study of the psyche. A theoretician that never sees a person face-to-face is every bit as much a "true psychologist" as a person with a license to do talk therapy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Clinical psychology includes theory. But I am willing to amend that to psychologist. Just because a person has a PhD. in Psychology does not mean that person identifies as a psychologist. Notice that Ray Blanchard identifies as a sexologist. If I were an attorney and got a Ph.D. in Psychology, I might still identify as an attorney with a Ph.D. in Psychology. The field a person identifies with is not determined by the degree. The president of the state university near me has a Ph.D. in Psychology, yet her profession is University President. As I note below, psychologists do not have medical degrees and are not qualified to deal with issues in medicine, such as endocrinology, that pertain to the field of sexology. Note that the field of sexology draws people from several fields. It is incorrect to assign it to Psychology. to The profession of Psychology does not deal with assigning sexual labels. In fact, it is considered unethical, and the term "homosexual" was removed from the Diagnostic Manual. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So you would therefore consider a professor of psychology to be a psychologist, regardless of licensing status? (Most US laws accept such a description as legitimate.) Even if that person's specific subfield is the psychological aspects of sexuality? Or is it simply a matter of self-identification, so that any undergrad psych student can say "I'm studying psychology, and therefore I'm a psychologist"? (This would not be acceptable in American courts.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This comment is late in the game, but that inane conversation below physicist/physicists did reveal one thing. The dictionary definition of either did not make reference to job status, or educational attainment. As an undegraduate professors would start to refer to 3rd and 4th year students as physicists some times. People with degree's in one thing, often end up working in a field that is totally different. (i.e. half of the people I know who work in sales/marketing did not go to school for that.)--Hfarmer (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a psychological term

Please provide evidence that "Homosexual transsexual" is a diagnostic term typically used by psychologists. I do not believe it is. It may be used by sexologists but that is different. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all nowhere does the article claim that this is a diagnosis, in the DSM or any other such thing. Therefore the article does not need to provide evidence....for something it does not claim.

Second the claim is made that the word is used in psychology take this reference, the article has a couple dozen just like it, look at the reference section of the article. Smith, Yolanda L.S. (2005-12-15). "Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance" (PDF). Psychiatry Research. 137 (3). Elsevier: 151–160. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2005.01.008. Retrieved 2007-06-26. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) That reference is in a journal of psychiatry/phychology. There are many others like it. Need more here's one more. Cohen-Kettenis, Peggy T. (February 2003). "Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Problems". Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 31 (1). Netherlands: Springer Netherlands: 41–53. doi:10.1023/A:1021769215342. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) This reference is also from a journal of psychology, a paper where people with degreee's in psychology, use the word to discuss the psycholgy of transwomen who are attracted to men. Oh yes two could be a conicidence how about a third one...Zucker, Kenneth J; Blanchard, Ray (October), "Birth order and sibling sex ratio in homosexual transsexual South Korean men: Effects of the male-preference stopping rule", Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 61 (5): 529–533, doi:10.1111/j.1440-1819.2007.01703.x {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) That's three citatiions, which were already in the article which show the word is being used in psychology.

Now to put this conversation to rest for good A google scholar search of ... homosexual transsexual psychology... turns up dozens of incidences. There. Now I will await a third opinion. While I am sure at least one user who comes by will also object to "used in psychology" they are not going to try and represent tht it is not used at all which seems to be your clearly unsupportable position. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)
• Very few of the names mentioned in the article are Ph.D. level clincial psychologists. Most are physicians, psychiatrists, sexologists or other disciplines. Psychologists can only diagnose according to the DSM-IV in the United States or ICD in other places. Psychology and psychiatry took great care to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual. You are talking about sexologists. Even the article says that the diagnosis of homosexual transsexual is controversial. That means psychology does not endorse or condone the diagnosis. The only psychologist clearly associated with this discipline is John Money who was discredited by the David Reimer incident. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just substitue psychiatry for psychology and psychiatrists for psychologists and I won't care. There are ethical reasons why Psychology cannot be associated with this diagnosis. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• "psychiatry/phychology" is not psychology. Just because you find some references does not mean the field of psychology condones the diagnosis. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am starting a request for comments.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, would you please clarify your comment that "There are ethical reasons why Psychology cannot be associated with this diagnosis"? Presumably a psychologist is adequately qualified to determine whether a person born male is (1) transsexual and (2) attracted to men -- and that's all this "diagnosis" really involves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is all the diagnosis "really involves" then you don't need a psychologist to deliver it. Psychologists are ethically bound to be responsible in assigning diagnoses. When the diagnosis "homosexual" was removed from the diagnostic manual, it became unethical to diagnose someone as homosexual. There is not diagnostic category "Homosexual transsexual". Some persons trained as psychologists may become sexologists, but that does not make sexology into psychology. Please see comments by User:Jokestress below. Even in the article, Homosexual transsexual there is mention that the diagnosis and the term is controversial. There is no general agreement on what the term means by those who use it. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is currently no diagnostic code that divides transwomen into two groups based on whether they are attracted to men. I consider that fact unimportant: we categorize cancer patients according to many factors that aren't reflected in the ICD codes, either. If you had breast cancer, I'm sure you'd be unhappy to be told that nobody cared about whether it was hormone sensitive, or likely to spread, and that really all that mattered was which part of the breast it was located in -- which is all that the ICD-10 code tells you. Similarly, we don't have a separate code for "HIV+ because of drug use" vs "HIV+ because of anal sex", even though these factors do matter. Some professionals consider the distinction to be important (for reasons of differential outcome); they therefore categorize transwomen this way, and base parts of their treatment on it, even if that information never reaches the billing department. We have good sources that demonstrate that some psychologists use this concept; if you want to state the opposite, then please produce a good psychology/science source that says that the field of psychology has rejected it.

I agree that people don't really need a psychologist to "tell them" whether they are transwomen attracted to men, but under the current rules, they do need a psychologist to document their reality. This is a rather different activity: a psychologist might need to inform someone that he has atypical depression, but this is not the case for many "diagnoses" in psychology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm opining per Wikipedia:3O. I've never interacted with anyone listed here, or in regard to this article. I'm here because this request for opinion was simply the next on the list.

Like "piles", this term may not be one that a psychologist would use with her peers, but she should certainly anticipate how the term is used by others who will expect them to understand them.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Plural of psychologist, sexologist, scientist, physicist, etc.

Resolved

The current first sentence of the article says it "is a term used by some sexologist and psychologist..." Is that gramatically correct, or do the plurals of words that end in -ist require an S? Should the sentence say it "is a term used by some sexologists and psychologists..." or is the grammar correct as is? (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• psychologist → psychologists; sexologist → sexologists; scientist → scientists; physicist → physicists. That is what I think. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• As seems to have already been agreed above, Jokestress is correct about the plural forms of these words, but I find the community-wide RfC over such a unbelievably minor and trivially resolved point to be remarkably vexatious use of process that is clearly intended to publicly embarrass one editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• It is intended to get the first sentence corrected. If we are all in agreement and this bizarre discussion about plurals is over, please correct the article and I'll remove the RFC tag. If not, I'll add back the cleanup and NPOV tags till all the problems here are resolved. Jokestress (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Whatever. No actual physicists I asked about this thought that made sense....so S is a silent consonant. Put it in the sentence how you like. Had you not needed to try and degrade me for not being a stellar speller this would have gone smoother.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• The plural forms of these nouns are completely normal. Just add an "s" to the end of the word. There's a request for comment about this? LadyofShalott ^Weave 05:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC) (And what does spelling have to do with whether or not it's NPOV? Those are separate issues.) LadyofShalott ^Weave 05:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Transsexual community response: proposed text

Proposal 1

Moving on to a major POV problem with the article, let's discuss how we should cover trans community response to this term:

According to Leavitt and Berger, "transsexuals, as a group, vehemently oppose the label and its pejorative baggage." Transwoman Andrea James has called the term "inaccurate and offensive," and transman Aaron Devor wrote, "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." J. Michael Bailey and Kiira Triea, prominent critics of transsexual activists, state that Triea's transkids.us website is written by and about people who anonymously endorse "homosexual transsexual" as a self-identity but fear reprisals for going public.

User:Hfarmer has proposed another source, but this has not been proposed as a sentence that summarizes that source. I don't believe there's any new info in that source about community response to the term "homosexual transsexual." Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not a POV problem. The reference from Bailey and Triea is a peer reviewed paper in an academic journal meeting the relevant wikipedia standards. Writting their assertion that some people do not find the word offensive, and making clear it is their assertion, is not a POV sentence.

As for the article "Dr. Sex" one needs to understand the context to get the significance of that one. (If you think this is TLDR you can skip to the italic text at the middle and the end. But It really doesn't make sense without a bit of explaination) Dr. Sex refers to J. Michael Bailey, the article is about his socializeation with a group of transsexuals who featured prominently in the book The Man Who Would Be Queen after it was published. The article tells us that Bailey categoizes many of them as "homosexual transsexuals", and hints at them being aware of that. However more sources, can shore up that one. Another source, by one Alice Dreger "Dreger AD (2008). "The controversy surrounding "The man who would be queen": a case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the Internet age" (PDF). Arch Sex Behav. 37 (3): 366–421. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1. PMID 18431641. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)" Dreger asserts these pseudonymous women were shown the manuscript pre-publication and asked for their feedback. Dreger mentions an article in Northwestern Universities school Newspaper called "True Selves" (Gibson, M. (1999, February 24). True selves. The Daily Northwestern(‘‘Focus’’ section), p. 1, 5.) in which one of the women, who were reported as socializing with Bailey after the publication of his book, is explicitly refered to as an example of a homosexual transsexual. The following while it is a source does make the notion these women knew Bailey called them "homosexual transsexuals" in his book plausible. This is the section of the book where the term is used. [Women Who Once Were Boys] This was on the internet for a good long while before the book was published. That can all be dismissed as OR...but don't rely on me Dreger who I have cited writes in a WP:V RS...

Remember that on June 20, 2003, Wilson published in the Chronicle of Higher Education her ‘‘Dr. Sex’’ feature on Bailey and his book—a gossipy, in-person accounting that included the story of her excursion to the Circuit nightclub on May 22, 2003, with Bailey, Kieltyka, Juanita, and several of the other transwomen whose stories appeared in TMWWBQ (Wilson, 2003a). According to that June 2003 feature by Wilson, Kieltyka was openly disenchanted with Bailey’s account of her as an autogynephile, but by Wilson’s and Bailey’s accounts, the night out in May had been friendly (Bailey, 2006a; Wilson, 2003a). Even Kieltyka did not contradict this account when I asked her (Kieltyka,2006c). The transwomen who accompanied Wilson and Bailey to the club in May 2003 understood they were helping Bailey promote the recently published book by meeting with Wilson and why not, since, according to Wilson, ‘‘they count[ed] Mr. Bailey as their savior’’ (Wilson, 2003a).

Now if the term homosexual transsexual was so higly offensive to the delicate gender identities and self images of these women then why the hell would they socialize with Bailey after he published a book calling them homosexual transsexuals? Free Beer? If the very utterance of these terms is what Jokestress says it is, universally damaging and horrible in and of itself... then why did these women not tell Bailey to go to straight to hell when he invited them to Circuit (A nightclub on Halstead in Chicago's "boys town")?

My questions can also be called OR and dismissed. But again Dreger ask simmilar questions about why all of the sudden it seems these women were offended, after talking to our Andrea James and one Lynn Conway?

(Kieltyka, 2006c). But why, one has to wonder, didn’t Wilson ask in July what was going on to have caused such a radical shift in relations? Why did Wilson not use her serendipitous insider knowledge—something any reporter would surely have been delighted to have on such a good story—to raise questions about why these women went so rapidly from being Bailey’s friends to claiming a long history of abuse at his hands?

All of this suggest that the transsexual communities response is a bit more complex than Jokestress would have us all belive.--Hfarmer (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Everything above is WP:SYN. The proposed paragraph already includes Bailey's assertions about community response. I propose we add:

According to Leavitt and Berger, "transsexuals, as a group, vehemently oppose the label and its pejorative baggage." Transwoman Andrea James has called the term "inaccurate and offensive," and transman Aaron Devor wrote, "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." J. Michael Bailey and Kiira Triea, prominent critics of transsexual activists, state that Triea's transkids.us website is written by and about people who anonymously endorse "homosexual transsexual" as a self-identity but fear reprisals for going public.

If anyone has anything they want to add or change, please present your additions or changes to this paragraph below for discussion. Jokestress (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually all of the above is backed by looking at Dreger's article, where she describes the actual initial response of Juanita and the others written about as HSTS in TMWWBQ. Dreger is where I got the reference to the article in the chronicle, and it's her analysis. All I did was argue for why Dreger's analysys, which is published in a WP:V RS could be included.

Since it seems you now propose leaving Bailey and Triea's paper in then there is no reason to kick a dead horse by mentionging dreger's article or it's work in this instance.

Therefore I can agree with your proposed draft as is, and will WP:BOLD put it in the article in an appropriate place.

(I still would like to know the answer to why they would party with someone who supposedly called them a horrible terrible word which you have tried to compare to the N word and other such epithets?)--Hfarmer (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outendenting)I have made changes. This is how I have it...

According to Leavitt and Berger, "transsexuals, as a group, vehemently oppose the label and its pejorative baggage." gynephilic Transwoman Andrea James has called the term "inaccurate and offensive," and transman Aaron Devor wrote, "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." J. Michael Bailey and Kiira Triea, prominent critics of transsexual activists, state that Triea's transkids.us website is written by and about androphilic transwomen who are not offended by "homosexual transsexual" as a phrase. Bailey and Triea say that these transwomen fear reprisals from transgender activist if they went public.

Here is the why of each change.

1. I think it is important information that you yourself Jokestress are not a subject of this term, you are gynephilic.
2. I think it is important information that the women on transkids are self described as androphilic.
3. This is the most important point, they do not "accept as a self identity" these terms. They, and I don't think of our transsexuality in terms of "identity". I am just being me, and if what I am turns out to be a transsexual so be it it's not something I must strive to fit in as. I have read the article Bailey and Kira wrote... It would not say that the TK.US writers endorse HSTS as an identity... Take this for a sample from that website.

"Homosexual transsexuals are all a bunch of ego-dystonic gayboy fags."This is the illogical converse to "we're all the same". We find that the other type of transsexual wants to be like us as long as we go along with the deal and work hard to be supportive and understanding of them and provide them with interesting authentic details of our lives for them to appropriate. We're just sex crazed gayboys when they get mad at us though. Autogynephilic transsexuals object to hsts being called "Homosexual Transsexual" because in part it makes us harder to relate to in their desire to present as a population that they do not belong to. "Homosexual Transsexual" is not an identity though. Our "identity" is very self evident and socially obvious and hsts isn't what we "are" or our "identity", it's just how we got here since after all we were not born as girls we were born as boys.What is wrong with some common transsexual ideas

And interestingly the way they define the term homosexual transsexual....

Homosexual Transsexual: A transsexual who transitions young principly for social reasons. As boys they're very queer and have a difficult time socially, romantically, and sexually, so they transition to fit in better and have more normal lives in those three areas. They are etiologically similar to homosexual boys with commonalities in childhood and adolescence. Homosexual transsexual sexuality is uncomplicated, typical, and unconfused, they are simply attracted to and desire relationships with men. They tend to view transition as a way to facilitate other life goals such as being regarded as normal by peers, having an easier time getting relationships with boys, etc. (Abr. HSTS)Some terms and meanings

Now I know these are not WP V RS's... in fact they are primary sources... but they are represented in the article by Bailey and Triea which is a WP V RS. WP should represent what is in that V RS, and really should not write what would be utter nonsense to anyone who can go to transkids.us and read for themselves. They clearly do not "self identify" in fact they, and I repudiate the whole concept of an innate gender identity or feminine essence, or whatever the heck it is called. (And I am prepared to wait... in the words of Adilai Stevenson "till hell freezes over." for an answer to why Juaita, Maria, Alma etc would party with Bailey on the occasion of TMWWBQ being published knowing what it said?)--Hfarmer (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind WP:MEDRS (which does not consider primary sources reliable for most information) if this article is to be about psychological/psychiatric issues, as well as WP:V. Also, please keep in mind WP:UNDUE. An encyclopedic article should not reflect personal opinion. Terrorists may not accept that they are terrorists, but if reliable sources say they are, then for the purposes of Wikipedia they are. Also, because someone with a degree in psychology uses a term, that does not mean the field of Psychology considers the term valid. Only WP:MEDRS can determine that. I am sure you can relate to this in physics. If someone with a degree in physics has a novel theory of gravity, that does not mean that the field of Physics radifies and propagates that theory as "true". So far, the article does not seem to be about the article topic, but rather about controversies surrounding the use of the term. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The topic itself is covered at transgender sexuality, transwomen attracted to men, and transmen attracted to women. This article is about this specific term or category, which has been notable for being controversial for decades. Jokestress (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For the above, please read "Jokestress wants this article to be strictly limited to...". Nobody else has agreed to this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Once again, please do not add text to the article until we have come to a consensus on the talk page.

According to Leavitt and Berger, "transsexuals, as a group, vehemently oppose the label and its pejorative baggage." Transwoman Andrea James has called the term "inaccurate and offensive," and transman Aaron Devor wrote, "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." J. Michael Bailey and Kiira Triea, prominent critics of transsexual activists, state that Triea's transkids.us website is written by and about androphilic transwomen who are not offended by "homosexual transsexual" as a phrase. Bailey and Triea say that these transwomen fear reprisals from transgender activists if they went public.

Revisions and reasons:

1. Our sexualities have nothing to do with the reasons Dr. Devor and I consider the term problematic.
2. The plural of activist is activists.

Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Take the world from another point of view and think about how your "Once again, please do not add text to the article until we have come to a consensus on the talk page." looks in light of WP OWN and why your sexuality might matter. I will remove the words but really you ought to think about it.

I have given you most of what you want. So I will add the s's and remove your gynephilia from this. Aand we can call this a day now? Or can't we?--Hfarmer (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is both pragmatic and a common courtesy on Wikipedia to come to consensus on the talk page before making substantive changes to controversial articles. If an editor is making changes to the article while something is being discussed, it makes the whole process more complicated. It often adds new problems that need to be addressed, thus delaying completion. As an example, once we had the text figured out, I wanted to discuss the subheading. I propose "Transsexual community response" as the subhead. It's more neutral to use transsexual as an adjective and not as a noun, and opinion suggests this is an issue of our subjectivity vs. some sort of scientific objectivity. Whatever we use, we should use the same construction for the response among sexologists and the response among academics in general. Jokestress (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am drafting a proposed section on the response within sexology, but there's some overlap with the trans community to address. Aaron Devor's view is especially relevant, as he's both a transman and a sexologist, so perhaps we should identify his occupation in this section. Jokestress (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think instead of thinking of this as a section, you should think of this as expanding on the sections that already deal with how this is treated by sexology. I.e. expanding on the use of alternative terms, and criticism of this term, which would fit into what we have here. A section on the response within sexology... would have to include all of the people who have used the term, why and how they used it... In a sense the whole article is about that, and the phenomena the term seeks to describe. That of transwomen attracted to men and their experience as a separate but related phenomena to that of transwomen who are not attracted to men.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Response in sexology

Jokestress. Consider that there is already such a section in this article, though it is not given a section heading. If it's a matter of having to light up criticism with a neon sign for you we can just add a section heading to this. As I have recently edited it this is what it says.

While the concept that transsexuals can be classified by sexual preference has been used in research for decades, in recent years applying the terminology used for cisgender persons to transgender persons has been questioned, and a gender non-specific alternatives suggested. In the words of Benjamin, male to female transsexuals can only be homosexual if anatomy alone is considered, and the psyche of MTF transsexuals is ignored. According to him after SRS calling a male to female transsexual homosexual is pedantic. One must bear in mind that when Benjamin was writing, transsexual implied male to female, and attracted to men.

Others agree with what Dr. Benjamin wrote about the use of this term one of which is biologist and linguist Bruce Bagemihl. Bagemihl wrote that this terminology makes it easy to say transsexuals are really homosexual males seeking to escape from stigma. Sexologist Jim Weinrich opined that sexologist Ray Blanchard looked for information to support his theory instead of letting the evidence guide his theorizing, by using "a series of clever questionnaires and plethysmogaphic studies." Weinrich stated that Blanchard asserted all female to male transsexuals were "woman loving"Leavitt and Berger criticized in 1990, that "The homosexual transsexual label is both confusing and controversial among males seeking sex reassignment. Critics argue that the term "homosexual transsexual" is "heterosexist", "archaic", and demeaning because it labels people by sex assigned at birth instead of their gender identity. Benjamin, Leavitt, and Berger have all used the term in their own work. Sexologist John Bancroft also expressed regret for having used this terminology, which was standard when he used it, to refer to transsexual women. He says that he now tries to choose his words more sensitively.

1. Before it said "dominated research" However no source says "dominated" (just the same way no source says used by "some") So I re factored that sentence to refer to the concepts appearance in works by various researchers over the years.
2. Basically this is a scientific criticism section just without the name. Remember sexologists, even and especially the ones who see things jokestress's way think of themselves as scientists. Thus this is a disagreement primarily within a field of science..
3. This has most everything jokestress wanted which was discussed and found to be reasonable in the very very long discussions of the third GA review. This is mostly consensus language.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It might make sense until the RfC is resolved before this is discussed - as per my note above, it seems the article should indicate that this is largely an archaic phrase - as such, less emphasis is needed on the reaction of the trans community to the phrease. ~Excesses~ (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI the editors involved in this covered the territory you brought up already. Here is the general consensus.

• A source needs to be found for claims of how broadly accepted OR how totally rejected these terms are. So far no authoritative WP acceptable sources make any claims about just how well accepted "homosexual transsexual is, or it's currency. On the page Talk:Homosexual_transsexual/GA3 that all cited research would need to have it's date mentioned in the text at least once. This will allow the reader to draw a conclusion on the currency of these terms. To write that these terms are accepted/rejected, or the researchers that use them are respected/discredited, there has to be a WP:V WP:MEDRS etc compliant sources.
• Not including the reactions of the transsexual community would leave out an important piece of the puzzle. Therea are good reliable sources which speak to it. It was my feeling that the article which dealt with the controversy over Blancahrd's theory was the place for that. Since that article does not exist, a section with that reaction is warranted. That's IMHO, and User:jokestress was the one who wrote that for the most part, though I did tweak the language a bit. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hirschfeld's use of the term uncited in place and not supported by citation in another and coinage given different dates in two places

I am responding to the request to comment from the LGBT section. Having read Bailey etc., I'd not want to get into a discussion about whether the term has been used by psychologists (read the books and papers, for example: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=270170), however, could somebody provide a reference which verifies Hirschfeld's use of the term please, as I've not come across this in my reading of him - if the words do feature in translation, and does this accurately reflect his use in the contemporary German, or is a later interpretation in translation? Mish (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me - 2nd time - could somebody substantiate the statement that Hirschfeld used the term 'homosexual transsexual' please - my understanding is that the word transsexual was not in currency until after Cauldwell's use of 'transexual' in the 1940's, Hirschfeld used the word 'transvestite' - I do not recall reading 'homosexual transsexual' when when I read him (but that was before Bailey published his book), although he did talk about 'homosexual transvestites' (in German). If you cannot substantiate it, can you correct the error please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talk • contribs) 03:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right he did not use the english language word "transsexual" because he was writing in German. He did not use the english word "transvestite" either. What Hirschfeld used was the German word transvestitien, and he categorized his transvestitien by sexual orientation. In Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA3 a number of users got a hold of the original german work. Which was published in the form of different editions for a number of years. By the final edition as one other user pointed out....

"Hirschfeld used the term seelischen Transsexualismus, or spiritual transsexualism, which he associated with a form of "inversion," but he did not use the word transsexual as we use it today."^[2] He used the word "transvestite" for that, which also has a different meaning today. I believe this complicates matters here for a general reader. Jokestress (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)"

Other users who also knew german and read the originals concured with her on this. Thus it can be said that hirschfeld had this concept in his mind in some form or fashion. To disregard a source just because it's not in contemporary US english would not make sense.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So, he didn't use the term 'homosexual transsexual', and to develop a position that he used the term 'homosexual transvestite' as if it meant 'homosexual transsexual' would be transposition of a later understanding back to his time as if it existed then. That would be either original research, or opinion, and cannot be supported by references. Mish (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

To disregard a source just because it's not in contemporary US english would not make sense - however it' difficult to justify use of a foreign-language source to back up the assertion that a particular phrase in English was used by someone without some sort of qualification in the article.. In fact, the "Hirschfeld" talk page archives seem to support the view that he didn't use the term as the word transexual wasn't introduced until later on. Perhaps the lead could be changed to say something like "The first uses of this term derive from German-language works by Hirshfield in 1923..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excesses (talk • contribs) 08:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not my problem. I don't have to show he did not use this term, you have to show he did. I am not saying he should be disregarded, but that he did not use the term (in English or German) as stated, in 'Hirschfeld first proposed the term', he didn't he used a similar term which did not then have the same meaning it does today. Please re-phrase it in a way that uses the translation of the term Hirschfeld used, or change it from 'term' to 'a similar concept'. Then sort out the rest of the sentence, Hirschfeld did not distinguish between transvestites and transsexuals - his research extended his concept of the 'transvestite' in a way that it included people who today would be called 'transsexuals' - thanks Jokestress, I don't want us confusing the general reader, but neither do I want us misinforming them. I'd rather not be involved in discussions on this page, but this kind of jumped out of the page at me - even Blanchard acknowledges Hirschfeld's inspiration, but not the coinage. If you do this, I'll be happy and can go and play somewhere else. Mish (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC).

Found another instance where both the 'term' and 'concept' are attributed to Hirschfeld, the references may support 'concept', but not 'term'. The two statements give different dates, are they different references? if not make clear they are both 1922, if so provide the citation for 1923 - the 1922 reference could use the volume (3), publisher (Marcus & Weber, Bonn), and ideally page number(s). Mish (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a basic and practical question for you. How precisely do we refer to the concept without using this term? Should we simply say that the concept of the homosexual transsexual was first postulated by Hirschfeld and leave it at that. Or do we insist that the concept they seek to describe is simply that of any transsexual woman who is attracted to men. Since that does not really describe the concept completely.. i.e. a transwoman who's sexual orientation changes due to transition, or SRS is not considered a homosexual transsexual by most definitions of the phrase I have seen? How can we precisely refer to the concept being discussed here?--Hfarmer (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

@hfarmer: Not sure what you are trying to say. I don't see a problem with saying something like 'Hirschfeld developed a concept very similar to what is now termed 'homosexual transsexul by XYZ. I do see a problem with saying he proposed the term when there is no reference to support this. If what he said would not account for what happens to transsexuals in the process of taking hormones, social transition and SRS, then this is a problem I guess, and if these are a significant aspect to the theory of homosexual transsexuality - then that is a bigger problem. Saying he proposed the term doesn't get you out of that, but saying he developed the concept doesn't work either if I understand you right. The way round this would be to go back to the source (Blanchard) and reflect what he said about Hirschfeld, either in the earlier papers or, for e.g.:

'Magnus Hirschfeld distinguished four main types of “Transvestiten”: heterosexual, asexual, bisexual, and homosexual. Hirschfeld applied these labels to transsexuals the same way he did to persons with anatomically congruent gender identity' and developed his usage of 'homosexual transsexual' from this and other sources. (Autogynephilia and the Taxonomy of Gender Identity Disorders in Biological Males (2000))

Because you cannot get to what is said the way it stands from Hirschfeld without interpreting his meaning as being different from what was actually written. It's not my problem, as I'm not interested in editing this page, you are. Mish (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok so I will replace that he coined the term with that he developed the concept. How about that?--Hfarmer (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To your second points. As for not accounting for what happens to transsexuals due to hormones and SRS... First of all what you just said is rooted in your belief in biological determinism. Hormones do not result in attracion to men. Homosexual males hormone levels are normal for a male 99.99% of the time, I'm sure. SRS, a mere re arragnement of bodily tissue which is far away from any brain center that could not possibly control who one finds attractive. Being transsexual being rooted in the brain, most likely, but there can be many valid ways to look at that, both a neurological and psychological/sexological point of view and both can be simeltaneously correct. I would encourage any psycholgist reading this to try and take this issue from the POV of a transwoman, and any transwoman to try and take this issue from the POV of one of the sexologist. As if you never looked at it or heard of it before. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

On the first point, I'm pretty sure that while you can coin a term you cannot coin a concept, it looks clumsy - concepts tend to be developed (or generated, I think). You could go back to the source of the claim about Hirschfeld, confirm the correct date and volume of the journal cited, and ensure the two references tally in this article - you could do that by looking at what Blanchard actually wrote in his two original papers, and determine where Hirschfeld said this. Then you could go back to Hirschfeld and see what he actually said. That way you could either cite Hirschfeld and have the wording reflect that, or simply cite Blanchard and have the wording reflect that. However, if you have not read Hirschfeld, how can you cite what he said without knowing what he said? You could simply say that "Blanchard attributes the development of his concept of 'homosexual transsexualism' from one of Hirschfeld's four types of transvestite" - or "Blanchard attributes his concept of 'homosexual transsexual' to Hirschfeld". This is fundamentally different from what you are trying to say, but I think you'll find that this more clearly reflect the texts. Feel free to adapt what I have said if you feel it worth using. Of course, if you do put it that way, you can only use Blanchard's reference, because you are talking about what Blanchard said about Hirschfeld, not what Hirschfeld said - and that makes it difficult to get the 1922 year as the origin of the term into the text itself; in order to get the Hirschfeld reference in and the 1922 year you need to reflect what he said, not what Blanchard said about him - and you cannot do that without unpacking what Hirschfeld 'meant' by homosexual transvestite, because that lays it open to objections of either original research or synthesis (from the little I understand). Can I go and play with an article about a 13th century German mystical theologian now, please? Before anything else catches my attentionMish (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Point by point

1. That is just a bit of prose that can be cleaned up easily.
2. That was already done by others, including a rare instance of actual collaboration and concordance at Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA3. Where it was revealed that Hirschfeld published different editions of the same book year by year for a period of years. The date we have is accurate. Other people here have read Hirschfeld, the very book he coined the term in, in fact it was jokestress who read it for us.(I see that tends to stop your complaining when you see that a good deal of what is here is actually her doing.
3. Go and do as you will. No one's keeping you here. Unless you demand that I just agree with your POV instead of offering an actual novel arguement which the one above is not. That is a rehash of something old. You sound like the kind of person who may have a PhD. or have had graduate education, wrote a theis's or the like. What you are doing now is like writing a thesis without doing a thorough literature review. I may forget that something or the other was in this article or that...but I and Jokestress and WAID have been here doing this long enough to have a masters degree in the subject. You want to mix it up here you can't bring some canned POV you saw on line, you need to take the world from another point of view (Cue to 5:40 after the theme music or groove on the music...what other field get's that treatment?), and come up with something really new.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I like the way you fixed it, looks much better now.

• 1. Sexualpathologie: Geschlechtliche Entwicklungsstörungen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Onanie. 211 pages. 1st Ed: 1918, 2nd Ed: 1921
• 2. Sexualpathologie: Sexuelle Zwischenstufen das männliche Weib und der weibliche Mann. 279 pages. 1st Ed: 1919, 2nd Ed: 1922
• 3. Sexualpathologie: Störungen im Sexualstoffwechsel mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Impotenz. 340 pages. 1st Ed 1920, 2nd Ed: 1928

I really do like the way you sorted it out, & I really didn't expect you to manage to get the year in. Very clever. You've inspired me to dig out the translation of the Konstitution I had done and have another read of it, if I can find it again after five years... and no, this is not a literature review, and I am very naughty for being so pedantic - but I read somewhere about aiming for accuracy in Wikipedia, and your wanting this to be assessed as a good article, and this kind of jumped out at me when I saw it, because I didn't remember coming across the term in any of the books (or the paper) I'd read by Hirschfeld for my review, and was worried I'd missed something important - this has reassured me that I didn't, and has cleared up the problem. I still think that having two different dates (1922 & 1923) for the origination of the idea looks odd, but if you are happy with that I won't argue about it. Thanks, I'm rather relieved to see the autogynephilia page didn't do the same thing. Mish (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Archaic

There seems to be some debate about the fact that this diagnosis is considered archaic, even though that is sourced in the article. Here's the full quotation, which is a good summary of why sophisticated theorists reject this terminology:

These diagnoses, now deemed archaic, conflate homosexuality with transsexuality in regards to the "female homosexual transsexual" or the "male homosexual transsexual," in which transsexuality is placed as the "extreme" form of homosexuality. Thus, a heterosexual transman--that is, an FTM who is attracted to women--would be considered the extreme form of a crossdressing lesbian (transvestite) who desires women. Rosario also points out how transsexuality, transvestism, and homosexuality have been imbricated in academic scholarship, so that transsexuality is confused with crossdressing (Marjorie Garber), or else vilfied as an antifeminist plot of the patriarchy (Janice Raymond, H.S. Rubin).

Wahng goes on to discuss the evidence that "invert" was actually the predecessor of the transsexual. Perhaps we should expand on this important point about conflation. Jokestress (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

All you had to do is point it out. It's not like I own a bunch of gender theory books or spend time at the library looking these things up (You may have noticed my tendency to favour online references, since they are trivial to find, and trivial to check). So How about this. The lead sentence will incorporate that some deem this term to be archaic. And the reference will be in the body of the article under alternative terms. In the future please don't assume that others have the same access to these books that you apparently do and assume that they are just uncooperative. Be proactive and point out where these things are. That's all you needed to do.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the number on the footnote? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's note 8 in the chapter "Double Cross" by Sel J. Wahng. Jokestress (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have made changes which I feel are appropriate based on this citation and some others. I have tweaked the opening sentence, but I can't see calling a word archaic based on a reference which relates the opinion of one person in a field. However I have it written in the lead that wahng says the word is archaic. I also have that written in to the body of the article. I also want it to be known that say James Cantor finding some other reference which says it's not archaic would undo the mentioning of whang. That would just be another reference to add to the article.

I demand an apology from jokestress. (here and elsewhere) She has made all kinds of crazy claims that I am a fake transsexual member of the clarke northwestern clique etc. etc. far above any mere on wiki assumptions of bad faith. All because, and basically because, I demanded from her that her word alone was not enough to call these words archaic or discredited or to go along with whatever she said. I did not react to Dr. Cantor with bad will (afterall unlike her and one of her cohorts he's never insutled me even when I did not agree with him) Basically I made her work like the rest of us and have to find the book and point out in a reference what she wanted. Now that she has done this, no arguement from me. I made the change. Unless it is shown by someone else looking up the same book that this is a fabrication or something I would not consider unmaking the change. I will fight to keep whang in there. But if I don't get some kind of a sorry, then I am going to be steamed.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So "these diagnoses" refer to the end of this paragraph:

"Thus the institutionalized recognition of the queer-identified, or homosexual, transsexual, is historically groundbreaking. Roasario scrutinized how transgenderism has been described in relation to homosexuality and heterosexuality in both the revised third edition and the fourth edition of the [DSM]. In the DSM-III-R, the classification of "transsexualism" was divided into "homosexual" and "heterosexual" subtypes. However, sexual orientation was based on one's birth sex, so that an FTM who was attracted to women would be deemed a a female homosexual transsexual, whereas an FTM attracted to men would be considered a female heterosexual transsexual. These diagnoses were especially confusing since a female homosexual transsexual -- that is, an FTM who desires women -- would actually identify himself as a heterosexual transman. And an FTM who desires men, a female heterosexual transsexual, would self-identify as either a gay man or a queer-identified FTM." (page 292)

I thank you for bringing this source to our attention; we clearly must update this article to include the fact that HT was a formal diagnosis in the DSM-III-R. This fact alone should settle the discussions about whether or not psychologists in general have ever accepted this distinction and this term.

Hfarmer, you will find that nearly all of the book is available at books.google.com The chapter beings on page 287 at this link. The major point of that chapter is the fracturing of monolithic notions of identity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• • This would mean that a diagnosis of "transsexualism" would be divided into 1) transsexualism, homosexual subtype, or 2) transsexualism, heterosexual subtype. This is not the same as giving someone a diagnosis of "homosexual transsexual", which was not a diagnostic category. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the silly "gotcha" tone. I brought that source to everyone's attention when I added it to the article sometime last year. That passage should definitely be included at transmen attracted to men, because theorists used to assert they were so rare that they didn't exist. That official recognition was indeed groundbreaking, but for people these guys call "heterosexual transsexuals." As Wahng notes, it's a pyrrhic victory, though. There's also some good stuff we should add about those who believe the use of diagnoses like "ego-dystonic homosexuality" and "homosexual transsexual" were back-door ways of keeping gay people available for a mental illness diagnosis. Jokestress (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• * WhatamIdoing, please remember that DSM-III-R was developed and published by the American Psychiatric Association, not psychologists. The American Psychological Association lobbied successfully to have the diagnosis removed from diagnostic manuals. And "homosexual transexual" was not a formal disagnosis in any DSM. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we have to be very careful and think about who we are working with (against?) here. So Wahng is the great source that will both call the term archaic and rejected :-\....but mentions that it was in the DSM III. :-/ Thankyou for the online link whatamIdoing. Jokestress it is only fair that the DSM-III tidbit be in the article somewhere, and be in the lead somehwere, that is major and I am dissapointed that you would not tell us that part...but not surprised. Thus justifiying a level of distrust in your suggestions. I will write something on the lines of homosexual transsexual was in the DSM III-R and was not in the DSM-IV. Which would be fair, accurate and unbiased. I will not write ....was not in the DSM IV therefore it is archaic and no one uses it and is discredited and everyone who uses it is a hateful retared baboon... or whatever else you want.. ok? ok. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hfarmer and WhatamIdoing, would you re-read the articles we've been discussing for the last couple of years? This information about the former DSM subtypes has been in the Classification of transsexuals article since its creation years ago. I wish you guys could step back from your monomaniacal focus on this one article and look at how Wikipedia covers this entire topic. It would really make all of this go much smoother and reduce the constant rehashing on this talk page. Jokestress (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Never the less that is a very important piece of information and for you to not tell us about it is something else. I will let others make a decision on that. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The goal is a complete and balanced article, not a complete and balanced encyclopedia. What exists in some other article on Wikipedia does not constrain the contents of this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • I repeat! This would mean that a diagnosis of "transsexualism" was be divided into 1) transsexualism, homosexual subtype, or 2) transsexualism, heterosexual subtype. This is not the same as giving someone a diagnosis of "homosexual transsexual", which was never a diagnostic category. The categories were based on sex at birth only. So this is not the same phenomena you are discussing in "homosexual transexual" or "transsexual homosexual" - each of these phrases getting about the same number of Google hits by the way. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's splitting hair's. The spirit of the source is that transsexualism homosexual subtype is the same thing as homosexual transsexual. Read a bit more on it. That's what it means. A homosexual transsexual is just that, a subtype of transsexual who is attracted to the same biological sex. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hfarmer, and I find Mattisse's assertion completely unsupportable. Saying that "Transsexualism, homosexual subtype" is materially different from "Homosexual transsexualism" is like saying that nobody has early onset Alzheimer's, because the DSM lists it as "Dementia of the Alzheimer’s Type, With Early Onset." The fact that the names are written out in standard index style does not prevent us from understanding what they're talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. You can say whatever, as long as you do not reference DSM for your statements. I own all the DSM's in question. They are not referring to "homosexual transsexual" at all, and certainly not in the way the term is being used in this article. Please use sources that use the term. DSM does not. It is a misuse of sources to do so. Please remember WP:MEDRS. What they meant is that an individual, male or female, is gender dysphoric and wants to dress in the manner of the opposite gender. If they are attracted to the same sex as their own birth sex, they are "transsexualism, homosexual subtype". If they are attracted to the opposite sex then their own birth sex, they are "transsexualism, heterosexual subtype" —Mattisse (Talk) 14:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And that's different from the subject of this article how, exactly? HT is "transwomen attracted to men" -- that means natal males, living and therefore dressing as females, and attracted to the same sex as their own birth sex -- and "transmen attracted to women" -- natal females, living and therefore dressing as males, and attracted to the same sex as their own birth sex. I see absolutely no difference between what you've said is in the DSM and what is described in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is one fatal flaw to your argument on this mattise. There is a secondary source which says that the term homosexual transsexual was in the DSM. That interpretation of the secondary source trumps the [WP:OR|original research of an editor]. That is a important part of the puzzle. As for the term homosexual being removed from the DSM II you need to have an outside source to connect that to the concept of the homosexual transsexual. Other than the word used to describe same sex attraction they mean differnt things. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise. On WP it falls to the one making claims to prove them not to the other editors to disprove them. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that even though the term "homosexual transsexual" is never used in any DSM (in fact those two words used together does not occur in any version of DSM), because another sources says the words are used in DSM, that source trumps DSM? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither "yes" nor "no" are the correct answers to this question. We're saying that we have a published reliable source that says that the thing that we're talking about in this article is exactly the same thing as what the DSM-III-R is talking about. We're not saying that the exact sequence of letters, h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l t-r-a-n-s-s-e-x-u-a-l, is in the DSM-III-R (a point that would be of unbelievably minor importance). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly that's what I have been trying to get through to mattisse. It's not about what any of us think it's about what the reliable verifiable sources say. A reliable verifiable soure said the words appeard in the DSM III. That's it that's all. What we think does not matter. Observe how when it was pointed out that this self same source said archaic I included the fact that this one source says it's archaic without hesitation or arguement. However it is odd that you should argue this point that this was in the DSM reported by the same source. Either declare that the source is somehow not reliable and sacrified both that the term is archaic, and that the term was once in the DSM or admit that both of those details should be in the article. Those are the only logical options that do not bias the article.--Hfarmer (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

The good article nomination for this article is still active? Is that even remotely realistic with all the arguing going on on this page? LadyofShalott 02:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Your thinking about edit warring. This is just a spirited discussion. Good articles, really truly good articles, dont necessarily come from everyone agreeing. Look at the above. I agreed with someone, trusted them, gave them benefit of the doubt... what did they do? Purpotrate a lie of omission. To my virtual face. While had I been lesss trusting less than accurate information would not have been comiited to WP. Sometimes clashing gets better results.--Hfarmer (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

@LadyofShalott: In addition to being a bad article in terms of content, POV, and style, it's very unstable. It's been edited over 50 times since it was nominated for the 4th time and had about 200 comments here. This and all future GA nominations should be failed on sight until editors here have completed discussions about key issues and come to consensus. It's improving slowly, but it needs a lot more work. Jokestress (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I must agree. The article is quite inaccurate and seems to be used to serve a political agenda rather than being a factual Wikipedia article. It must follow the referencing standards of WP:MEDRS, so any reviewer should keep this in mind in evaluating the adequacy and accuracy of the material and its sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not 100% true the application of MEDRS would limit this article too much IMHO. For example many sources which user jokestress has insisted be in this article do not make the grade, while everything from journals like psychiatry research(the source for smit et al 2005 which uses this term and affirms it's use) would. IMHO medRS should be if anything applied only to the sections of the article which deal with biomedical issues, but that is not the whole story at all. i.e. most of the sources that doccument the transgender community reaction would not meet med RS. (Remember my reference to tri dimensional chess...say we have a RfC and you "win" on medRS what would you loose in the process?)

As for jokestress's opinion of this any reviwer should remmeber she is a COI'd editor, who has admited it, and refrained from editing, she has also even just recently provided content in a deceptive way, quoting only part of a source which fit her POV. To her the article will only be npov when it's herpov. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is not intended to be applied to non-medical/non-scientific issues. Society's response to the 'medical experts' is a perfectly valid topic for this article, and can be supported using any normal reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is meant to be used when "scientific" or "medical" information is being used in the article to prove a point. It is to guard against the misuse of scientific and medical information to support a position. If this article does not assert that "medical thinking" or "scientific thinking" is in favor of the term "homosexual transsexual", then there is no need for scientific support. If it is a sociological essay on a controversy, then no need for science. If the article is going to say that "psychology" or "psychologist" in general use this term, then it requires sound sourcing to support this information, as do any statements about when commonly used diagnostic manuals purportedly used the term. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is that this article contains rather more than "scientific" and "medical" facts. Additionally, you've never provided a single source that supports your assertion that psychologists in general reject this term, or even that they reject identifying someone's sexual orientation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The scientific data presented in this article is not being used to prove any points. That data just is what it is. It is presented as so and so (states/writes/opines/asserts/concluded) such and such. It does not say so and so (found/proved/demonstrated) such and such. There's the difference. One kind of sentence merely tells the reader what a soruces wrote or said. The other tells a reader what a source wrote or said as if it were a universally accepted fact. You will find that only the first kind of sentence is written in the area's which deal with the psychological/psychiatric/neurological etc. data. Any cited, source has been included by me with little or no scrutiny and basically no question. The only sources I ever gave argument to jokestress over was the commentary of Dreger 2008 by the pseudonymous Madeline Wyndzen. All the others including critical ones I felt we could use, as long as we were careful to to present say the opinion of a poet, as having the same weight as data which was gathered and statistically analysed. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please consider problems such as WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN and WP:OR when you selectively use medical or scientific literature as sources without doing a literature review and giving each view the weight accorded to it in the generally accepted scientific/medical community. The purpose of WP:MEDRS is to prevent such misuse of medical and scientific references to support a point. And no, an opinion of a poet does not have any weight in evaluating scientific/medical evidence. It can be used to give "color" to an article, or as an example of "popular culture", something like that. But the opinion of a poet who has no medical or scientific training has no weight regarding medical/scientific issues. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is selectively using any sources. The commentaries on dreger have had many many reviews by the WP community there is broad consensus that they are of limited use. Limited only to those who are otherwise recognized experts in some way shape or form, basically including all but one of which who's expertise cannot be verified. One of these commentaries... "Politics in Scholary Drag" by Deirdre McCloskey, Department of Economics University of Illinois at Chicago. How would that fit under MedRS? How am I or anyone else selecting not to use that? (Saw her in one of the buildings a couple of weeks back... She quickly ducked into one of the bathrooms. It must be hard to take when a supposed fake is seen in the flesh. LMFAO.)

As for the opinion of a poet you do realize what I mean by that. A non scientist, like an economist, or a scientist from a totally different discipline, like an electrical engineer or even a physicist like me, expressing the opinion that X is not accepted or is crackpot does not make it so. Neither does one persons opinion make something generally accepted. What we say ultimately does not matter. What the psychologist and psychiatrist at the APA say does we need to get one of them on our side. (Ironically by demonizing the entire professions of the people who actually can either remove GID from the DSM or replace it with HSTS and AGP the TG/TS community may not be acting in a way that will achieve our goals. The psych's may say well they won't like us either way so eff it.)--Hfarmer (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Gender of Psychology By Tamara Shefer

I have found a very interesting and rich source for this and other TS'ism related articles. Here are the diff's [1] I got a few things from this:

1. A secondary source which has published what the DSM, the primary sources says and interpreted it.
   1. That the DSM III transsexualism and had the specifiers homosexual, heterosexual etc. in it.
   2. That the DSM IV did not have homosexual, or transsexual in it, but still specifies attraction to males females etc.(More along the lines of androphilicn, gynephilic etc but she does not write that so we can't.)
2. A secondary and reliable source which doccuments that at least some transsexuals object to the inclusion of any diagnosis at all in the DSM.

Take a look at the diff in context. (Don't say I needed to discuss it here first, I have no COI, WP:BOLD says to do it this way, and I dounbt anyone would want to revert any of this, because the source does so much. It has info that fills in many blanks on both sides (since so many reading this seem to like to think in terms of this side that that I will use that word, I refuse to see it that way myself, aren't we all on WP's side?) )--Hfarmer (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• In this case, the sources to quote would be DSM-III and DSM-IV. I own both of them and can supply quotes. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Suppose instead of talking about this, and the DSM we were talking about astronomy. Something to which none of us have any emotional connections. I own a telescope, I can look through the telescope and see Venus at that moment I see a bright flash, waves in the atmosphere, and a dark smudge. So I come to wikipedia and write, a asteriod or comet of unknown size has just hit venus. I am a physicist, every physicist knows a little astronomy, it seems like an obvious conclusion. How would that violate Wikipedia:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources? Here is how, I would be interpreting primary data, my observations from my telescope. Which is not allowed under WP:NOR WP editors cannot do any of our own research, at all. This is interpreted so strictly that it is considered OR by many to merely read the distances between points off of a map.

The DSM's are primary sources. You propose to interpret them for us. That is original research. Which is not allowed for the same reasons my astronomical conclusions would not be allowed. (i.e. suppose instead of an asteroid or comet, I had just witnessed a monumental volcanic event?) Do you understand why what you propose could not be allowed, and is not allowed per WP policies?

Don't be defensive about my argument. To be more direct what you propose is OR because you are going to interpret the DSM-III's saying "transsexual (homosexual subtype)" to mean X Y or Z. You need to find a source other than yourself which meets at least WP:RS and WP:V which says X Y and Z. You can't just put it here. (and expect it to stay)--Hfarmer (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ego Dystonic homosexuality

Could someone please provide a reliable source which connects the homosexual transsexual concept to ego dystonic homosexuality. I know that's a popular hypothesis on websites, but I mean any serious scholar who really actually thinks that and got it published. The fact that homosexuality was removed no one will dispute, but the link to homosexual transsexuality is something else entirely it needs a RS to back it up. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I am not sure what you mean by the tern "homosexual transsexual". The World Health Organization (WHO) has a category of "ego dystonic homosexuality". I think that is the closest you will come to a reputable source for the term."ICD-10: Ego dystonic homosexuality". www.who.int. Retrieved 2009-04-24. See also "ICD-10:.Gender identity disorders". www.who.int. Retrieved 2009-04-24.

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The ICD 10 is refering to people who are homosexual who want to become heterosexual. Homosexual transsexuals start out androphilic, and end up androphilic, what changes is their gender presentation, and even that is 1/2 there when they begin. Ego dystonic homosexual males on the other hand want to go from being androphillic to being gynephilic. Do you see the difference? Besides as I pointed out above all of this is WP OR. There is not one thing on that page which directly links the ego-dystonic homosexuality thing to homosexual transsexualism on that page. It is OR for you to make that connection. Do you want to concede the point or should we take this to WP NOR/N ?--Hfarmer (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not making a connection. I do not think "homosexual transsexualism" is used by any professionally accepted diagnostic system. As I said, I think the WHO category above is the closest you will come to an RS, in answer to your question above. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You just did it. You need to find a source which says that homosexual transsexualism is the same as ego-dystonic homosexuality. What you think is totally irrelevant. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. I don't need to find anything. Saying that there is no connect is making a connection, you are saying? Referencing the closest connection I can find, which does not link the two, is making the connection? You are confusing me. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have requested comments at Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Connecting_.22homosexual_transsexual.22_with_.22ego-dystonic_sexual_orientation.22--Hfarmer (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The DSM II and the status of homosexuality in the DSM III

Spitzer, Robert. "The diagnostic status of homosexuality in DSM-III: a reformulation of the issues -- Spitzer 138 (2): 210 -- Am J Psychiatry". ajp.psychiatryonline.org. Retrieved 2009-04-22.

I checked out that link it says nothing of the term homosexual transsexual at all. It says that homosexuality was removed from the DSM true. But the fact is that there is a difference between simply being a homosexual male and a homosexual transsexual. The quotation from Wahng, as well as Shefer support including that the term homosexual transsexual was in the DSM III. Therefore I am removing that passage from the lead. For two reasons.

1. The source cited does not support it
2. The manual of stype stipulates that source citations do not go in the lead sections of articles. The lead section is a mere summary of the body of the article where the citations may be found. The lead section is basically the abstract of the article and written once the body of the article is set.

Please provide a reference which connects h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l t-r-a-n-s-s-e-x-u-a-l with and the DSM II and all the rest of that. It does not fall to anyone else to disprove an assertion. The burden is on the asserter to prove it. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know how many ways I can say this. DSM, DSM-II, DSM-III, DSM-IV, DSM-IV-TR do not recognize the term "h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l t-r-a-n-s-s-e-x-u-a-l" at all. Therefore, I cannot provide any citation to the contrary. The burden is on you to prove otherwise. I provided the ICD definition not to connect "h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l t-r-a-n-s-s-e-x-u-a-l" with egodystonic homosexuality but to provide you with the other major diagnostic manual reference to sexual disorders and sexual identity disorders besides the DSM. The ICD likewise does not recognize the term "h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l t-r-a-n-s-s-e-x-u-a-l". —Mattisse (Talk) 17:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the above is that there are secondary sources such as Wahng, and I found Shefer, who both say the opposite of what you say. Those secondary sources interpreted those editions of the DSM differently than you. Those secondary sources win out. What you are engaged in is presenting your own original research as admissable here in WP. When it is not. As for your not trying to connect homosexual transsexual with egodystonic homosexuality....we can all read the things you wrote about and what you wrote in the article. Heck in some text written by you you actually wrote that " The term Homosexuality was removed as a mental disorder from the DSM in 1973 at the same time that Gender identity disorder replaced Homosexuality as a diagnosis. "Here's the diff don't deny it.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC egodystonic homosexuality and this articles topic.

User Mattise writes "I am not making a connection. I do not think "homosexual transsexualism" is used by any professionally accepted diagnostic system. As I said, I think the WHO category above is the closest you will come for an RS, in answer to your question above." diff The WHO category refered to is ego-dystonic homosexuality. Mattise cites the ICD 10 [2] If one reads what the source actually says...

Egodystonic Sexual Orientation The gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it.[3]

Do you all think making this connection based on the above source is Original research?--Hfarmer (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think that this is original research based on a few things.

1. Mattise writes "do not think "homosexual transsexualism" is used by any professionally accepted diagnostic system. As I said, I think the WHO category above is the closest you will come for an RS"diff
2. Based on this thinking Mattisse wrote in the article "The term Homosexuality was removed as a mental disorder from the DSM in 1973 at the same time that Gender identity disorder replaced Homosexuality as a diagnosis. "diff
3. According to this online medical dictionary which gives a more straight forward definition. "a psychological or psychiatric disorder in which a person experiences persistent distress associated with same-sex preference and a strong need to change the behavior or, at least, to alleviate the distress associated with the homosexuality; no longer a DSM-recognized diagnosis; now included under sexual disorder, not otherwise specified." In short a egodystonic homosexual want's to become heterosexual, not become a transsexual (i.e. a transwoman attracted to men is in her own mind at least, a straight woman. There is no dissonance between androphilia and sense of self to a so called MTF homosexual/androphilic transsexual.).
4. Which leads me to the fact that transsexualism is included in the DSM right now as Gender Identity Disorder. This google book provides a secondary source [[4]]

For all of those reasons I think that what Mattisse asserts in this instance is their own original research, which is in contradiction with very accessible reliable secondary sources. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)