Talk:Homosexual transsexual

/Archive1 /Archive2

On review (Result= Passed)

I am currently reviewing this article. Please bare with me, be patient and I will get it done within the next 24 hours. Cheers Realist2 (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• The first key areas of the "Quick reject" requirements are not an issue here. So far so good. Realist2 (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• For part 1 (A=Pass B=Pass).So far so good.

• For part 2 (A=Fail B=Pass C=Pass) , there are three citations that need sourcing.

• For part 3 (A=Pass B=Pass) , here i was reluctant to pass part B, im worried that that controversy section is to large, ill pass it but i have reservations.

• For part 4 (A=Pass).

• For part 5 (A=Pass).

• For part 6 (A=Fail B=Fail). I believe it DOES need a suitable picture, you guy's need to agree on whats suitable.

CONCLUSION: This is very close to passing. You could get it sorted in a day easily people. Source those 3 citation tags, include a suitable picture and consider cutting down that controversy section. I will put this on hold. Get back to me personally when you have done these things and you`l pass. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou I will work on it. --Hfarmer (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I am a bit confused by the Above Review. Could you specify a bit more plainly which references need to be sourced I mean is "Part 2" in reference to "History" or "description by western science"? How about Part 6. Is this refering to a list of criteria? If so where is that list so I can simply refer to it. Help me understand what you are saying? Please. --Hfarmer (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I chekced an I see you are making direct reference to the list of Criteria. What you mean by "citations that need sourcing" I take that to mean say filling out a complete citation template on them preferably with a URL link to where an online version could be found. For one of those references that might not be possible as it is to a book from 1923. I hope I am changing the references you were referring to. --Hfarmer (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What you need to do is

• a) resolve the 3 that remain in the article. (That way you will pass Part2A)
• b) Get a suitable picture with a suitable caption. (That way you will pass Part 6A & Part6B)
• c)Consider cutting down the BBL controversy section

Does this help? Realist2 (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks thankyou very much. I saw and resolved the citation needed's in the article. Which was not hart because sources which said those things were already cited at some point. Only one needed to be found a new. A picture is going to be a hard sell to the rest of this room and may take a while longer than a day. I will think on what could be cut out of the controversy section.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Update

• For part 1 (A=Pass B=Pass) Well written, correct style

• For part 2 (A=Pass B=Pass C=Pass) All sourced, no tags, all formatted, no original material

• For part 3 (A=Pass B=Pass) Article sticks to the point and has the right amount of depth peer section

• For part 4 (A=Pass) It is neutral

• For part 5 (A=Pass) It is stable

• For part 6 (A=Fail B=Fail). I believe it DOES need a suitable picture, you guy's need to agree on whats suitable.

Realist2 (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok its been a few days, i can see a picture is a no go for now, im not going to fail the article over a picture i dont think thats in the best interest of wikipedia, the article reaches GA states but if you guys ever want to get it to FA you need to resolve this dispute. Best of luck. Realist2 (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture Reduxredux

Well folks you heard it from an unbiased, reviewer with no vested interest. This article DOES need a picture. What picture to use? Who's picture to use? Should it even be a picture of a person per se? Let's think outside the box on this one. Here are some ideas of mine.

1. Perhaps a picture which captures the concept of boyhood femininity which homosexual transsexuals theoretically show. Such as a boy playing with a Barbie doll with his back to the camera, or a similarly stereotypically feminine activity.
2. Perhaps a impressionistic work of art to represent the concept.
3. Perhaps a picture of simple objects one might associate with this concept.

Their has to be some illustration that could be found for this article. All the complications that can be found for using a person make that option less viable. So let us think outside the box. --Hfarmer (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion... Im not gay or transexual, sexuality is only 1 part of being a "homosexual transexual" im sure, no-one should be defined by their sexuality alone. I read the article and felt sad, it painted a bleak picture i must say, maybe a picture that reminds us that these people are normal like everyone else is appropriate? A simple picture of a person happy and smiling can have quite an affect Realist2 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well realist I am such a person. A picture of myself was suggested submitted and rejected. As i am not "notable" enough for being a homosexual transsexual. Just how one can be notable for being a MTF transsexual who was attracted to men as a man and as a female thereafter escapes me. Read the above discussion of a picture. Great roadblocks can be thrown up in the path of using any picture of any identifiable person. It's a great suggestion. I would like that. But I just don't see the other users ever being able to leave such a picture in place.

I'm sorry the article made you sad. I personally have a positive view of sex and sexuality. It is something that sustains the species, makes people feel better than any drug, and bonds lovers together. This article is about a sexological topic. In that science sex is the main focus. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh agreed sex is a good thing (ok that might have come across wrong), what i ment was is that thats not what all of life is about, no1 thinks about sex or sexuality 24/7 they? Everyone has other interests and i think sometimes it might play into the warped image the far right would like to send out as truth. English isnt my first language so maybe im not explaining it how i would like but trust me my intentions are good. :-) Realist2 (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No one thinks about sex all the time. That's not what the article says. It only tries to describe a theory in which differences among transsexuals that correlate to sexual orientation are the main focus. Their are always many equally valid angels to look at any issue. The sexological angle is but one. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As Realist Said

A picture may be a no go right now. But as it stands the only way to really improve this article would be for it to be illustrated. To that end I will look for pictures or things/ places/ people to take pictures of which would serve this purpose. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits.

I thought it might be useful to indicate in greater detail why I think my edits are proper.

• "The term" versus "a term"—Blanchard only coined one term to describe this group, so it gets a definite rather than an indefinite article. I have no problem including the word controversial. I don't know what might be used as a source, but I do believe that it's true.
• "Male-to-female transsexuals" versus "male-to-female transsexual women"—I entirely appreciate that people who undergo transition want to emphasize wherever possible that they are indeed women. However, the purpose of this page is to describe a term that was introduced by Blanchard, and Blanchard did not define the term that way. Once again, I have no problem indicating that the term is unpopular among many, which is why I put in a sentence saying so. (Although a ref would be good.)
• We have previously discussed whether Wyndzen meets WP:RS, and you previously agreed with me that it does not and that we should find a better source. You have every right to change your mind, of course, but it is rather unfair to expect me to be aware of it without any discussion.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

MTL, you are making major changes to controversial articles without discussing them first. That is frowned upon. For instance, "homosexual transsexual" does not originate with Blanchard, and not just transsexual people take issue with the term. The term has also been applied to FTMs. Further, you are removing reliable sources backing these statement up. I suggest slowing down and discussing things. Jokestress (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am more than happy to discuss any edit I make. I include my reasoning behind every one, and I will listen to counter-arguments for any. I do not know what to make of frowning. If I have broken any rule, I certainly would like to know it.

See quotation below.

• I can cite the origin of the term to Blanchard. If you have an earlier cite, by all means, replace mine with it.

What is the date of your reference? I find it predating him in Freund and others.

• I have no problem whatsoever expanding the indication that about who dislikes the term. A reference, however, would be useful.

You removed one. See also the Benjamin book.

• What reliable source have I removed?

The one that said the term is used to describe FTMs as well.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BB

Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject (not just a simple copyedit), it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page.

It's etiquette here, or Wikiquette, when coming in new on controversial articles. Slow down. Make changes gradually. Don't remove reliable sources without discussion. Jokestress (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think most of these issues would be appropriately discussed inside Lynn Conway mediation page, which I understand you have shown interest in. You are entirely correct about this point, however: Freund's use of the term "homosexual transsexual" does indeed predate Blanchard's. I apologize for my error. In case it is of use to you, the earliest Freund reference to the term that I was able to locate is: Freund, K., Langevin, R., Zajac, Y., Steiner, Bl, & Zajac, A. (1974). The transsexual syndrome in homosexual males. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 158, 145-153.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Marion my reply will sound a bit less politik than Jokestress's but that can't be helped. This article as you found it came into being based on allot of research by me and her and a number of other people. I understand where you are coming from but you can't just come in and rewrite a lage portion an think it will go unnoticed. I particularly take issue with the way almost the entire intro to the article on autogynephilia was introduced here. We have a kind of structure here. Some details are debated but basically it's this. One root article for the entire topic one for autogynephilia , another for "homosexual transsexual", and another for the controversey. If you want to help I would strongly suggest that you either A.) work on one of the other article s which are admittedly not so good. Or at least discuss them here. As I am about to demonstrate.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A subsection on the causes of Homosexual transsexuality

I have been thinking that the one thing that is missing from this article is any text on the causes of homosexual transsexuality as it is discussed in the literature. In particular I have noticed again and again that one particular factor is mentioned again and again. The late birth order-older brother effect. I think that should be mentioned here. There should also be a link to the article Etiology of transsexualism here is the proposed text.

/proposed subsection

Any thoughts.--24.15.18.235 (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right on. See fraternal birth order and sexual orientation. Everything that has been identified about the etiology of homosexual transsexuality is also true of regular homosexuality in males.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes very true. At least when it comes to effeminate homosexual males. I personally think that homosexuality and transsexuality are too complex to have one and only one cause. That the truth lies between what is written by BBL and what is written about the BSTC. I see no reason both ideas could not be true to some extent. --Hfarmer (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• The above description of Green's conclusion about the HY-antigen theory is the reverse of what he actually wrote.
• The summary is missing a reference:

Blanchard, R., & Sheridan, P. M. (1992). Sibship size, sibling sex ratio, birth order, and parental age in homosexual and nonhomosexual gender dysphorics. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 180, 40–47.

• The description of the stopping rule is, I think, too short to give readers an idea of exactly what is meant.
  

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the page I cited. "Hypotheses explaining the extension of prior findings to this large sample of transsexual males include a progressive maternal immunization to the male foetus either through the H-Y antigen or protein-bound testosterone or alterations in foetal androgen levels in successive pregnancies, all modifying male psychosexual development. Data on the sexual orientation of younger brothers of homosexual male transsexuals in this study are not consistent with the progressive immunization hypothesis." The emphasis is mine. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Let me move the emphasis in order to highlight the error. Data on the sexual orientation of younger brothers of homosexual male transsexuals in this study are not consistent with the progressive immunization hypothesis."

The data from the homosexual transsexuals themselves (the subject of your paragraph and the subject of Green's paper), however, was consistent with the Hy antigen theory. I have no opposition to including Green's secondary analysis in your paragraph, but to include secondary/contradictory information while omitting primary/confirmatory information violates NPOV. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing or conflating two things. The fraternal birth order effect is one thing. The H-Y antigen theory is a separate thing. The H-Y antigen theory is a proposed cause for the fraternal birth order effect. Green confirmed finding the effect but says his data did not support H-Y antigen as the cause. Perhaps that is not plain enough in my writing. So I will change it. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My abilities for confusion are boundless. But, I don't think I have, in this case. Green conducted two sets of analyses in that paper, one on the sample of homosexual transsexuals themselves, and on their younger brothers. The homosexual transsexuals showed the fraternal birth order effect (and where consistent with the Hy antigen theory), and the younger brothers did not show the effect (and were, therefore, not consistent with the Hy antigen theory).

Incidentally, I appreciate your revertion of changes to the main page. The ability to divorce one's feelings about a desired outcome from one's thoughts about that outcome is the mark of a talented thinker.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is one problem with what you are thinking. The H-Y Antigen theory is not ONLY for homosexual transsexuals but it applies to homosexuality in non-transsexual biological males as well. See here [1] In that paper Blanchard says this himself. If every brother simply increased the odds that one was homosexual by 40% then a man with three older brothers would have a 120% chance of being gay.  :-? I am pretty sure there are millions and millions of men with three older brothers who are not gay at all. Greens second finding shoots down the H-Y antigen theory as a cause for the older brother effect.

Perhaps if I take my point to something else. Imagine the following situation... Suppose there was this glass of water right on the edge of a table. We come into the room and find the glass shattered on the floor and water everywhere. We agree 100% that their has been an effect namely the glass fell and broke while full of water. HOWEVER while that effect is beyond question their can be many theories about what precipitated the fall of the glass. Perhaps a small earthquake, or a pet like a cat knocked it over, or mischevious glass tippin grimlins knocked it over when we weren't looking. All of those are valid theories for the cause they can all lead to a broken glass on the floor. However we can test for one cause or the other and find out which one cause that glass to fall and break in that fashion. We can rule out and falsify one cause or the other w/o somehow denying the reality of the effect.

Bringing it back to the topic and out of my methaphor. Dr. Green checked his data for the progressive immunizeation and instead of finding that the younger brothers of HSTS's are not generally homosexual themselves. Thus his data does not support the H-Y antigen hypothesis while it does support the fraternal birth order effect. Cause and effect are separate things. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I know my own personal anecdotal experiences are not WP sources but here it is. In my experience myself and most of the transsexuals I know personally who would be classified as homosexual in BBL theory all have one or more older brothers and late birth order on top of that. Those who I know that have younger brothers those brothers are not all gay. The ones who are not don't appear to be closeted at all. Just my own observations. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: "If every brother simply increased the odds that one was homosexual by 40% then a man with three older brothers would have a 120% chance of being gay." No, the 40% increase is multiplicative, not additive. If the probability of the first male child being gay is 2%, then an increase of 40% means that the next male child has a 2.8% chance of being gay. The third has a 3.92% chance and so on. (That is .02*1.4^^n where n is the number of older brothers.) Technically, the increase is in the odds and not in the probability, but for this range of numbers, it makes little difference. A more detailed handling of the math is available in Cantor, J. M., Blanchard, R., Paterson, A. D., Bogaert, A. F. (2002). How many gay men owe their sexual orientation to fraternal birth order? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 63–71.

I appreciate the implications of Green's data for causality. However, he used an extremely small sample; although he did not say it in his paper, there is no way to differentiate his interpretation from the more obvious (to me) interpretation that he did not have the statistical power to find the effect, which typically requires extremely large samples. (In the hundreds.) One could perform what is called a power analysis in order to ascertain exactly that the probability would be for a sample of 14 people to show and odds ratio of 1.4 (i.e., an increase in odds of 40% per older brother), but that would be OR.

The same is true of one's personal experiences. One would need hundreds of people in order to have a statistically meaningful sample.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I see. The way this is stated in so many papers is a bit confusing to me. In my mind the words odds and probability are related. I hear "odds increase by 40%" and I think that means 40% more probability. (Since the probabilities have to be normalized to 100% i.e. 1/2 heads +1/2 tails in a theoertical coin flip.) I guess psychologist use these words differently than physicist. Hmmm... I need to be aware of that in the future.

It does not seem at all obvious that the H-Y antigen hypothesis has any uncontroversial proof that it is the cause. While as I said in my little metaphor the effect is undeniable. If that is included then it makes sense to me to include wiritings on the doubts that people like Dr. Green have. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The probability is the number of positive cases over the total number of positive and negative cases (that is, the denominator is the total number of cases). The odds are the number of positive cases over the number of negative cases. Probability is more intuitive, but odds have certain statistical advantages. I couldn't tell you how much of these psychologists came up with this themselves and how much was taken from epidemiology and economics; very few psychologists, in my experience, have much facility with math at all.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgot: Yes, you are correct about there not being any smoking gun proof that the Hy antigen theory is what causes the fraternal birth order effect. (And Blanchard never said there was.) It's merely, thus far, the only theory that has been able to explain the data.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bagemihl quotation

Hfarmer, please give any reasoning why you feel the Bagemihl quotation should not be included in the article.

A particularly revealing example of the heterosexist and generally biased reasoning of medical professionals can be found in the language used to categorize and pathologize transsexuality. Clinical studies and definitions have traditionally employed a confusing terminology in which, for example, a female-to-male transsexual who is attracted to women is labeled a "homosexual transsexual," while a female-to-male transsexual who is attracted to men is labeled a "heterosexual transsexual." In other words, the point of reference for "heterosexual" or "homosexual" orientation in this nomenclature is solely the individual's genetic sex prior to reassignment (see for example, Blanchard et al. 1987[24], Coleman and Bockting, 1988[25], Blanchard, 1989[26]). These labels thereby ignore the individual’s personal sense of gender identity taking precedence over biological sex, rather than the other way around. With this clinical terminology, people can be conveniently described as "escaping" a stigmatized homosexual identity when they become involved with members of the opposite sex following reassignment (erroneously assumed to be “the norm”). The myth of the heterosexual imperative and the primacy of biology is thereby reasserted and rebuttressed, while the transgressive status of all transsexuals is trivialized.[8]

It seems to be a good summary of the arguments against use of the term. Jokestress (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Bagemihl captures the reason why many people object to the use of terms that reflect one's chromosomal rather than one's desired sex. I disagree with Bagemihl that using that language automatically denotes any -isms on the part of the speaker. Coleman and Bockting, for example, are generally well-liked among transfolk; few people would call them transphobic or heterosexist. So, although I have no reason to say that Bagemihl's statement is being misrepresented or that its inclusion violates any WP policies, I also don't see how including it improves the page. It merely (in my view) adds fuel to an on-going fire.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As with "autogynephilia," what's at issue here is the characteristic vs. the term. Nobody disagrees that the characteristic exists. The term itself is the controversy. As such, we owe it to readers to show why it is controversial, and I feel this quotation is an elegant summary of the most salient objections. Bagemihl doesn't call anyone transphobic or heterosexist. He says (and many agree) that the term is highly problematic. That's why it is vehemently opposed by transsexual people as a group. Jokestress (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I simply wish to discuss this before putting it in. I think their can be a more elegant way of weaving this into the article. What I would do with this is paraphrase and condense it as faithfully as possible into four or five sentences. I would add those to the BBL controversy section in this article (as well as the article on "augotynephilia"). Then I would expand the controversy article to include these sort of concerns. What is in that quotation probably should be addressed in the article. As you yourself has just said this quote is in relation to the controversy.

For the record. I too can disagree with the idea that being a "homosexual transsexual" is done to escape being gay. I personally am just letting go of any pretense of caring what society thought and just being myself. If by being my self I end up being a transsexual then so be it. I still say I am not 100% sure what some people mean by feminine gender identity. Apparently to most of the people that use the phrase that means wanting SRS. Their has to be more to it than that. It has to be possible to be femine and have male genitalia because many people are just that. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Organizational proposal

Per guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead section, I'd like to revise the lede to comprise three or four paragraphs:

1. Description of the term
2. History and development of the term
3. Summary of findings in literature employing the term
4. Criticism of the term

The first two could be combined. The article itself would then follow the same organization. Jokestress (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is a revision that does not involve trying to make major changes to the tone or content of the text then I do not object. If as it happens too often with article on this topic the criticism section is like 1/2 of the article then I would have to vehemently object. I.e. the "description of the term is "homosexual transsexual is a term used by perverted closet case psychologist to pathologies sissyfied little gay boys who think they are so cute and pass so well...I hate them" (Ok so I am being sarcastic there...trying to be funny. You wouldn't write that but I know people who would. ).

Seriously though.

Comparing what you propose to what we have now

1. Description of the term == Description by western science
2. History and development of the term ==History of the term
3. Summary of findings in literature employing the term == Description by western science
4. Criticism of the term == Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy.

It seems like this could be done without having to rewrite the bulk of the article. One thing you may be able to do that I could not is write a NPOV, and non crude sounding introduction that would only need like a 11th grade reading level (according to the SMOG test) to understand it. Much respect if you can do that.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How's this for a simpler opening paragraph (using same citations - omitted here):

Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some psychologists and sexologists to describe transsexual people who are exclusively or predominantly attracted to people of the same sex, based on the transsexual person's sex assigned at birth. The majority of literature using the term describes transwomen.[1][2] It is less frequently used by proponents to describe transmen.[3]

Jokestress (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Title

Can we get a title for Yolanda Smith? Presumably she's not just a random person off the street. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I mean she's a PhD psychologist in the Netherlands. Specifically the University medical center, university of Utrech. The paper cited has that at the top of it. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we should include that in the article: "Psychologist Yolanda Smith" or something like that, instead of "Yolanda Smith (who could be anyone)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We should also add that another psychologist has noted that citing Smith in this way is a misunderstanding, making specific mention of how it's erroneously presented here by Wikipedia editors: "Many believe Smith, van Goozen, Kuiper, and Cohen-Kettenis (2005) is a response to this critique. For example, it appears as counter-evidence on Wikipedia. If this was their intent, it is missing the necessary evaluation of clusters and does not include the necessary control groups to account for base-rate information (a concern I have about most proautogynephilia research)." [2] Jokestress (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I will agree to this when I get to know Ms. Wyndzen's real name and not her nome de plume. For as things stand now one could practically locate me, come to my home and speak to me about this matter. Where as I cannot find anything about her that would independanlty affirm she is who she is.

In the past other editors of this page have also pointed out this difficulty with inclusing anything Wyndzen says because of such anonymity. We do not have the change to vior dire her as to her expertise. Her expertise... her supposed, and purported expertise is the reason for including that yet I cannot question her? What is she afraid of? I mean heck google her and all one gets is a pen name. Google me and you find out all one could ever want to know to be able to wiegh what I say.

To the point. Smith cites the kind of concerns that Wyndzen raised on her webpage does research and issues a conclusion that affirms much of what Blanchard found. All Wyndzen does is write on her blog like webpage about it and that is supposed to get this great weight? Her expertise is supposed to have the weight to override the results of empirical research? Seriously does it even conform to the letter of what wikipedia policy calls a reliable source. (if one blog cannot be a source then no blog can be a source.)--Hfarmer (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at what she writes on a footnote of her rather well presented blog which I see some how got published in Archives of sexual behavior (I though that journal was just a Bailey and Blanchard controlled propaganda rag. :-/ Let it publish something certain people like and it becomes a gospel?) Any two year old child can see that Smith's study had the relevant control groups. The issue is weather or not homosexual and non homosexual transsexuals differ from each other NOT how the differ from natal females. That is information that would be nice to know but it is not necessary.

NOW I demand that anyone with the gall to criticize not just wikipedia but me. (I know WP:OWN but damm it this article is my baby) Show yourself Ms Wyndzen or shut up! I resent and I am sure the WP community as a whole resents having faceless name less people who cant handle public scrutiny being able to take pot shots at us.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)