Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology

I have made the suggestion to rewrite the SPS definition

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self_Published_Sources_is_worded_in_a_way_which_is_too_broad. Here it is. I did not mention any specifics of this case. I just said that the definition we have now is somewhat confusing in cases like ours. That the kind of straight forward definition used by WAID would be a good starting point. If that type of wording is used then all of the comments in the ASB edition that accompanied Dreger's Paper can be used weather the person is an "expert" or not. Perhaps even if the person is using a pseudonym. I really hope that Jokestress, Bonze blayk, and Dicklyon will support this. It will give you all what you want the commentaries in that issue will be used in WP. There is no logical reason not to support this. This is the last stop before Birmingham people. Endless RfC's and dispute resolution have not changed the basic policy that has been the bone of contention here. If changing this definition does not work after a good honest try then I would really like it if this issue was permanently dropped. --Hfarmer (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok people as far as I am concerned we have reached Birmingham. I have tried to reason with these people in a way that will result in a change to WP SPS that will clearly allow things like the "peer commentaries" in the Dreger issues. Only WAID has tried to help. If ya'll who talk about the exclusion of the bulk of those commentaries like a huge conspiracy can't show up for this then to heck with it. Go there and state a case for a more fair policy or just shut up about those damm commentaries forever. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You've been told there that policy changes are never the right way to resolve a dispute, and that your proposal is seriously flawed. I agree. All we have to do here is acknowledge that the commentaries are not self-published, and to agree that excluding one side the argument from the same special issue of a journal as the other side is biased and unacceptable on wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that policy changes are not a way to resolve a dispute. However, the very thing you mentioned is the reason that policy needs to change to bring actual balance to this issue. The "other side" as you put it has PhD's and credentials that they can use to say they are "experts" in the pertinent fields. Where as most who are critics do not have PhD's or have them in irrelevant area's.

Unless that policy changes then there is no point in discussing those sources any further.

What we need to do is going to be like amending the constitution. If you aren't willing to go to that level then we need to move on. Find other sources that say the same thing that are up to snuff and they will be included. I sincerely do not care to slant this to one side or the other. How the rules work now is what does the slanting. Do you see that now? --Hfarmer (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"Only WAID has tried to help. If ya'll who talk about the exclusion of the bulk of those commentaries like a huge conspiracy can't show up for this then to heck with it. Go there and state a case for a more fair policy or just shut up about those damm commentaries forever. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)"

Hfarmer: you failed to notice that I made a post correcting your grotesque misstatement of the facts regarding Zucker's degree of editorial involvement ("basically he spell checked"), along with the post I'd made the day before you made that statement which made Zucker's role clear: he functioned as an editor in the publication of the Commentaries.

I've presented an alternative here, which has received no response: place Wyndzen's remarks in the "Public Controversy" section, where she would qualify as a source... on her controversial self... :-)

What I perceive here is a remarkable degree of rigidity... not a commonsense approach to dealing with issues in a an article that has serious problems in presenting an NPOV.

Here are a few of the statements that editors made in the Talk:Verifiability section underscoring that flexibility is permissible under the existing rules:

"... IMHO WP:VER's sourcing criteria (and the granular level) are written such that 90% of Wikipedia sourcing doesn't meet a rigorous interpretation of them. I'd hate to see this go even farther from reality...." North8000 (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"But the policy as written doesn't draw a bright line, let alone one in the wrong place. As written, there can be debates over what constitutes a self-published source and whether the reference in question falls into that category. Self-published source is not defined...." RJC TalkContribs 02:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"(ec) I don't think you can quantify, or legislate, common sense. Wikipedia's rules, including verifiability, are all based primarily on common sense, along with guiding principles. For verifiability, the guiding principles are that the publisher of the sourced material must have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and cannot be self published — i.e. a person publishing his own material, without vetting by a professional staff, is generally considered unreliable as a source." Crum375 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

bonze blayk (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hfarmer, what would be best is if you'd just stop grandstanding, playing both sides of the issue in a pretense of trying to fix it. Take a stand if you want to, and if you're opposed by WhatAmIDoing or someone else, that will become clear. Don't be playing the other side at the same time, telling people to give up, etc., like you're the grand poobah. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The the thing is Dick I am not opposed to WAID or you. You seem to draw some kind of energy off the idea that I am and go out of your way to be contrary.

I am making an honest effort to bring about the kind of systemic change that will allow a article that you and Jokestress can feel is fair. The consensus after many discussions as of now is that those sources are not allowed under the current rules. This leaves two options.

1.) Stop complaining about the peer comentaries being considered self published under the current rules and move on.

2.) Change the rules.

It's up to you. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you should stop representing one side as consensus, especially if you don't actually agree with it, like several others of us don't. I don't think anyone is complaining about the commentaries being considered self published; they're not. The complaint, if any, is that people on one side of the argument want to exclude items on the other side, from the same journal. If some of them use the "self published" argument, they're just grasping at straws, since these are obviously not self published by any reasonable interpretation; you don't need to try to encode that into the guideline pages. Dicklyon (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter what I believe it maters what the rules say and what can be proven.

After much discussion it is the interpretation of the community that those peer commentaries not written by people with some applicable credentials are to be excluded.

Changing the rules is what needs to be done. We cannot just throw away rules we do not like on our own.--Hfarmer (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I disagree with your premise. The rules are not the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Moser 2009

About this:

Recent experiments reveal that natal women report similar rates of autogynephilia to M2F transsexuals, suggesting that what is being probed is not a paraphilia but rather a standard part of female sexuality.

Moser 2009 is a WP:PRIMARY source using an unvalidated survey instrument that Moser himself says (plainly, in Moser 2009) may have produced results that cannot be compared to Blanchard's work. That is, Moser's results may be True™, but nobody (including Moser) actually knows that at this time. (And no matter what the Truth™, it is certainly misleading to describe this single survey as "experiments" anyway.)

Furthermore, "Is autogynephilia properly classified as a paraphilia?" is not the subject of this article. (It is the subject of this other article, where it's already mentioned.) The subject of this article is, "Are MTFs who are sexually attracted only to males clinically different from MTFs who aren't?" Blanchard says yes; Moser 2009 ignores this question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

First off, concerning WP:PRIMARY: As with most scientific articles, virtually all of the cites in this article are WP:PRIMARY. And WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed, so long as you don't interpret them beyond summing up what they state.

Secondly, Moser himself absolutely does not state what you say he states. Right at the top of "METHODS" reads:

Using the Cross-Gender Fetishism Scale (Blanchard, 1985) and items created for other studies (Blanchard, 1989b), an analogous Autogynephilia Scale for Women was created for this study (see Appendix A). An experimental item (#9) not derived from these scales was also included.

I don't think we need to debate the meaning of the word "analogous", do we? Secondly, Moser published an entire second paper defending the equivalency of his survey to Blanchard's against criticism for Lawrence.

The paper is WP:V, WP:PRIMARY (valid if no OR), and is not WP:OR. Without including it, the article would be WP:POV. Hence, it must be included.

Third, whether autogynephilia is a paraphilia, the article is in the category "Paraphilias", for crying out loud. It's mentioned as a paraphilia four times in the article. Again, to not allow a WP:V source which contradicts such a claim would be clear WP:POV. Neither the focus of Moser, nor my summary, focused on the paraphilia aspect, and either way, removing those couple words is hardly ground to remove the entire cite. And contrary to your assertion, Moser does in fact address the homosexual vs. non-homosexual aspects -- in the very first paragraph of the article, as his reason for conducting the experiment therein:

The term autogynephilia, defined as erotic interest in the thought or image of oneself as a woman, was coined by Blanchard (1989a, 2005) from its Greek roots, and associates the presence or absence of autogynephilia with the sexual orientation of male-to-female transsexuals (MTFs). Blanchard (2005) suggests that autogynephilia is absent in all homosexual MTFs (those who are primarily erotically attracted to other genetic males) and present in all nonhomosexual MTFs (those who are primarily attracted to genetic women, men and women, or not attracted to others). (The terms homosexual and nonhomosexual are used in this article as Blanchard has defined them; see Blanchard, 1989b). The theory and definitions suggest that this association is true of all MTFs, although Blanchard (2005) acknowledges the need for these statements to be confirmed by empirical studies. Autogynephilia is also present in at least some transvestites and gender dysphoric males who are not transsexual (Blanchard, 2005). Blanchard (1989a, 2005) states that autogynephilia does not exist in genetic females and suggests the analogous concept (erotic interest in the thought or image of oneself as a man, autoandrophilia) does not exist in female-to-male transsexuals.

I actually have trouble even understanding what you think this paper is about if not to disprove the notion that autogynephilia is something unique to M2Fs who are attracted to women. I mean, Moser spells it out over and over again, and in his reply to Lawrence. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just to be abundantly clear: disagreeing with Moser about whether his scale is analogous to Blanchard's is absolutely not grounds for removing the citation. I'd be more than happy to comprmoise with you on this one -- for example, if you think we should include Lawrence's critique, and then Moser's reply to Lawrence's critique, I think that would be fair. But your personal opinion of whether Moser's scale is analogous or not is irrelevant, since he said that it is ("an analogous Autogynephilia Scale for Women was created for this study"), and he's peer-reviewed. Only another peer-reviewed paper can refute that (hence the option to add Lawrence's criticism -- but then you couldn't really include that without Moser's reply or risk shoving this article back into WP:POV territory). Heck, I should probably also include Veale, Clarke, and Lomax (2008), who also contradict BBL (they found that 52% of natal women taking an autogynephilia quiz -- developed independent of Moser's -- was higher than the mean for "homosexual transsexuals" in Blanchard's study). 128.255.251.167 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• What you call Moser's "entire second paper" is what the rest of the world calls a letter to the editor. It is not a peer-reviewed paper.
• That Moser thinks his scale is valid (despite having reported zero effort to validate it) does not mean that that the scale is valid. In fact, Moser says the opposite: "It is possible that autogynephilia among MTFs and natal women are different phenomena and the present inventories lack the sophistication to distinguish these differences." In plain language, "It suits me to say that natal women have autogynephiliac experiences, but I could be completely wrong about that."
• To say that Moser's survey "reveals that natal women report similar rates of autogynephilia" (as opposed to, say, that it says "natal women report experiences that, if they were reported by MTFs, might have caused Blanchard to classify the respondent as having autogynephilia") goes far beyond Moser's paper. Moser makes no such claim: Moser carefully says (see last paragraph) that his survey indicates (only) that he was unable to prove autogynephiliac responses are absent in natal women. ("The present study does not support the contention...that autogynephilia is absent in natal women.") There's a big difference between "doesn't disprove the absence" (=what Moser claimed) and "proves the presence" (=what you wrote in the article). Consequently, I think that your description significantly misrepresents the very limited and carefully hedged claims Moser actually makes.
• I have trouble understanding what you think this particular Wikipedia article is about, if not "Are HSTS and non-HSTS people clinically different?" "Should doctors treat HSTS and non-HSTS people differently?" is not a question that Moser addresses. Autogynephilia—the subject that Moser addresses—is a completely separate article (and one where, IMO, Moser's paper should be accurately presented). The "BBL theory" is not "non-HSTS MTFs have a paraphilia." Blanchard's theory is that MTFs who are attracted to men are different from other MTFs.
• It is perfectly normal to remove minority viewpoints from articles that are only slightly or tangentially connected to the subject and are supported solely by WP:PRIMARY sources that have been largely ignored by his colleagues (e.g., the article's primary source of citations are letters to the editor, not proper papers). As Moser is (apparently) the only sexologist on the planet who supports his survey (at this time), I think we can easily classify his recent work as sufficiently FRINGEy to remove it as WP:UNDUE from any Wikipedia article except Autogynephilia (especially from the lead!). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I'm sorry, but you do not get to decide that Moser is wrong. Moser clearly says that his scale is analogous to Blanchard's. Moser is peer-reviewed. What you think of whether it's analogous is irrelevant. Every paper (including Blanchard's) includes caveats, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire purpose of this paper was to debunk the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. Once again, this is made clear in the first paragraph, which is an unambiguous summary of of BBL, and which the paper then proceeds to attempt to tear down. I'll repost it for your benefit:

The term autogynephilia, defined as erotic interest in the thought or image of oneself as a woman, was coined by Blanchard (1989a, 2005) from its Greek roots, and associates the presence or absence of autogynephilia with the sexual orientation of male-to-female transsexuals (MTFs). Blanchard (2005) suggests that autogynephilia is absent in all homosexual MTFs (those who are primarily erotically attracted to other genetic males) and present in all nonhomosexual MTFs (those who are primarily attracted to genetic women, men and women, or not attracted to others). (The terms homosexual and nonhomosexual are used in this article as Blanchard has defined them; see Blanchard, 1989b). The theory and definitions suggest that this association is true of all MTFs, although Blanchard (2005) acknowledges the need for these statements to be confirmed by empirical studies. Autogynephilia is also present in at least some transvestites and gender dysphoric males who are not transsexual (Blanchard, 2005). Blanchard (1989a, 2005) states that autogynephilia does not exist in genetic females and suggests the analogous concept (erotic interest in the thought or image of oneself as a man, autoandrophilia) does not exist in female-to-male transsexuals.

That is the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. And the paper is all about debunking that assertion.

Your quote: "The present study does not support the contention...that autogynephilia is absent in natal women." -- snips out the part that contradicts your claim. Moser's full quote is: "The present study does not support the contention that autogynephilic MTFs are manifesting a type of “male” sexuality or that autogynephilia is absent in natal women." If you'd like me to use that exact wording in Moser's paper, I would be fine with it, but I don't see how a person could see my wording as being different from that.

I have no need to respond to your fourth paragraph, as I already did above: the very first paragraph in Moser's paper (cited above) makes it abundantly clear that the paper exists to criticize the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. Likewise, the article is in the category paraphilias and refers to it as a paraphilia several times. So long as that is the case, it is perfectly fair to reference whether or not it's a paraphilia.

Moser 2009 is hardly alone in criticizing BBL. See also Moser (2010), Nuttbrock et al (2010), and Veale et al (2008). Calling a paper that's been published in 2009 as "fringe" which already has several papers arguing the same thing "fringe" is utterly absurd. And the article is as it stands a giant WP:POV for excluding all contradictory scientific papers.

As note: I made changes based on your criticism with my last edit. This will be my first RV to that version. You have had two RVs to the old article. I do not advise that you break the three-RV rule. Also, I'll add that I would welcome conflict resolution to this dispute, since you do not seem willing to compromise. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: If your standard is that any criticism of BBL theory must literally include the words "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory" to be included (instead of simply describing the details of the theory, the papers that established it, and then criticizing them) -- you'll find few papers of *any* type can be included, including those *promoting* the theory. The overwhelming majority of references in the page as it stands would have to be removed. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The fact that Moser says his brand-new, unvalidated scale is "analogous" to the validated scale does not mean that Moser is correct. It might be; it might not be. We need a reliable source other than Moser to make that call. (AFAICT, the jury's still out on that issue.)
2. Blanchard's typology is not Autogynephilia; the BBL theory is "There are two types of transwomen." Blanchard additionally says that the HSTS people have these characteristics (e.g., a lower body weight), and non-HSTS people have these other characteristics (e.g., autogynephilia), but the "BBL theory" itself is "divide the community of transwomen into two groups". (If you really believe that BBL = autogynephilia, then you should be proposing that the articles be WP:MERGEd.)
3. Moser's 2009 survey does not support anything at all about MTFs, as he didn't survey a single MTF person. More relevantly, whether his survey supports the absence of autogynephilia in natal women is absolutely unrelated to whether the sexuality that some MTFs exhibit should be considered "male". "Or" in this sentence is a coordinating conjunction; the two halves do not modify each other. When something "does not support A or B", then the proposition that "it does not support B" is true.
4. The fact that this article is listed in Category:Paraphilias is irrelevant. We cat articles according to what readers might be looking for, if they go look in the category. Putting an article in a given cat does not mean that the subject is verifiably classified that way. For example, that cat also lists Bugchasing, which is not a paraphilia. (The cat was added to this article in 2006 by User:Alison.)
5. Three of the four times that "paraphilia" was mentioned in this article (before you added the term multiple times yourself), it has nothing to do with autogynephilia. It reports the classification of a different 'disorder' (transvestic fetishism) in the DSM.
6. I have no objection to including criticism in this article. However, I'm committed to not using primary sources to debunk secondary sources. I'm also not willing to misrepresent the current state of scientific thought about this idea. Blanchard's typology just isn't getting much criticism except from Moser (a physician who styles himself as a "professor" at his unaccredited college). The fact is that BBL is currently the dominant idea in the field. It might be entirely wrong (spontaneous generation was once the dominant idea in its field), but BBL is currently the dominant idea, and must be presented that way per WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL.
7. Just because something's published in an academic journal does not mean that it's a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Journals publish editorials and letters as well. Here are the four "papers" that cite Moser's 2009 paper:
   • Nuttbrock 2010 (PMID 20559866) is a letter to the editor.
   • Moser 2010 (PMID 20582797) is a letter to the editor.
   • Moser 2010 (PMID 20652734) is a letter to the editor.
   • Lawrence 2009 (PMID 20069491) is a letter to the editor.

I hope that we can agree that none of these are properly classified as peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that Moser says his brand-new, unvalidated scale is "analogous" to the validated scale does not mean that Moser is correct." Let me reiterate this again: Wikipedia doesn't give a flying flip what you think about Moser's scale. And let's be especially clear about this, from the very top of WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Every time you make the argument that you don't believe Moser's scale is analogous, you're arguing against the core tenet of Wikipedia article inclusion. Please don't make me cover this most rudimentary of policy positions again.

Blanchard's typology is not Autogynephilia; the BBL theory is "There are two types of transwomen." But hey, looks like I have to. So here we go: Wikipedia doesn't give a flying flip whether you think Moser is criticizing BBL or not. Moser says he is. That's the end of the story.

"Moser's 2009 survey does not support anything at all about MTFs, as he didn't survey a single MTF person." Yes, he used Blanchards data, and simply supplemented it with data from natal women. This is a complete red herring.

"# The fact that this article is listed in Category:Paraphilias is irrelevant." The fact that an article is in a category on a subject and discusses that subject doesn't mean whether the subject is the case is relevant or not? That's absurd.

"However, I'm committed to not using primary sources to debunk secondary sources." What are you referring to as primary sources refuting secondary sources? What secondary sources are there on the subject of the aspect of Blanchard's theory that asserts that gynephilic M2Fs are distinguished from natal women by autogynephilia?

Finally, for your information: one, none of those are letters to the editor since they're all reviewed and WP:V, and hence citeable. I didn't cite Lawrence (2009). You got the wrong Nuttbrock et al (2010), it's DOI: 10.1007/s10508-009-9579-2, and it is a peer-reviewed paper. Moser (2010) is PMID: 20582803 and is a peer-reviewed paper. To quote Moser: "It helps if you compare the correct items." -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? Even the ones that directly and plainly say "Letter to the editor" at the top of the page, are somehow magically not letters to the editor? Have a look for yourself. Can you explain why this page says "letter to the editor" in the gray bar in the top, lefthand corner of the page, if this is not a letter to the editor? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you just link an article that we're not discussing? This is just getting silly. And it's a pointless debate anyway, since there was editorial review, and hence it's WP:V no matter what you call it. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory / Moser 2009

This RFC is for a dispute between User:WhatamIdoing and myself. I wish to include a summary of the paper Moser (2009) in the article. WhatamIdoing opposes the inclusion. The current article includes no scientific criticism of the theory, which I see as WP:POV. User:WhatamIdoing sees criticism of it as fringe science. I consider it absurd to claim that something for which there have been four peer-reviewed papers in the past two years on (Veale et al, 2008; Moser, 2009; Moser, 2010; and Nuttbrock et al, 2010) to be "fringe science", and that the BBL theory itself is rapidly becoming "fringe". The RV status, as of the time of writing, is two RVs by User:WhatamIdoing and one editing by myself (taking into account User:WhatamIdoing's criticisms) and one RV. I offered a compromise, but it wasn't acknowledged. I think it's time to bring in some outside viewpoints. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Question for the anon:

Moser conducted one (1) survey that produced twenty-nine (29) responses. Can you explain to me why you have repeatedly characterized this single survey as "Recent experiments"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Veale, Clarke, and Lomax (2008)? Same result (now, *their* TS's scored higher than Blanchard's, but 52% of their natal women scored higher than Blanchard's gynephilic M2Fs -- also, Veale's gynephilic M2Fs scored *higher* than natal women in terms of female childhood gender identity). Moser 2010 is more of a review, but still very instructive, and Nuttbrock 2010 is a critique with some new data on M2Fs. Bockting (2005) is a pretty harsh critique of Bailey's concepts and how they contradict with the actual data obtained by clinicians and goes into some of that. I'd be glad to cite *more* papers, but less is simply unacceptable in terms of WP:POV. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: I just got a reply for clarification from Moser:

Dear ((MyName)),

The 2009 article was meant as a test of Blanchard's theory. A later paper (2010) cited below is the critique article. As you may know Anne Lawrence wrote a letter to the editor criticizing the paper and I published a rejoinder. The rejoinder has additional information about autogynephilia in women.

As far as your summary, I did not conclude that Blanchard's statement was clearly false; my paper only raised questions and challenged BBL to study the question. (ED: I will change that wording to reflect Moser's stance)

My rejoinder was reviewed by the editor. I believe he reviewed Lawrence's letter as well.

As far as the other editor, I do not have a theory (fringe or otherwise); I have only questioned the BBL theory. In my critique article, I found several weaknesses, inconsistencies, and showed how the data could be interpreted differently. I believe my paper raises serious concerns about the theory, the methods and studies on which it is based, and implications of the theory. In science, BBL should respond to my critique, point out why my criticism is not valid, do further studies, or admit that the theory has problems. If I took quotes out of context, misrepresented the studies, or misunderstood the data, that should be noted. If not, my "fringe" paper should stand as a creditable critique of the theory.

Take care,

Charles Moser, PhD, MD, FACP

So apart from one critique of one part of my wording (which I will change shortly -- I sent him the entire wording of what I wrote)), he seems to have come down strongly towards my presentation of his work -- notably, the following key points:

1: He is criticizing BBL.

2: His "letter to the editor", as you call it, is reviewed.

3: Unsurprisingly, he strongly disagrees that this is a "fringe theory", only a criticism of an existing theory (matching with my section title, "Scientific Criticism").

I hope this will help resolve this conflict. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Editorial review is not the same thing as peer review. I'm sure that Moser is capable of explaining the difference to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

One, I never said "peer-reviewed"; you did. Two, editorial review is sufficient for WP:V. Three, it distinctly is not a Letter to the editor, as you called it. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Moser and Veale are part of the problem, through their uncritical adoption of the concept and terminology in question. They have fallen for the rhetorical trap set by proponents of these beliefs, which is why those proponents latch onto anyone like them who is unsophisticated enough to make this mistake (Helen Boyd, etc.). Because Moser and Veale start from the premise that "autogynephilia" exists, they play into the hands of the very people they claim they are opposing.

This entire matter does not merit its own article. All of this crap should be summarized in an article on gender identity and sexual orientation. The whole premise here is that trans women are simply a manifestation of sexual orientations that (in this belief system) can reach the level of psychosexual pathology or psychopathology. Jokestress (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

They're kind of stuck; when responding to papers, you're supposed to adopt those papers terminology (even though in this case, it's offensive and presupposes its conclusion). I think there's more than enough criticism of Blanchard's terminology out there. And I agree with you about whether this merits it's own article; I think the article on Autogynephilia is enough. Perhaps this should be WP:VFD instead? -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole series of redundant articles here that should be merged, including transgender sexuality, homosexual transsexual and others. I encourage you to be bold and take those steps. Jokestress (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I will. The topic is certainly WP:Notability, but it's also clearly WP:UNDUE. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Moser and Veale are starting from the perspective that there are two types of MTFs. Almost the entire research community believes that (to a first approximation) (at this time).

It is not necessary to adopt the terminology of papers you disagree with, and you normally should not, if you think the terminology is offensive.

To the anon: You might benefit from asking Moser to clarify what exactly he means when he says "Blanchard's theory" in the first sentence of his e-mail message. Specifically, is this "Blanchard's theory that there are two types of MTFs", or "Blanchard's theory that autogynephilia is an abnormal expression of sexuality seen exclusively or primarily in natal males"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, "almost the entire research community" does NOT believe that there are only two types of transsexuals. For example, you clearly haven't read Veale yet. Or Nuttbrock. Heck, the very conclusion of Nuttbrock's paper reads that "a classification of the MTF population, based solely on sexual orientation, is fundamentally limited." Or are Larry Nuttbrock, Walter Bockting, Mona Mason, Sel Hwahng, Andrew Rosenblum, Monica Macri, and Jeffrey Becker (just the authors of that one paper alone) not part of the research community? Heck, Nuttbrock's reply is called The Limitations Of Blanchard's Typology: A Response To Lawrence (2010). Are you even reading the research on the subject? Moser 2010 alone cites over a dozen different papers that argue against Blanchard's classification. Heck, the very premise itself requires that one believe the fringe theory that there's no such thing as bisexuality.

Adopting the terminology of the authors you're responding to is standard practice in scientific research, whether you accept it or not.

Re, clarifying Moser's reply: No clarification is needed. Here's what he was replying to:

"I'm currently involved in an editing dispute on Wikipedia over the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of transsexuality. I've been working to get your 2009 paper included (right now, the article is 100% supportive of the theory).

1) Was your paper intended as a critique of the BBL theory? (It seems pretty obvious to me, but the other editor is insisting that it's not)

So yes, he was critiquing BBL theory. And I'm baffled as to why I even had to ask him that in the first place; the very first paragraph of the paper makes it plainly obvious -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue that needs clarifying was what exactly "BBL theory" means in the above sentence. Does Moser believe that his survey of natal women demonstrates that transwomen attracted to men are clinically identical to transwomen who are not (=opposes BBL theory, as defined in this article)? Or does Moser believe that his survey of natal women demonstrates that natal women report experiences that Blanchard would call autogynephilia in a transwoman (=critiquing a detail of autogynephilia, not what this article calls BBL theory)?

I believe from the context that Moser's survey criticizes Blanchard's idea of autogynephilia. I believe it says nothing at all about whether HSTS and non-HSTS MTFs are clinically distinguishable groups. I suspect that Moser would agree with me, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have read Mosers paper at length, and like the anon I also corresponded with Dr. Moser on the subject. My take on his point of view is that the title of his paper is his point of view. Which is that Autogynephilia exist in women.

We can argue about the significance of his small sample size survey, which he himself admits in his paper is a limitation. However there is no argument that he thinks Autogynephilia does not exist.

The thing is a summary of his work, a very short summary, could be good. Anything more than a five sentence paragraph would be overkill. It also has to be neutral and not try to overplay what Moser's study indicates. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, we have decided that the original claim ("Blanchard says that autogynephilia doesn't exist in natal women") is too tangential and trivial to mention anywhere in this article.

Don't you think it's a little silly to include Moser's "rebuttal" to Blanchard's belief, if we don't first mention Blanchard's belief? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point.

I really wish the anon who wants to merge all of these articles would make their case.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatamidoing: I am increasingly finding that your tendency to make "statements" of the nature of BBL theory and characterizations of other research exhibits a marked tendency to rely on your interpretation of articles, rather than their plain contents, and that your summaries of such are unreliable WP:OR, e.g., "I believe from the context that Moser's survey criticizes Blanchard's idea of autogynephilia."

"I agree that Moser and Veale are starting from the perspective that there are two types of MTFs." Would you please quote Moser to establish this? I believe he makes no such assumptions.

And also, "BBL theory" is comprised of the whole schmeer, not just the distinction between "two types" of MTF: that MTF transsexuality is an expression of sexual preference rather than gender identity, with two distinct types, "homosexual" and "autogynephilic"; "homosexual" transsexuality is motivated by what one might call "sexual economics", while "autogynephilic" transsexuality is an extreme form of a paraphilia involving an erotic obsession with the image of oneself as a woman; and finally, when you get right down to it... doesn't SRS as a treatment for "autogynephilic" transsexuality resemble an amputation fetish?

Personally, I can say this: I would have zero interest in SRS if it were merely an "amputation". bonze blayk (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The following are verbatim quotes from Mosers paper "Autogynephilia in Women" DOI: 10.1080/00918360903005212 .

"The presence or absence of autogynephilia is considered clinically and etiologically important in MTFs. Blanchard (1993a) stated “Autogynephilia is clinically significant because it interferes with normal interpersonal sexual attraction and because it is associated with gender dysphoria” (p. 301). Additionally Blanchard (1991) suggested that “Gender dysphoria, in young nonhomosexual males, usually appears along with, or subsequent to, autogynephilia; in later years, however, autogynephilic sexual arousal may diminish or disappear, while the transsexual wish remains or grows even stronger” (p. 248).

The hypothesized absence of autogynephilia in women is seen as supporting Blanchard's theory that autogynephilia is an unusual sexual interest of men and that the desire for SRS is sexually motivated. If genetic women and MTFs both endorse the same statements and exhibit the same behaviors, then autogynephilia may not be an unusual sex interest of men, but a sex interest shared by both groups; it could be a characteristic of female sexuality. Thus, the presence or absence of autogynephilia in women is a significant finding in understanding the sexuality of both natal women and MTFs."

That makes it sound like he's not only agreeing with Blanchard about the clinical importance, but that he's saying it's generally accepted that the AGP/HSTS distinction is important. He does not qualify "The presence or absence of autogynephilia is considered clinically and etiologically important in MTFs," at all. He does not say Blanchard asserts the presence or absence.... Then he quotes Blanchards papers. Here's another quote. Their are two things that make this paper problematic to me. Moser writes. "It is possible that some respondents in the present study (genetic women) were aroused by the possibility of or fantasy about a sexual encounter rather than the “autogynephilic” stimuli described. It is possible that some “autogynephilic” MTFs were aroused by the possibility of or fantasy about a sexual encounter as a female rather than “autogynephilic” stimuli."

The a paragraph latter he writes.

"The present study does not support the contention that autogynephilic MTFs are manifesting a type of “male” sexuality or that autogynephilia is absent in natal women. The meaning of a sexual interest in one's own body (or ideal body) is not understood for men, women, or transsexuals. Autogynephilia appears to be a different phenomenon from other paraphilias, in its frequency, intensity, and duration. Although it is possible that autogynephilia is manifested differently in men than women, Blanchard (2005) incorrectly predicts the response of women to autogynephilic stimuli."

Which are both self contradictory. It is possible that his study failed to measure actual autogynephilia in women... Take a look at the questions that were asked and the answers he got.

Mosers Questions and raw data:

Questions	Number of responses (Never, On Occasion, Frequently, No data)
I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself in the nude.	9, 15, 2, 3
I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself wearing lingerie, underwear, or foundation garments (e.g., corsets).	10, 16, 2, 1
I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself fully clothedin sexy attire.	15, 13, 1, 0
I have been erotically aroused by dressing in lingerie or sexy attire for a romantic evening or when hoping to meet a sex partner.	7, 14, 8, 0
I have been erotically aroused by preparing (shaving my legs, applying make-up, etc.) for a romantic evening or when hoping to meet a sex partner.	10, 12, 5, 2
I have dressed in lingerie, sexy attire or prepared myself (shaving my legs, applying make-up, etc.) before masturbating.	19, 10, 0, 0
I have been erotically aroused by imagining myself with a “sexier” body.	14, 13, 1, 1
I have been erotically aroused by imagining that others find me particularly sexy, attractive, or irresistible.	4, 19, 6, 0
I have been erotically aroused by using specific articles of clothing, odors, or textures during masturbation.	14, 13, 0, 0

Overall most responses to all questions were Never, or on occasion. Only two of the women reported frequent arousal to simply being nude, or wearing sexy clothes. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The following are quotes from Moser's latter paper which indicate that he does belive autogynephilia exist. "Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory: A Critique" DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2010.486241

"Blanchard (1988) argues that MTFs can be classified by their sexual orientation into two basic types, “homosexual” (predominantly sexually attracted to men) and “nonhomosexual” (notpredominantly sexually attracted to men). Blanchard employs these terms in relation to natal sex, not self-definition or presentation. He adopted the term “nonhomosexual” as individuals in this group report sexual interest in women, both men and women, or neither men nor women, but not primarily in men (Blanchard, 1988). This article will use Blanchard's terms for consistency, but the terms will be critiqued later in the article.

In his review of the development of autogynephilia, Blanchard (2005) appropriately distinguishes between autogynephilia and theories involving autogynephilia. No one disputes that autogynephilia exists or that it can explain the motivation of some MTFs; many MTFs readily admit that this construct describes their sexual interest and motivation. Nevertheless, it is not clear how accurately the BAT predicts the behavior, history, and motivation of MTFs in general."

In the following he questions weather Blanchard's Autogynephilia theory BAT has he calls BBL theory here is correct. He asserts things, then says that more study is needed to confirm his assertions. Significantly he does not say that this paper supports any other theory of transsexualism.

"This article questions the following tenets and predictions of BAT. Reviewing the same data as the BAT proponents, it is not clear that autogynephilia is always present in non-homosexual MTFs and always absent in homosexual MTFs; the practice of discounting statements by non-homosexual MTFs “denying” and homosexual MTFs reporting autogynephilia appears flawed; autogynephilia seems to differ from other paraphilias in significant ways; natal women score as autogynephilic on similar inventories used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic; according to Blanchard's (1993a) definition of orientation, autogynephilia does not seem to be an orientation overshadowing other traditional orientations; there is little reason to suggest that autogynephilia is the motivation of non-homosexual MTFs to SRS; and there are no data to suggest that non-homosexual MTFs have difficulty with pair bonding. Further empirical studies are needed to confirm any of these assertions.

This article should not be interpreted as supporting any alternative theory or hypothesis of the origins or nature of transsexuality. There may be more than one cause of transsexuality; Blanchard et al. (2009) similarly accepts that there can be more than one cause of a paraphilia."

There is one more Moser paper. I am going to retrieve that now. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In "A Rejoinder to Lawrence (2010): It Helps If You Compare the Correct Items" DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2010.485859 .

He creates a table where he compares some of Blanchards questions to his. I won't recreate this one. Just to give you a sense of it.... Moser claims that this ". I have been erotically aroused by dressing in lingerie or sexy attire for a romantic evening or when hoping to meet a sex partner." is the same as this " Have you ever felt sexually aroused when putting on women's underwear, stockings, or a nightgown? [CGFS item 6]". Moser claims that this " I have been erotically aroused by preparing (shaving my legs, applying make-up, etc.) for a romantic evening or when hoping to meet a sex partner." is the same as this " Have you ever felt sexually aroused when putting on women's perfume or makeup, or when shaving your legs? [CGFS item 5]"

Finally he writes of his study himself. "Blanchard (2005) contends that “Autogynephilia does not occur in women” (p. 445), but there is no data to support that assertion. My study was a small, proof of concept study. It never purported to be definitive, although it does cast doubt on Blanchard's prediction about women."--Hfarmer (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It is my opinion that because Lawrence 2010 is part of this discussion, it too would need to be included in some form or the other. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To reply to many of the points above from different posters:

Re, applicability: Moser specifically replied to the wording, "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory", exactly the same as the title of this article. His first paragraph of his paper describes BBL theory. So even if any of YOU don't think it's applicable, HE does, and he's peer-reviewed. The debate ends right there. This is borderline entering No true Scotsman territory here.

Re, merger: These three articles -- autogynephilia, BBL theory, and "homosexual transsexual", are all just different aspects of the exact same thing -- all part of a single theory on transsexuality. Since autogynephilia is by far the most recognizeable of these terms, and is the article that the overwhelming percent of people arriving at Wikipedia will get to first (who do you think would randomly guess "Blanchard,_Bailey,_and_Lawrence_theory", with exactly that spacing, comma structure, and wording?), the suggestion is to merge them into the autogynephilia article. Most of the articles' content is redundant.

Re, Moser's questions to assess autogynephilia: For God's sake, how many times do I have to point out the top line of WP:V? The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia doesn't give a flying flip if you think Moser's questions are an appropriate test of autogynephilia. Moser does. Moser's peer reviewed. The argument ends there. If you don't like Wikipedia's rules, go somewhere else.

Once again, I'll reiterate: there are no exceptions to the rules for this or any other article.

Let's review what's been established. I can name four peer-reviewed papers critical of this theory (Moser 2009, Moser 2010, Veale et al 2008, Nuttbrock et al 2010), representing over a dozen researchers in a relatively tiny field. Hence, the article, without any counters, easily violates WP:NPOV. As per Wikipedia's rules, this mandates the inclusion of criticism to restore balance. Moser 2010 is a secondary source (a review of the literature), which is ideal and actually makes it a better paper than virtually every cite in this article (although primaries are still acceptable so long as accurately represented, which would include Moser 2009, Veale et al 2008, and Nuttbrock et al 2010). All of these are highly WP:V sources, which is the requirement for inclusion. Hence, the only thing that should be up for debate is how to accurately represent these papers in the article(s).

Feel free to toss out wording suggestions. -- [Special:Contributions/128.255.251.167|128.255.251.167]] (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We really should keep discussion of the merger or not merger separate from the rest of this or it could be a very confusing discussion.

As for the papers, no one has said that the papers are not applicable as far as I can see. Second the major work on these articles was done more than a year ago. The papers you describe are all newer than that. We haven't even had a chance to react to them, honestly I wasn't even thinking about this.

I propose the following. We go to a talk page of your choice, and discuss the merger proposal first. THEN we talk about what sources and wording will be in what articles. I say this because I would not want to do the same work twice. Once now, then again after a merger. Is that ok and reasonable to you?--Hfarmer (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that sounds perfectly fair. Perhaps the merger proposal should be discussed on the autogynephilia page, since that's the proposed merger place. I'll go ahead and start it out, and you can join the discussion. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now added a section discussing the merger. I look forward to discussing it with you over there. Thanks! -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger complete

As per the approach favored by all but two commenters in Talk:Autogynephilia, the articles Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory and Autogynephilia have been merged, and Homosexual transsexual is a disambig page.

Merger details:

• The overwhelming majority of content from the original three articles made it into the merged version.
• The redundancy was removed (i.e., each article before had to explain the background, the theory, the criticism of terms, etc)
• Cruft, such as references that didn't match up with their text, were removed when found.
• Extraneous topics of lesser importance that didn't seem to lead anywhere, such as how homosexual transsexuals use their penis and the like, were removed. We want people getting to key points and evidence rather than being wrapped up in tangential elements.
• A significant amount of effort was expended on making the subject easier to understand to a reader with no background on the subject. I think I did a good job with the header, although the science sections could probably do to be clearer.
• I tried to handle balance properly between "Justification of the two classifications" and the "Scientific criticism of the theory". A few years ago, this would have necessitated only a few sentence on criticism of the theory, but recently, there's been a lot of criticism of the theory. Still, since it's in the DSM and still has lots of papers out there, I made sure to give the pro side more room. IMHO, we should try to make sure that we don't shift the balance out of whack in our edits, although there's certainly room for discussion of what's appropriate balance. I think the "Scientific criticism of the theory" side could do to be a few sentences shorter (3-4?), although I'm not sure what would be best to remove -- any thoughts? I already had to leave out one article I was thinking of including (Bockting 2005) for space reasons.

Overall, even with the criticism section added in, the article is about 2/3rds the size of the total of the other three, and IMHO, a lot clearer to read and more balanced. However, as James Cantor mentioned in talk, I think we should come up with a better name for it. I've seen "Blanchard's theories" and "BAT" used in the literature.

As this is a work in progress, I highly encourage editors to be bold and take part in editing and to join the discussion. If things work well and we all do our best to get along, I think we can get this to the Good Article list.  :)

Hack away at it! -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Dominant taxonomy"

I felt it was pretty evident that Blanchardian theory is the dominant taxonomy, but an editor has tagged this dubious. I think we should discuss. If removing "dominant" would help build consensus, I would support it. I would also support retaining it if we could get a cite that states that it's the dominant taxonomy. If anyone can find a cite to defend this in the next day or so, I'll remove the dubious tag; otherwise; I'll remove the "dominant taxonomy" part. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to call Blanchardian theory "influential" or even "extremely influential", but I believe that to refer to it as "the dominant taxonomy" is probably going too far.

I haven't read over the revised article closely yet, but it appears to have been significantly improved! bonze blayk (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I like that wording; I'll change it.  :) Again, not everything has been totally reworked, especially the supporting research side, but I certainly did my best.  :) -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that we try to determine whether this hypothesis is dominant or influential RELATIVE to other taxonomies. But that question misses one alternative that could be far more important, namely not recognizing such a taxonomy, and have one large group. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Stabilization: Time for WP:GA?

The new revision of the article seems to have stabilized much faster than I would have expected. That's a good thing.  :) What do people here think about trying for good article status? -- 128.255.252.253 (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a few things you should do first. Check out WP:MOS the manual of style. That is the criterion you will be judged against by the reviewer. More specifically the list of criteria for a good article. WP:WIAGA

Also and interested editor taking a wikibreak does not negate their opinion nor does it constitute "consensus" or stability. Though you have improved the content that deals with Autogynephilia, you have not improved the content on the research on Homosexual/androphilic transsexuals only masked and confused it. Heck there are legitimate complaints about those terms which seem to get short shrift, as if those who might be so labeled and who would take offense perhaps should not, whereas tons of space is dedicated to what's wrong with Autogynephilia. It's a bit unbalanced in that it says one of these things is more offensive than the other. Do you get me?

I will be back in a week or so and their will be changes. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be glad to hold off on this until you get back, and I welcome your inputs on the article. Could you rephrase your above criticism? I'm interested. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of Autogynephilia (paraphilia) "disambiguation"

I'm reverting Riverstone's insertion of a "Disambiguation" page in "Autogynephilia" offering (alongside the new, merged article) a completely new "Autogynephilia (paraphilia)" page focusing on its association with Transvestic Festishism, as opposed to its larger context within Blanchard's (et. al.) concept.

Riverstone: "Autogynephilia" as a paraphilia IS Blanchard's concept, and it's associated with a clinical diagnosis. It covers a lot more range than just Transvestic Fetishism or crossdressing. You need to be aware that the recent merger of the "Autogynephilia", "Homosexual Transsexual", and "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory" articles was done precisely in order to clean up the confusion and duplication among and between the articles. If you want to add some text to the BBL article about autogynephilia and its relationship to Transvestic Fetishism, go ahead; but creating a parallel article with a misleading title is not a good idea. bonze blayk (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, Bonze. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional merge proposal

I propose also merging Feminine essence concept of transsexuality into this article. The term is used by Ray Blanchard's allies and only in the context of his ideas. It is an obscure neologism employed by essentialists in one sexology journal as a straw man to attack social constructionist models of gender. The people who use it believe transwomen have a "male essence" and claim any of their critics must therefore believe that transwomen have a "female essence." This is of course untrue. Like most attacks of this sort, it is directed at transwomen and not transmen. Because those who use it are essentialists, they are either unwilling or unable to frame the debate outside of their own narrow worldviews. Feminine essence concept of transsexuality was started by someone affiliated with the editor of the journal where it appeared. Jokestress (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I second this merger (as I can't find any reference to this concept outside the context of his theories), although I do not have the time to do the merge at the moment. Alternate theories of transsexuality tend to be very specific, not an "essence". For example, there's a variety of brain structure theories, Ramachandran's "body mapping" theory, etc. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made precisely five edits to the Feminine essence article. I think that notices that this is being considered should be placed on the talk pages of it's most prolific editors. WhatamIdoing and Dicklyon. Speaking of whom he pointed out sources which do not derive from Blanchard or any of his pack. Diff of his comment. "[1] and [2]. And more books, using the term "female essence" which seems to be more the norm than "feminine essence"."

As I am sure Jokestress will affirm Dicklyon is no tool of BBL or any of that.

I personally don't see what benefit there is in merging this notion into this already mammoth article.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we really have to get into attacking editors so soon ("no tool of BBL")? Believe it or not, some people here just want to make good articles. It would have sufficed to say, "You should have invited Dickylon, since they are active in that article."

"Female essence", in most of those references, isn't about a scientific theory -- nor do they use the phrasing in the article ("feminine essence" -- Blanchard's term). The very nature of using the term "essence" is pretty unscientific; that's a philosophical term (essentialism v. non-essentialism). Now, I don't think any non-Blanchardian theories belong in the BBL article -- only Blanchard's foil term. Legit, independent, notable theories deserve their own article. If there was a single comprehensive "female essence" scientific theory (which I see no evidence of -- just the occasional use of the term "female essence"), it should have its own article. But all non-Blanchardian theories should not be lumped into one article simply because Blanchard does that, and nor should it be under Blanchard's choice of name for it. There are alternative theories of transsexualism -- for example, Ramachandran's innate body image theory, which suggests that transsexualism is a form of innate phantom limb syndrome. Lumping them all into a foil to Blanchard's theories using Blanchard's non-scientific term is improper, IMHO.

Now, there could be an issue if the individual theories do not meet Wikipedia standards sufficient for their own article -- notability, for example. I would be open to the existence of a broader article on transsexualism theories (one of which would be Blanchard's, with a "Full article..." link to BBL). But not simply as a foil to Blanchard, presented as "Blanchard vs. Everything Non-Blanchard using Blanchard's term for everything not under his theory". -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The "no tool" comment is not an attack. It's a comment on the fact that Dicklyon does not favor BBL. You really need to calm down. As for what you said about lumping things under such and such a title chosen by Blanchard. Perhaps you should consider renaming the article. Folding all that stuff into this article will not really make anything clearer or easier.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Since we don't have a masculine essence concept of transsexuality article, it's clear this is yet another content fork of this article, created by a Blanchard coworker. Wikipedia should consolidate all this under one article summarizing the theorizing of Blanchard and his supporters. I also agree on a larger article on conceptualizations of gender variance. Jokestress (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the articles history JamesCantor did create it. He also edited it four times. See here. The rest of the editing was done by Dicklyon and whatamIdoing. Dicklyon as I said is no tool of BBL he does not favor them in the slightest. If this was as plainly what Jokestress says it is then why would he do so much work on it? --Hfarmer (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dicklyon nominated it for deletion, and after that failed, he tried to mitigate the worst of its problems until there was support for a merge/delete. Jokestress (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at that deletion discussion I would still say Keep but rename. For the same reasons I did then.

Their are people who really do believe a notion of a "feminine" or "female" essence in transsexual women. For some people that essence is biological they speak of intersex conditions and HBS. Others speak in more spiritual terms. Plus there is the old "woman trapped in a mans body" line that has been so repeated (in fact that's probably the most well known explaination among the general public.)

I don't see how any of those ideas fit into this article about Autogynephilia. The only way they connect to Autogynephilia at all is because Blanchard wrote a commentary in which he mentioned those and opined that they were the opposite of his theory.

IMO the article may have started out the way you said it did but Dicklyon mitigated the heck out of it until it is actually a worthy article apart from BBL theory.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I think should be "merged" into this one is the name, and only in the context of it being Blanchard's foil. My opposition is merely against having an article on a subject that is nothing more than a foil to Blanchard's theories; I have no opposition to articles on other theories of transsexualism, and nor do I think that other theories belong in this article.

In terms of keeping content on other theories but changing the name, what about the concept of it becoming a "Theories of transsexualism" article? Again, "essence" is not a scientific concept; it's a philosophical one. There is no formalized scientific "transsexual essence theory". There are, however, as noted, a variety of specific theories -- theories about specific brain structures (BSTc, the hypothalamic unicarnate nucleus, white matter fractional anisotropy differences, etc), theories about causes (some of the genetics studies, prenatal androgen exposure (aka, the finger ratio studies), etc) theories about brain workings (cortical homunculus or other mismapping resulting in a form of phantom limb syndrome), Blanchard's theories, etc. I think it's more than fair to have an article discussing them. Blanchard's theories would warrant a section in there, but only a summary, with a link to this article as the main article. Thoughts? -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

bases on the arguments, I support a merge. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a (very) bad idea. The FET article is not supposed to be about Blanchard's term for the idea; it's supposed to be about the popularly accepted idea itself: the idea that a transwoman is a real woman (where "real" does not mean "physically intersexed") -- the "woman trapped in a man's body" idea. There is absolutely no reason to bury information about that totally unrelated idea in articles about a completely different conception of transwomen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's Blanchard's term, and it's a term he created specifically as a foil to his theories. It is not a scientific theory. There are scientific theories about transsexualism that do support the "woman trapped in a man's body" notion, and there's no problem with them being presented in Wikipedia (they should be). But not simply as a foil to Blanchard's theories. You can't just lump a bunch of disjoint, actual theories together under a single category because Blanchard says so. And then make the article revolve around Blanchard and Bailey to boot! (as the current article does). Just because some people use the phrase "I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body" doesn't make that a single scientific theory any more than the fact that some people use the phrase "I feel like you ripped my heart out of my chest when you left me" means there's a "Chest-heart-ripping theory of breakups".

IMHO, the very first thing it needs is a rename: "Theories of transsexualism" or similar. We can deal with content after that. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's why the other article should not be merged here. The actual subject of the other page is the "woman trapped in a man's body" idea, not "Blanchard's name in a single publication for the idea of a woman trapped in a man's body". Wikipedia doesn't care if the idea is "scientific"; Wikipedia has plenty of room for non-scientific theories. (See, e.g., just about everything written about fine arts, popular culture, business, society, people and athletics.) But Wikipedia should have a page on that idea -- and it should be a completely separate page, entirely dedicated to that concept, and not merged into this unrelated idea.

If you think that the FET page is incomplete, then please expand it. (I do, but I haven't been able to find many good academic sources, and I found Dick's knee-jerk opposition so frustrating that I gave up.) If you think there is a third (or fourth, or seventeenth) notable idea about the nature of transsexuality, then please write those articles, too. This page should be specifically about Blanchard's psychological typology of MTFs, not 'Career-long summary of everything Blanchard has ever published about MTFs'. The other page should be specifically about the "woman trapped in a man's body" idea. Wikipedia needs one article for each notable idea, not one page with multiple separate ideas mashed together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But half that article, as it stands, is about Blanchard's theories. And I'm sorry, but Wikipedia in no way supports arbitrarily lumping independent theories together and calling it a single theory. For something like the fifth time in this section, there is no scientific feminine essence theory of transsexuality. It's an article on a fake theory. Rather, there are a number of real theories which Blanchard lumps together. Blanchard does not get to dictate how Wikipedia should lay out its articles.

As for a separate article for each theory, first off, "feminine essence" would need to be deleted, since it's not a theory. It's a philosophical concept at best; science doesn't deal in "essences". Secondly, having a bunch of small articles scattered around is in no way conducive to learning about a topic. What good do you think having a short article out there called "Ramachandran's 'phantom limb' theory of transsexualism", and a dozen others like it, will do for anyone? If someone wants to learn about the theories of transsexualism, then there should be an article on theories of transsexualism. Any theory which has enough content to justify a whole article, like Blanchard's theories, should get one, and have only a summary in the article. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing other articles, I think it's a lot simpler than all of this. There's already Etiology of transsexualism. It needs a ton of improvement, but that can be worked on. With that article present, there is absolutely no need for an article on a fake theory of transsexualism created as a foil to lump all non-Blanchardian theories together. And there's nothing in the Feminine essence concept of transsexuality that I see that's worth merging into BBL (although there may be some things worthy of merger into the etiology article).

Proposal: Delete Feminine essence concept of transsexuality, leave a redirect, and merge relevant content into Etiology of transsexualism, then clean up the latter. Is there a second for this proposal? -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete/merge is fine by me. Jokestress (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose that we merge Feminine Essence theory into eitology of transsexualism's article. If after doing so it looks like FET is still to big of a subject to be summarized in a couple or three of paragraphs in that article then perhaps a new article could be created.

WhatamIdoing's point about this article not being a career summary of everything Blanchard writes on MTF transsexualism is correct. Not everything that blanchard ever mentions then becomes part of Autogynephilia theory. Though I suppose the anon's position is the logical extension of the same logic they used to merge homosexual transsexual into this article.

There is also one thing, we should consider cleaning up the article we have now. Right now this article is huge and in need of condensing. It needs to be something like summary style.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me too. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a delete/merge of the Feminine Essence article into Etiology of Transsexualism is a good idea. As it stands, the article on Etiology of Transsexualism is kind of slanted towards brain-sex theories, and as such, was labelled with WP:NPOV... the merge would fix this problem. (OTOH, w/r/t Cornice's NPOV comment that "advocates of psychotherapy" are not adequately represented... I think Paul McHugh and other subscribers to the thoroughly discredited "psychoanalytic model" of transsexuality may be safely given a minimal amount of attention without running the risk of failing to adequately represent "expert opinion" on the subject :-). <humor>This POV might well be introduced with a phrase such as: "Most psychoanalysts and psychoanalytically-oriented psychiatrists, who were extraordinarily attached to their penises and the belief that they were truly indispensable, argued that MTF transsexualism is a manifestation of a delusional mental illness..."</humor>. I myself always wondered why Freudians never acknowledged the existence of "breast envy" :-)

Just to show how even-handed I am, I just added a reference to and citation of David Cauldwell's psychoanalytically-oriented assessment of MTF transsexualism to the Etiology article.  :-)

HFarmer: I disagree that the BBL article is "huge and in need of condensing". bonze blayk (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: As per the discussion above, which seems to be pretty one-sided in favor of merging Feminine essence concept of transsexuality with Etiology of transsexualism and giving the latter a heavy cleanup, I was WP:B and did just that. The latter part was a lot of work, but I think it's a *much* better article now. I hope others agree and feel free to contribute.  :) -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is still under discussion. Though I agree with the merger there was still some objection to the merger from WAID and we had not heard back from Jokestress. Consensus is not about any sort of "voting" it's about arriving at a ultimately compromised result. I don't know that this result will satiate Jokestress any more than keeping the article or she may be ok with it.

Further you must realize that people who have a COI of any nature in one article that does not stop them from editing a tangentially related article. i.e. I can edit basically any article about transsexualism gender or sexuality but this one.

I don't object to this merger, but if anyone else does they should go ahead and undo it until we can reach general agreement.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not about voting. But as I've mentioned before, I care what others think on the topic, and don't want to be WP:B when I think most people would object to it. But I think the changes are a big help. Let's see where it goes. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mergers

There are actually several fragmented pages on the topic that merit consideration for merging/deletion:

• Benjamin scale
• Classification of transsexuals
• Androphilia and gynephilia
• Etiology of transsexualism
  

— James Cantor (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking over these articles, I find I agree with James Cantor with respect to the "Classification of transsexuals" article... it seems to me that the classification schemes and diagnoses do (roughly) fit in with different understandings of the etiology of transsexualism. Maybe a merged article could be entitled "Classification and etiology of transsexualism"?

I'm willing to do a rough merge of the Classification article into the Etiology article if this suggestion meets with approval.

For the other articles, not so much... the Benjamin scale article is a bit lengthy to be merged without eviscerating the content, and stands on its own anyway; and androphilia and gynephilia exist independently of transsexualism. bonze blayk (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Rename proposal

After reading much about this topic during my recovery of a broken hip, I think the current name is a misnomer for the following reasons:

1. Theory in science means a well supported body of work that is so solid that it is not really disputed anymore. Evolution theory, gravity, cell theory etc are theories. As it stands, this is a hypothesis with rather minimal support and has obvious flaws (like the assertion autogynepghilia does not occur in natal woman that has been thoroughly discredited).
2. Although the "theory" has been promoted by all three, the original idea is from Blanchard only.
3. This is an etiology hypothesis for transsexualism.

I therefore suggest we rename the article to: Blanchard's transsexualism etiology hypothesis, which is an adequate title that does not promote it as more than that it is. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I second this proposal. bonze blayk (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking that the merger of the feminine essence article, and etiology of transsexualism is the best option.

The word theory in science does not mean what you said consider the fact that Tests of general relativity a uncontroversial and well accepted theory are carried out every day. Just don't expect that level of hard core exactness outside of physical science.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really disputed anymore does not mean, not tested anymore. Evolution is really undisputed within serious sciences, but it is tested every day again, with as purpose to refine it and to understand it better. Nobody expects to falsify it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support. I believe that Blanchard's transsexualism etiology hypothesis is superior to the current name.

For the record, however, I do not agree with:

Kim's definition of theory: In different fields, the word has different connotations.

Kim's assessment of the literature, which clearly does not include the articles I emailed her at her request or knowledge of the consensus of the field outside of google results.

The very peculiar assertion that there is some kind of problem when an "original idea" is attributed to a single person. Original ideas are, of course, very often the product of a single person, and the concepts which led Blanchard to his own ideas are all very well documented in his writings.

And I do not agree that Blanchard's major contribution here is about etiology at all. Blanchard's theory is one of taxonomy that merely has implications for etiology (which Blanchard explicates).

Nonetheless, I believe the proposed title is superior to the current one.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Theory is confusing, because the way it is used here is as in vernacular English. Sure, it is very possible that the term scientific theory is used different in different fields, maybe he can provide us with a reliable source that explains how it is used differently between fields. 2. I read all the autogynephilia articles (thanks to the proxy server of the university I work), including the ones that James e-mailed me, so that assertion is incorrect. 3. The hypothesis goes much further than grouping (which taxonomy is), it has an explicit hypothesis of underlying etiology, and it is that etiology that makes the hypothesis stand out, not the taxonomy, which could easily be covered under one of the other articles James mentioned above. 4. There is no problem to link a specific idea to a person, if I had a problem with that, I would not have proposed the name as is. So, I am mystified with that comment. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to your first point... I have a question. Are were on WP suppose do use the vernacular English or standard academic English? I am pretty sure we are suppose to stick to academic English. There are allot of different vernaculars in the world of English speakers.

I think we would merge Etiology with feminine essence theory.

I think we should perhaps rename BBL to something else what Moser calls it "Blanchard's Autogynephilia theory" would probably come up when a layperson does a search.

That's my $0.02.

Kim while you are not new to science neither is James cantor or myself. Different fields have different standards. On your talk page you say you have a Doctorate in ecology. I imagine you can obtain a high standard of predictability in your theories. Theories of physics in which I am a defense away from a MS in are the gold standard of precision and predictability. Psychology is just funny in that any experiment that would produce that kind of data would probably be inhumane or unethical. i.e. trying to prove the theory that an abusive childhood can make someone a psychopath by taking some kids an abusing them. Clearly that's a theory that will never be tested rigorously! :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding theory. If the usage is indeed so different between fields, I think it bis wiser to avoid the term. With regard to Blanchard's Autogynephilia theory, I think it is not a good title, because it focuses exclusively on one of the two groups Blanchard is recognizing. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. It's rare that I hear anyone even acknowledge that his theory is about more than one group of people, at least in Blanchard's mind. However if the logic used to merge HT with AGP and BBL holds then why have a neutral title. "People only look for information about Autogynephilia" and all that?--Hfarmer (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did a fair amount of reading on the hypothesis, there are two vastly different components. At the science level, it has always been about two groups, homosexual vs non-homosexual transsexuals, the first are effectively effeminate gays who want to be so effeminate that they want to change their body, the latter suffer from a paraphylia called auogynephylia and their primary motivation to change their body is that they get sexually arrounsed by the idea of being a woman. Among transsexuals, the latter has recieved a HUGE amount of critisim, the former hardly anything. What happened here was that some aspects of the hypothesis had articles, but they were not mirrored. HT but not N-HT, autogynephylia but not the counterpart. The first are classifications on the taxonomy, the latter are the etiologies. So, I think bringing all those smaller articles together in one article made sense. Now that we have arrived there, we need to give it a proper name and work from there to improve it.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think the reason the HSTS category gets less attention is because it's Blanchard's "autogynephilia" category that's novel: "Homosexual Transsexuals" pretty much fit into the classic "true transsexual" model used (imposed?) since the days of Harry Benjamin (see the Benjamin Scale article). Blanchard does reinterpret HSTS so they're really very EXTREME homosexuals who transition based on "sexual identity"/needs/desires, rather than discordance between their body and their "gender identity", but other than that I don't see that much difference. I think many transwomen, who are justly miffed by Blanchard's (typically male, typically "diagnostic") condescension and love of his own brainchild, miss that he recognizes that both types of transsexuals may suffer from major dysphoria justifying surgery--where before those whom he characterizes as "autogynephiles" had to lie and lie and lie to obtain treatment--and so there's an element of compassion being expressed. At least that seems to me to be the case with Blanchard, and also with Lawrence, however weird she may be... I will refrain from characterizing that other fellow out of a desire to maintain a veneer of polite discourse, since he's the one primarily responsible from bringing to everyone's attention the misogynistic, sexist, racist, transphobic elements which may be drawn forth from the vulgarization of the "theory". IMHO, YMMV, etc. -- bonze blayk (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So at least the two of you can see why I thought that a separate article dealing with that aspect was appropriate. I will admit that I also felt that the people that label was attached to got a double Whammy. I'm talking the ones mentioned in TMWWBQ just for example in the name of protesting AGP theory and that book allot of not nice blanket statements have been made. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposed rename as well. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)