Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology

Blanchard comments on the now-deleted autogynephilia article

In a tweet from today, Ray Blanchard writes: "Although autogynephilia is one of the most common erotic variations in men and a major risk factor for gender dysphoria, it does not have its own page in Wikipedia, but rather is ensconced in a page entitled “Blanchard's Transsexualism Typology.”". He then implies it may have been censored. (inb4 someone says a tweet isn't a source – I posted this for interested editors not as an edit suggestion!). Sxologist (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Anybody typing "autogynephilia" into the search box will be redirected straight to the appropriate part of the article where the concept is explained fairly. Given that it is a non-mainstream concept which only makes sense within the context of his personal typology it makes sense to cover it here as a part of that typology. It doesn't really have an independent existence that would justify a separate article. Our coverage seems more than fair. If he thinks that this is censorship then that is up to him but I don't see it as a concern for us. I suspect that many other people with non-mainsream theories would be glad to be covered to such an extent. If the concept were to gain greater mainstream acceptance then the situation could change but, at least for now, I don't see any need to change the way we handle this. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Blanchard can be pointed to Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology/Archive 5#Request for Comment on material in Autogynephilia vs Blanchard's transsexualism typology vs Transsexualism for why there is no Autogynephilia article. He's obviously not familiar with policies guidelines like WP:No page. Either way, as seen in that archived discussion I linked to, my argument against having an Autogynephilia article has not a thing to do with censorship. If it did, I would not have challenged the view that autogynephilia Blanchard's typology falls under WP:Fringe, stating, "The causes of transsexuality are not well understood; there is no general agreement about what causes it or even what doesn't cause it (except perhaps that rearing doesn't influence a person's true gender identity), and a number of sexologists and other researchers support Blanchard's typology. But, yeah, Blanchard's typology is controversial in the transgender community (although there are some transgender women who support the typology)." Autogynephilia's mainstream enough to be in the DSM-5. Also, I'm not stating that any person who argues that autogynephilia falls under WP:Fringe is trying to censor the topic; I was just pointing out that my argument against creating an Autogynephilia article wasn't coming from a biased/personal viewpoint on the concept. On a side note: While what Blanchard states about Wikipedia will be interesting to some, having a discussion about it falls under WP:Not a forum. A discussion like this can inflame things. I know that it's noted that the post was not made as an edit suggestion. But editors (and some readers who happen to look at this talk page) were still going to discuss it unless the post was ignored. I don't think it had a chance of being ignored. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

RationalWiki

Blanchards Typology is no longer up for debate its long been considered unfalsifiable pseudoscience as Rationalwiki has said since 2008 https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Autogynephilia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transvampire (talk • contribs) 11:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Rational Wiki is not a reliable source. That doesn't mean that they are wrong, it just means that we can't use them as source material. Of course, they have a list of references for their article and some of those are potentially valid for us to use as references.

One of the frustrating things here is that Blanchard's "typology" is so unhelpful that serious scholars generally don't want to waste their time engaging with it and so there isn't a large enough corpus of genuinely scholarly work debunking it as pseudo-science for us to determine an academic consensus. Serious scholars don't think that it needs much debunking and they have other things to be getting on with. Of course, the people on the sharp end of it don't see it that way. It feeds into a lot of unnecessary nonsense that makes their lives worse and frustration with that is completely understandable.

I understand the desire to get categories like "pseudoscience" and phrases like "discredited" into the article but we don't have the unimpeachable sources required to back up such definitive categorisations or descriptions. In the longer term, I'm pretty confident that such sources will emerge. History will not be kind to it. In fact, it may be that it will be the historians and not the scientists who make the final judgement on it. In the meantime, the article does a good job of making clear that it is just a proposal and that it is not very widely accepted. We note that critics like Serano regard it as "unscientific" and summarise the reasons for saying that. That is as far as we are able to go for the time being. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Very nice answer. - Daveout(talk) 17:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree! A wise, cogent explanation DanielRigal. Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Although Blanchard's theories are WP:FRINGE by Wikipedia's definition of the term, I agree we can't call them "discredited" or "psuedoscience" in Wikipedia's voice: the sourcing just isn't there. One word that sources *do* often use, even sources that are pro-Blanchard, is "controversial". WanderingWanda (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's how WP:FRINGE applies here. Specifically, WP:FRINGE repeatedly indicates that controversy means among the relevant experts. Within Blanchard's field, this is settled science, and new articles integrating it continue to be entirely consistent. (Having now accepted it, the field has largely moved past trying just to identify its existence and essential characteristics.) The idea is contested, however, by activists who dislike the political implications they perceive.

Regarding "how history will perceive...", I cannot help but wonder when. The (now banned) editor who brought these battles to WP said exactly the same thing...almost 15 years ago now, regarding research that Blanchard began publishing about >15 years before that. There have been very many revolutions in sexology over these 30+ years, but Blanchard's work continues to stand up. If relying on future evidence were how science worked, we could claim the Earth is 5000 years old. Such thinking is simply refusing to accept the actual evidence. The concern with how one will look is exactly the subjectivity that science seeks to avoid. It is just as true for activists as WP editors. The more worried about one's looks, the harder to be honest.— James Cantor (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe every single bi or lesbian trans woman is AGP. How do you respond to rationalwiki calling your theory unfalsifiable pseudoscience?Transvampire (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I seriously believe (1) the content of the evidence, (2) that the claim on rationalwiki is unsourced and from a page already tagged for not being properly sourced, and (3) that you will be a better editor in this topic if you calm down.— James Cantor (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Within Blanchard's field, this is settled science. Tell that to Guillamon et al., who write. "to fully confirm [Blanchard's] hypothesis [of brain dimorphism], more independent studies on nonhomosexual MtFs are needed". Blanchard has written that his own "theoretical statements" about autogynephilia need further empirical research to resolve. Carla Pfeffer writes that there is "little empirical basis" for autogynephilia as a sexual identity. Smith et al. (2015) write that there are "substantiated doubts about the validity of such a classification", citing Moser (2010). Sánchez & Vilain describe the theory under the heading of "Controversies". Doesn't sound very settled to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

None of those quotes says what you are claiming they say. Guillamon is calling for more research to continue confirming Blanchard's ideas, which is perfectly fair. But to interpret "not yet fully confirmed" to mean "disconfirmed" is a complete failure of NPOV. Whether autogynephilia is an identity is irrelevant: It was the activists and not Blanchard basing things on identity: That is, there is no evidence to support the activists' view of autogynephilia, not Blanchard's. The others also fall along exactly the lines I described: Non-sexologists are making political comments, but are not providing evidence (and you cite none). Vilain is indeed a genuine sexologist, and he is strong supporter of autogynephilia. He outline the controversy exactly as I described here: the controversy is among the activists, not the researchers.— James Cantor (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, the research Guillamon was calling for has now been conducted and published in the years since he wrote the above:

• Burke, S. M., Manzouri, A. H., & Savic, I. (2017). Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Nature: Scientific Reports, 7:17954. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-17352-8
• Kim, T.-H., Kim, S.-K., & Jeong, G.-W. (2015). Cerebral gray matter volume variation in female-to-male transsexuals: A voxel-based morphometric study. Clinical Neuroscience, 26, 1119–1225.
• Manzouri, A., & Savic, I. (2019). Possible neurobiological underpinnings of homosexuality and gender dysphoria. Cerebral Cortex, 29, 2084–2101.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't say "disconfirmed", I said it wasn't "settled". Charles Allen Moser is a sexologist, whose substantiated and peer-reviewed criticisms of the theory are noted by Sánchez & Vilain and Smith et al.. It's not clear what further "evidence" I need to provide to show that the theory is controversial among researchers. Blanchard and Lawrence have both argued for autogynephilia as a sexual orientation, i.e. an identity as Pfeffer (2016) uses the term. To dismiss her chapter in The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies as mere "political comments" is the real NPOV failure, I think. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(1) I didn't mean to attribute the word "disconfirmed" to you personally, but to the thread. I apologize if it so seemed, but you nonetheless prove my own point, not yours: "Settled science" is not the standard here. As you can see, the accusations have been about complete dismissal as pseudoscience, which your own descriptions contest. (2) Moser is a GP in full time practice in San Francisco. He is a kink activist who writes, as I keep saying, commentaries about his political views (mostly about how no atypical sexual interest should ever receive a diagnosis), not evidence on this topic. (3) You answer your own question. What I ask that anyone show is what the relevant WP policy asks for. (4) You are not responding to the other parts of my comment, so must conclude the silence on those points to mean you concede them.— James Cantor (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Forgot: I need to call out the language slippage again: Blanchard and Lawrence do point out that autogynephilia is akin to a sexual orientation, but (as I said) they did not compare it to an identity. That Pfeffer demonstrably misapplies the term is neither here nor there for the actual evidence. I am not dismissing a chapter as mere political comments. I am pointing out that the WP standard pertains to the experts on the topic itself, who are the sexual scientists, whereas "LGBTQ Studies" is a political discipline focused on the implications of those findings rather than on the findings themselves. Political scientists can certainly comment on the implications of a sexuality being a brain phenomenon, but they are not qualified to know whether an MRI study on that sexuality was correctly conducted.— James Cantor (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If "settled science" is not the standard, then why bring it up? "Sexual orientation identity" and "sexual identity" are other terms for sexual orientation. Which is not an issue that a brain scan has ever been able to diagnose (feel free to correct me there). I think you had better take your complaints about LGBT studies to RS/N. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(1) In contesting the term "disconfirmed" you wrote "wasn't settled." Rephrase it however you wish: It does not change my point, nor any of the other points for which you have no response. (2) No, those terms are not synonyms: Different authors define them in different ways, and one cannot apply one author's definition to another author's statements. (3) I have already posted the current neuroimaging evidence above, and they answer your question. (4) That question is entirely irrelevant to my point: I do not contest LGBT Studies as an RS. I point out that political experts are not scientific experts and that the WP standard for scientific topics is for acceptance among the scientific, not the political, sources.— James Cantor (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If you look over your own comments in this thread, you will see you were the one who called the theory "settled science". I responded to your comment specifically, citing sources that show otherwise. I'm not making any comment on whether Blanchard's theory is "fringe", "disconfirmed", or "discredited".

Pfeffer (2016) refers to the idea that so-called autogynephilic trans women are "primarily attracted not to women but to the idea of themselves as women" as a description of a sexual identity category. This is exactly how Blanchard and Lawrence describe autogynephilia as an orientation. Where do the MRI studies support this notion?

Minor point, but Pfeffer is a sociologist. Sociology is not the same as political science. Nor does being a "kink activist" disqualify one as an expert in sexology, especially when one's work has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. If you want to go that route, though, feel free to epress your doubts at RS/N. I think there's a strong case for reliability in the fact that Moser's paper has been cited by other researchers, notably Smith et al., published in a high–impact factor biomedical journal. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem responding to each point, but this all now seems quite moot: Even if I say you are correct on each of these remaining details, nothing changes about what WP policy indicates as the correct action. (1) Yes, I am the first to use here the phrase "settled science." But being settled science isn't the issue (it's not the WP standard). In not saying the Blanchard typology is fringe (etc.), we are not disagreeing. (2) The description of being "primarily attracted not to women but to the idea of themselves as women" is indeed a match between Blanchard/Lawrence and Pfeffer, but that was not the issue: The issue was whether this constituted an "identity" or "sexual orientation." Those are things said by Pfeffer, not Blanchard/Lawrence. (3) The MRI studies are cited above.[1] I don't believe Moser has said anything on this since their publication. (4) Pfeffer being a sociologist does not change anything: My point is that the relevant opinions are from the scientists who study sexology/typology. Exactly which non-relevant field Pfeffer comes from is non-relevant. (5) I didn't say kink activists can't have relevant opinions, I'm disagreeing with your calling him a sexologist. (6) Having work published in any given journal is not what makes one a topic expert: The Journal of Homosexuality publishes very many opinion pieces. Moreover, as I said, the point is moot: I do not and have not asserted there exists unanimity of opinion. As one lists the various authors, the ones who have full time research positions on the topic are the ones who agree, with those disagreeing coming from other fields and primarily commenting on political implications. You have not presented anyone as an exception to this pattern. (7) I have no issue regarding whether Moser's comments get repeated by other commenters. What matters is, despite all the commentary over these 30 years, all the actual evidence and the general community of scientists engaged in researching these issues agree, and the evidence continues to grow rather than contract over time.— James Cantor (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We can argue about whether the WP:FRINGE policy technically applies, but in any case autogynephilia theory isn't in the scientific mainstream. If you search PubMed for "transgender" you will get over 7000 results. "gender dysphoria"? Over 3000. "autogynephilia"? 31, with about half written by Blanchard himself, promoting his own theory. Germ theory this is not. Then there are the various critiques that have appeared in peer reviewed publications to consider. Critics have pointed out that Blanchard never used scientific controls (one of the bedrocks of good research), that Blanchard's own data contradicts his model (Blanchard had to assume that a large subset of his subjects was lying in order to fit everyone into his binary model, arguably rendering the model unfalsifiable), etc. These are all things we need to keep in mind so that we don't give this theory WP:UNDUE weight or make it out to be more accepted than it is. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

None of that is relevant: The number of articles on a topic will always be larger than the number in a subtopic (by definition). The number of non-experts commenting on a topic will always outnumber of experts conducting research on the topic (flat-earthers outnumber astronomers). And, as I said, none of this is relevant: The number of cites is not how WP decides things. The OR about the content of Blanchard's article is incorrect, but also irrelevant still: Your (mis)interpretations is not what goes on the page. The problem is not the about making it out to be more accepted than it is, but activist groups working to make it seem less accepted than it is. The evidence for continues to mount (as cited above), and there has yet to be a single counter-argument from anyone who is not easily identified as an activist with only meager if any credentials as an expert at all.— James Cantor (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Lengthy quote

Is the detailed case history of "Philip" that relevant to the article? Blanchard (2005) describes this patient's case as having "strengthened my conviction" that the idea of being a woman was a common erotic fantasy for some men, but this seems unrelated to any typology of transgender people. Blanchard is also not an independent source. Suggestions for a more on-topic paraphrase of this excerpt would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The concept of autogynephilia has to do with things other than its being theorized by some to cause a change of gender identity. The article makes this clear even in its first sentence. That Philip was a man thus does not disprove its relevance. And this particular (and short) example is used commonly, including a mention in Anne Lawrence's book: [2] It's fine to quote one example, and it's from the 2005 paper which overviews the topic. It's independent enough because it's published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; it's not like it's his blog or something. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)