Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology

Wording of the lead

There's been some back and forth about the wording of the lead: [1], [2], [3], [4].

The current wording may mislead readers because it skirts too close to presenting Blanchard's disputed theories in Wikipedia's voice. That's why the phrase according to Blanchard, or something like it, should be present somewhere in this paragraph. To just say Blanchard categorized trans women into two groups creates the impression that the two groups in question indisputably exist. (If you read a sentence like "The teacher categorized the children into two groups: blue-eyed and brown-eyed", you would not question that the students were actually blue-eyed and brown-eyed.) WanderingWanda (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As those diff's show, this is not a back-and-forth at all. This is every editor except WanderingWanda being in consensus, with Wanda repeating her disruptions on this page.— James Cantor (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, I think you're reading too much into this. Categorizing things is an action. Did Blanchard take that action? If so, then we say he did it: "Blanchard categorized..." Even if he categorized people into obviously nonsensical categories, or into categories that we think are wrong, he still actually did categorize them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

For years, the paragraph has maintained a neutral distance with variations on the phrase "according to Blanchard". Here's a more-or-less random diff from 5 years ago: homosexual transsexuals, whom Blanchard says..."autogynephilic transsexuals", who purportedly are. I don't even want to go as far as that. I agree with the IP and with James Cantor that we shouldn't be repetitive. My version just has a single variation on "according to Blanchard" rather than two. It's a middle ground. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Not a her. 2. Polite discussion is not disruption. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section

As seen with this edit, I removed the "Criticism" tag, stating, "Criticism sections are allowed, which is why they are validly used in various Wikipedia articles, including WP:GA and WP:FAs. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure does not say they should not be used. We don't use [such a section when it is not needed]. We need it in this case. We aren't going to place all of these opinions in sections they don't belong in." The Wikipedia:Criticism essay that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure points to is also clear, in its Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section that "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate." and why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The format of any other article (WP:FA or not) says nothing about how this article should be written. To achieve a neutral article, WP:STRUCTURE does in fact say we should Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative. I see no justification for a separate criticism section, either here or in the cited CRIT essay, which specifies that such a section may be appropriate if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location, but that they should still be avoided in most cases. Rather than criticism of Blanchard's theory being treated as an "organic whole", reliable secondary/tertiary sources indicate that controversies are integral to the theory's notablility.

After giving a brief overview of the theory, Bancroft (2009) focuses the rest of their coverage on the controversy over Bailey's 2003 book, noting that his reducing of gender identity to a question of simple lust "seriously demeans" trans identities. Davy (2015) describes the underlying research as "contested" (citing Moser), devoting three out of four paragraphs to criticism. Regarding autogynephilia in particular, Sánchez & Vilain (2013) describe it as a "controversial concept", and Pfeffer (2016) includes it as one of several "contentious and controversial debates" relating to transgender sexualities. In a general entry on transgender studies, Bellinger & Meiners (2017) bluntly describe it as a term used to "diminish and humiliate" trans people; in the same volume, Sojka (2017) devotes one of their two paragraphs on the topic to critiques, noting "significant academic controversy" arising from the theory.

Readers who follow the link to Autogynephilia will be directed to a sub-section that should present the duly weighted viewpoints of reliable sources. Segregating different views about this one aspect of the theory in different sections is a form of content forking and should be avoided. The idea that certain views "don't belong" in the main section is a personal opinion and not based in any Wikipedia policy. If, as Flyer22 Reborn has previously argued, autogynephilia is a notable topic in itself, then it only makes sense to present all the relevant views in the eponymous section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

How to structure articles is significantly opinion-based, and varies on a case-by-case matter. This is seen throughout Wikipedia, whether it's WP:MEDSECTIONS, MOS:FILM, or something else. That is why I brought up the format/quality of other articles. I'm not interested in editors' personal opinions about the concept or specifically autogynephilia, which are obviously notable (and is why you are finding the WP:Reliable sources you have found on the matter). That the concept is controversial, especially with regard to the transgender community, doesn't at all mean that we shouldn't have sections for aspects that clearly and cleanly focus on those aspects without clogging up those sections with critical commentary or society and culture material. This is why you don't see the Alternative medicine article, which is about a highly contested topic, loading each and every section with a bunch of criticism and society and culture material. That article presents what the aspects are (such as "Definitions and terminology" and "Types"), what they entail, and has a "Risks and problems" section that mainly documents the criticisms. This article should stick with sections such as "Terminology" and "Historical background," and then get into all of the debate afterward...except for places where dissent material is important (such as the second paragraph of the current "Autogynephilia" section). And the debate is mostly societal. What sources are speaking of the debate as mostly a medical debate?

It makes sense to include that critical commentary material in that second paragraph of the "Autogynephilia" section. It is specifically about peer-reviewed articles critiquing the methodology used by Blanchard, follow-up research, and that Blanchard's findings have been questioned as not having been replicated by other researchers. But if we are talking about authors' personal opinions about why they personally don't like the typology, the language being misgendering language, and accusations of misconduct, yes, those things belong in their own sections, not mixed in with the general research material. It just so happens that those sections are currently grouped under a "Criticism" heading. Your argument that "segregating different views about this one aspect of the theory in different sections is a form of content forking and should be avoided" is odd and not supported by the WP:Content fork guideline. I'm not saying that the current structure is the best (it's not), but autogynephilia is relevant to more than one section. When an aspect is relevant to one more than section and it's important to include mention of it in more than one section, we don't group everything about it in just the one section; we cover the material organically, throughout. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I made some adjustments and Flyer22 Reborn may have some thoughts on them. But yeah, we do not need to have all the criticism of autogynephilia in that immediate section.

And we do have some criticism in the lead as well as some under autogynephilia, as Flyer mentioned, and a bit under DSM. It's not all under "Criticism" anyway. So we don't need to disperse it all throughout, in a manner that would likely be POV. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Bailey (2003)

I don't think we can use The Man Who Would Be Queen for any statements in Wikipedia's voice, and even attributed statements are probably WP:UNDUE. The controversy over this book is just too great, Joseph Henry Press is a general-interest publisher, not an academic press, and there's no sign of peer review. As Alice Dreger (2008) reports, the book was called "not science" by Kinsey Institute director John Bancroft (and Dreger herself). I've removed the passages sourced only to the book and moved it to "Further reading". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, at least it's a secondary source. I'm more concerned about the article's overuse of primary sources written by Blanchard and co. WanderingWanda (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Most of what you removed was not presented in WP:WIKIVOICE. It had WP:In-text attribution. And material such as "On the basis of the different features they exhibited, Blanchard concluded that the various gender transpositions—male and female homosexuality, heterosexuality, transvestic fetishism, and gender dysphoria—are individual manifestations of two phenomena." should be reported on in the article. Otherwise, we leave out important content regarding the topic. Per WP:Preserve, we should look to preserve material that should be retained, and that includes trading out poor sources, questionable sources, or otherwise contested sources (as in contested in the literature) for better sources. In other cases, per WP:Primary sources, we can use primary sources as long as we are careful with them in the ways outlined at WP:Primary sources. And we obviously should try to not overly rely on primary sources. In September, I brought up use of primary sources in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The argument to WP:PRESERVE certain material does not explain why this specific material should be retained, nor what makes it important content. That we can use primary sources as long as we are careful does not imply we should use any given source. As noted earlier, we rely on secondary sources. But secondary sources still have to meet our standards for fact-checking and accuracy. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, sources that have been "vetted by the scholarly community" are generally considered reliable. This is not the case with Bailey's book. Therefore, statements about "various gender transpositions" etc. need better sourcing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I already stated why something like the "on the basis of the different features" text should remain. I stated, "Otherwise, we leave out important content regarding the topic." I did not state that we should use this source or any other source. I was making it clear that we preserve "any of the facts or ideas [that] would belong in the 'finished' article." If one cannot see how "on the basis of the different features" material, for example, belongs in the article, I don't know what to tell that person. And when it comes to accuracy, Wikipedia obviously does not mean "accurate, according to one's worldview." As noted here and here, Wikipedia isn't so much concerned with one's truth. If the Bailey book reports on Bailey's and others' findings accurately, that is what accuracy means in this case. But regardless, I mentioned "trading out poor sources, questionable sources, or otherwise contested sources (as in contested in the literature) for better sources." And James noted below that "the material sourced to Bailey can also be sourced to any of many other secondary RS's, including the relevant chapter in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If one cannot see how "on the basis of the different features" material, for example, belongs in the article, I don't know what to tell that person. This amounts to "because I said so". It is not a logical argument. Wikipedia obviously does not mean "accurate, according to one's worldview." This is simply a strawman. If the Bailey book reports on Bailey's and others' findings accurately is for the scholarly community to judge, not us. Feel free to add any academically vetted sources to the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It amounts to "the editor does not understand the topic enough to know what should be retained and probably shouldn't be editing the topic." But in your case, I think it's simply a matter of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. And you always invoke "strawman" while applying it yourself. And I can see below that Mathglot echoed my supposed "strawman"; evidently, we both felt it necessary to state, given your "accuracy" comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

...the editor does not understand the topic enough to know what should be retained and probably shouldn't be editing the topic. Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Feel free to adduce reasons (preferably based in reliable sources and/or Wikipedia policies, but just about any reason is better than none) for why "On the basis of the different features they exhibited, Blanchard concluded..." is important enough to keep. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Not an opinion. And I gave a reason. Not my fault that you don't want to accept it. Anything I state about why it belongs would be disregarded by you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

So then you're simply WP:STONEWALLING because you aren't willing to support your position with reasons based in sources and/or policy. Feel free to re-join the discussion when you feel capable of making constructive suggestions and assuming good faith. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

So then you're standing by the "this doesn't belong because I said so" and "this doesn't belong because of my usual misuse of policies and guidelines" arguments? Got it. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT arguments aren't constructive. Nothing I argued is WP:ILIKEIT. But it's not like we usually interpret policies and guidelines in the same way anyway. At least others in this discussion are noting your flawed arguments so that I don't have to. And as I've told you before, WP:AGF goes both ways. Stating that what people are arguing is without merit isn't necessarily failing to assume good faith anyway. If it was, then WP:AGF applies to your commentary about me supposedly arguing without merit/stonewalling. I wonder how long we are going to keep the unnecessary back and forth between us going this time. Hmmm. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not at all what I'm arguing. To sum up, Bailey is a primary source for his own findings (many of which are not about Blanchard's theory itself), the book has not been academically vetted (quite the opposite), and it comes from a general-interest publisher rather than an academic one. For all these reaons, the statements cited to Bailey are unduly weighted. Saying this amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT reflects faulty judgement at best and dishonesty at worst. I try to assume others' good faith as well, but there are limits. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I and others have been clear. Your arguments are faulty for reasons others have already noted. And I'm sure that Crossroads will have more to state. There is no point in me elaborating, especially given how you interact with me. Furthermore, what you and I were arguing (meaning our responses to each other) is not about what Bailey concluded. The "On the basis of the different features they exhibited" piece is about what Blanchard concluded. That you cannot see why it is important to relay what Blanchard concluded, for example, is a problem. And to repeat, "I mentioned 'trading out poor sources, questionable sources, or otherwise contested sources (as in contested in the literature) for better sources.' And James noted below that 'the material sourced to Bailey can also be sourced to any of many other secondary RS's, including the relevant chapter in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. '" So your commentary about sourcing is just more unnecessary commentary. Your usual "reflects faulty judgement at best and dishonesty at worst" condescension and aspersions have no place here. There is no "assume good faith" when it comes to how you interact with me; so do not pretend that there is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You are free to consider my arguments faulty. But saying so ad nauseam is not a basis for consensus. The closest any of the above points have come to being addressed is Crossroads' statement that the publisher is an imprint of NAP (which I have since responded to); I'd also generously consider the comment we may need to rely more on primary sources as relevant to my arguments (while still disputing inclusion of Bailey's findings).

Inclusion of what Blanchard concluded is a question of due weight as determined by reliable, secondary sources. There's no policy-based reason for including it just because Blanchard said it; quite the contrary.

I do hope that other users have more to state; consensus is arrived at through reasoned discussion. But that itself is not a reason to include the material; arguments aren't sides in a tug-of-war.

Stating that the material sourced to Bailey can also be sourced to any of many other secondary RS is not the same as providing those sources. I have received the Oxford Textbook chapter from James Cantor, and plan on working it into the article shortly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your arguments are faulty. Others have noted why. Thanks for your permission to continue to consider them faulty. A word of advice, though? It's best to not be hypocritical with comments such as "But saying so ad nauseam is not a basis for consensus." Also no need to ping Crossroads since he's watching the article. But if he doesn't mind being unnecessarily pinged, that's his preference. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

These repeated assertions that the faulty nature of my arguments has been "noted", without explaining how, is the kind of empty bluster that no one is obliged to consider in weighing consensus. If one can't respond to good-faith objections with reasoned arguments, sources, and references to policy, then they have left the working out of consensus to others who can. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"[W]ithout explaining how" is another faulty argument. As for the rest, it's just more of your aspersions. How long do you want to keep this pointless back and forth going? Until you have the last word? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Where was it explained? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

And reverted. Yes, wikivoice should be used very little in this article. But the book is a secondary source, as WanderingWanda points out above. As I also said in my edit summary, the book is a huge part of the typology's notability and of the discourse related to it. It is thus very WP:DUE, and it is POV to hamstring the article by censoring it. I did add some extra attribution though.

As for "the controversy over this book is just too great", the controversy over the book is the controversy over the typology, but we don't send the article to AfD because it is a controversial topic. Your description of Joseph Henry Press is somewhat misleading; it is an imprint of the National Academies Press, publisher for the United States National Academy of Sciences. With Bancroft and Dreger, Dreger also reports: "Several people I spoke to about the IASR meeting told me that Bancroft’s remarks did not reflect anything like a consensus of the people in IASR". Dreger does comment on how the book sometimes reports on scientific studies and sometimes is just relating stories ("the way in which Bailey refers offhandedly and irregularly to his methodology"), but in any case, as I said above, there is no basis for cutting out the book entirely. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The material sourced to Bailey can also be sourced to any of many other secondary RS's, including the relevant chapter in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. I'd be happy to email copies to anyone interested.— James Cantor (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@James Cantor: I glanced at that chapter in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. Unfortunately not all of it is available in preview. I'd be grateful for this or any other sources you can email me here. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sent.— James Cantor (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@James Cantor: Thanks for that source. On page 603 where you write that autogynephilia "nullifies" attraction to women or produces "secondary interest in men", and that autogynephilic MTFs are "not conspicuously cross-gendered in childhood", etc., is this a summary of Blanchard's interpretation of his studies' results, or your own independent evaluation of his findings? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

1. No: I wrote that (or conveyed Blanchard's idea that) asexual transsexuals represent cases in which the autogynephilia nullifies the gynephilia, and that bisexual transsexuals represent cases for whom the autogynephilia has produced a secondary interest in men or pseudobisexuality. I did not (and Blanchard did not) say anything as broad as what you describe.

2. Both, really. I've read the original studies, Blanchard's view and reviews of his own studies, and I come to the same conclusion of the evidence as Blanchard (and Bailey, and Lawrence...).— James Cantor (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: #1, this is actually what I meant: that the "nullification" and "secondary interest" apply to asexual and bisexual MTFs respectively (I guess I should have said "and" instead of "or"). James Cantor seems to confirm that this is Blanchard's idea. Since the basic idea here of autogynephilia as an overriding sexual orientation is challenged by Moser (2010) — "How individuals develop their specific sexual interests is a basic and unanswered question in sexology ... autogynephilia does not seem to be an orientation overshadowing other traditional orientations" — I think we should present this with in-text attribution to Blanchard; that way we avoid the suggestion that this is settled science. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that would be to repeat the same mistake: Neither Blanchard (nor I) said anything as broad as how Moser mischaracterizes. He is fighting a straw-man.— James Cantor (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Attributing controversial ideas to their source is rarely a mistake; it's part of NPOV. How does the idea that autogynephila "nullifies" gynephilia in asexual individuals not imply that it's an orientation "overshadowing" another orientation? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Blanchard did not say, and I did not say, anything about asexuals in general (or about bisexual in general), as Moser (and you) erroneously describe. This is not attributing an idea to its source, it is making up an idea that's not in the source to begin with.— James Cantor (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past one another; I was not referring to asexuals in general, but to asexual transsexual individuals such as you describe on pp. 602–603: The asexual individuals represent those cases in which the autogynephilia nullifies or overshadows the person's erotic attraction to women. This seems to be contradicted by Moser's statement autogynephilia does not seem to be an orientation overshadowing other traditional orientations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. In Moser's quote, he is talking about autogynephilia in general overriding sexual orientation in general, whereas Blanchard was referring to more specific situations. To pit Moser's comment against Blanchard's (or my summary of Blanchard's) is to make them, erroneously, appear to be in disagreement when they are actually non-sequiturs.— James Cantor (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Moser evidently reviewed the same papers you cited in that paragraph (Blanchard 1985 & 1989). I think we can assume he's aware of the specific situations Blanchard describes. When he says autogynephilia does not overshadow sexual orientation in general, that would logically imply that it doesn't overshadow sexual orientation in any specific case, such as in asexual individuals. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have known both of these men for two decades and have read nearly all of what they have written. I have as solid an idea of what they meant and mean as a person can. Nevertheless, I would never ask anyone here simply to trust me, whereas you feel perfectly comfortable insisting on what you merely assume. To demonstrate the falsity of your assumption, let us return to the content of the RS's: Your quote of Moser edited out this part: "according to Blanchard's (1993a) definition of orientation, autogynephilia does not seem to be an orientation overshadowing other traditional orientations" (italics added). If you go to Blanchard (1993a), you will see that Blanchard never provides a definition of orientation in the first place. (!) He does, however, say autogynephilia might be characterized as a sexual orientation (and that orientations encompass behavior). So: No, I would not assume anything of Moser, and I suggest sticking to the actual contents of the RSs rather than any assumptions about their authors.— James Cantor (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The statement wikivoice should be used very little in this article is inaccurate. Statements can be in WP:WIKIVOICE when they represent the consensus of reliable sources. The controversy over the book goes beyond the controversy over the typology, as Sanchez & Vilain (2013) and Bancroft (2009) state directly. Whether the book (and its controversy) is a huge part of the typology's notability says nothing about whether it's reliable, or how Bailey's statements satisfy due and undue weight. The remark about AfD is a non-sequitur; this is about accurately representing the views of reliable sources, not eliminating (or "censoring") controversial topics.

Being an "imprint" of the National Academies Press means that Joseph Henry Press has at least some editorial independence; the two should not be considered equivalent.[5] Per WP:SOURCES, we treat academic sources as more reliable than general-interest publishers.

Dreger does cite several anonymous sources alongside Bancroft, which we should be wary of. The only elaboration on the "consensus of the people in IASR" that Dreger gives is about the tone of Bancroft's comment and "civilized discourse" in general, not the merits of his points or of Bailey's book itself.

In Defending Bailey against accusations of misconduct, Dreger in fact says "what Bailey did in terms of learning and relaying the stories of [...] transsexual women was neither systematic nor generalizable", that Bailey "had no interest in scientifically investigating Blanchard’s theory", and that the book "doesn’t even rise to the level of bad science, because it doesn’t even pretend to test or develop a theory". Given this, why should we care what Bailey says about what "gay men" or "homosexual transsexuals" find sexually attractive, for instance? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

To the extent that in-text attribution was used, and the fact that TMWWBQ is widely cited, no matter whether it is accurate or not, it seems okay to include it. OTOH, I notice that WP:MEDRS hasn't come up in this discussion yet, and it probably should, and might trump in-text attribution. Mathglot (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

This topic does fall within the medical realm due to its psychology aspect, but it isn't a heavy medical topic (with so much of it concerning a societal, including political, debate), which is why if it were tagged with the WP:Med WikiProject tag on the talk page, Doc James would remove it. Anyone is obviously free to ping him and ask him if he would remove it. No need to just take my word for it. I mention this because WP:Med has been clear about what is within its scope and why. Just because an article isn't directly within its scope doesn't mean no part of it should adhere to WP:MEDRS, though. On the topic of WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDDATE tells us that its instructions for keeping an article up-to-date "are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." This topic is one such case where little progress is being made and where few reviews are being published and where we may need to rely more on primary sources than we do for other topics within WP:MEDRS's scope. Doc and a number of other WP:Med editors (including myself) apply this aspect of WP:MEDRS to a variety of topics within WP:MEDRS's scope. When it comes to history and society and culture stuff (which this articles deals a lot with), WP:MEDRS is also more relaxed on that (but more so for history material, which WP:MEDDATE specifically mentions). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus for summarily removing the book, as none of the 5 other commenters here have supported that. It is a reliable source for reporting what the proponents of the typology believe, and including that is WP:DUE. As Mathglot noted, it is widely cited for this purpose. And as I said, it is a huge part of the discourse about the typology. As for the "various gender transpositions" bit, the book is being used to show this is a part of Blanchard's theory. It is due to mention, but could be sourced somewhere else. Same goes for the idea that 'homosexual transsexuals' are androphilic, which is a major point in the typology; as for gay men not generally being attracted to trans women, I am baffled as to why this is an issue.

Mathglot's point about MEDRS is important. Still, that blade cuts both ways, hard. Also, as James Cantor noted, other sources exist for these statements. In any case, there is no basis for just removing the book and all statements sourced to it. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Consensus isn't determined by a majority vote. Is TMWWBQ widely cited for these specific statements? If so, it would be good to add some sources to this effect. The context of the citations is important. As for reporting what the proponents of the typology believe, WP:FRINGE applies. Regarding gay men not generally being attracted to trans women, this[6] is a sweeping and subjective claim that is not substantiated in any way. It's like editing Lesbian to say "straight men find lesbians generally unattractive". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC) (link added 14:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC))

"It's like editing Lesbian to say 'straight men find lesbians generally unattractive'." What???? Stating that is like stating "gay men [are] generally [not] attracted to trans women"? And "this is a sweeping and subjective claim that is not substantiated in any way"? What???? What gay men find and do not find sexually attractive is supported by years and years of research on the biology of sexual orientation and conversion therapy/sexual orientation change efforts. Gay men are sexually attracted to male sex characteristics/secondary sex characteristics. They are gay males. If a trans woman passes as a woman, what is it that the gay man finds sexually attractive about that trans woman? What literature supports it? Unless you are talking about a trans woman who has not physically transitioned or is at a certain point in her transition, and have valid sources to support you, your argument about gay men is completely off. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not making any argument about gay men. I'm saying the statement doesn't belong in this article. If there are truly years and years of research on what gay men find attractive, then it should be a trivial matter to find some quality WP:SCHOLARSHIP directly relating it to this topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You aren't? Didn't look that way to me. And I don't see what years and years of research on what gay men find attractive has to do with the topic at hand. I do see what it has to do with the argument you made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

That's nice, but this isn't a forum. Can we all stick to the topic of improving the article, please? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, following WP:NOTAFORUM might have kept you from absurdly going on about how "this is a sweeping and subjective claim that is not substantiated in any way" and is "like editing Lesbian to say 'straight men find lesbians generally unattractive'." That's not sticking to the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

What you call "absurd", I call a common-sense reason why the statement is WP:UNDUE and doesn't belong. Bailey's book is described as a collection of case studies, not a scientific investigation of sexual attraction or sexual orientation. As such, it cannot be used for generalizations about Bailey's research subjects. If there are actual peer-reviewed or other scholarly RSes that directly comment on whether "gay men find the femininity of homosexual transsexuals very unattractive" in the context of Blanchard's theory, feel free to present them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing that is common sense about "this is a sweeping and subjective claim that is not substantiated in any way" and is "like editing Lesbian to say 'straight men find lesbians generally unattractive'." None at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Then it should be easy to refute, by simply substantiating the disputed claim. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Makes no sense considering that your "this is a sweeping and subjective claim that is not substantiated in any way" and is "like editing Lesbian to say 'straight men find lesbians generally unattractive'" pieces are what I challenged. Your claims are not the subject at hand. And either way, the sexual orientation literature does not support you. Indeed, I wonder what literature you think at all supports the notion that gay men often or typically find trans women sexually attractive and why. If one is speaking of non-passing trans women, those with all or some features that gay men would find sexually attractive, that's different. And again, it would need a valid source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Where did I say anything like gay men often or typically find trans women sexually attractive? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You stated, "Regarding 'gay men not generally being attracted to trans women', this is a sweeping and subjective claim that is not substantiated in any way." Like I noted, it is not at all a sweeping and subjective statement when it comes to the literature on male sexual orientation. Your statement makes it seem as though gay men often or typically find trans women sexually attractive. I mean, you did challenge the statement that gay men generally are not sexually attracted to trans women. And I'd rather not play a semantics game that you did not challenge this because you were supposedly focused on "gay men find the femininity of homosexual transsexuals very unattractive." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I challenged it because it's unduly weighted in the article. The article is not about gay male sexual orientation. One could conceivably see it that way if one assumed that Blanchard and Bailey are correct in describing MTF transsexuals as "gay men", but that is exactly what makes the theory so contested in the first place.

Sweeping here means "marked by wholesale and indiscriminate inclusion". As in "a sweeping generalization about 'gay men'", i.e. the kind of statement that needs ironclad, peer-reviewed evidence to back it up, not a series of anecdotes like the ones Bailey presents. And it's subjective because it's evidently based on Bailey's interpretation of what trans women told him about themselves rather than any objective laboratory measure. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You challenged a valid comment that Crossroads made (specifically his "gay men not generally being attracted to trans women" wording). And in that regard, your "this is a sweeping and subjective claim that is not substantiated in any way" statement is not at all supported by the literature. If you want to keep things on topic, then keep them on topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Evidently we have our wires crossed. The statement I challenged was part of the article contents. I called it "sweeping and subjective" by way of responding to Crossroads' remark about being baffled as to why this is an issue. In other words, I explained the issue regarding the article's contents. If the literature proves me wrong in the context of this article, then kindly show where. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: including a source with little regard for whether it is accurate or not seems to open the door to fringe views. Ultimately the standard is whether a source has a reputation for accuracy, not whether we personally judge it to be so. It would be good to know in what context the book is so widely cited, assuming that's true. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf:, Fringiness is not measured by accuracy. I think this is probably just a semantic disagreement, and we actually agree on the principle. Because in fact, Wikipedia does not assess whether something is accurate or not, it merely relies on reliable sources to determine what articles may say in Wikpedia's voice, with the majority and minority views being included per WP:DUEWEIGHT. In fact, a fringe view, such as, say, objects shrinking and getting heavier as they speed up, or dinosaurs going extinct because of an asteroid, may turn out to be the accurate one in time, but Wikipedia does not weigh in on accuracy, only reliable reporting. Mathglot (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, well, my point is that source(s) with little reputation for accuracy are not considered reliable, and therefore citing them leads to undue weight. I agree that whether a claim is capital-T "true" or not is less important than sticking to quality scholarship. According to Dreger, Bailey's statements about transgender women are "not science". Why would we include such statements in an article on an ostensibly scientific subject, even with attribution? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The following statements from the article appear to be based on Bailey's own "findings" as described in the book, rather than an evaluation/interpretation of Blanchard's theory/research (the pages aren't available in preview):

Bailey states that homosexual transsexuals begin transitioning earlier in life,. generally before turning 30, which accounts for their supposedly better adjustment. He states that they are also more likely to come from poorer, non-white, or socially marginalized backgrounds...

Bailey argued that homosexual transsexuals are unlikely to transition if their appearance as women would be very unattractive.

[T]he two kinds of transsexuals rarely interact with each other [online] or appear in the same spaces.

Bailey writes that gay men find the femininity of homosexual transsexuals very unattractive, and that the homosexual transsexuals themselves are very attracted to masculinity that they have trouble finding in gay men; and that as a result, homosexual transsexuals may be partially motivated by a desire to attract straight men.

In addition to the problems mentioned by Dreger and others, Bailey is evidently a primary source for these statements, which are not about Blanchard's typology itself. They are therefore unduly weighted being in the article at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A number of flawed arguments regarding what we shouldn't include and why. I don't even know where to begin. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

How about responding with reasons why you find the arguments flawed, as per Wikipedia:Consensus? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking over the discussion above, I see that Sangdeboeuf has continued the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tactics as before. Again: Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you....Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with". We have already explained why TMWWBQ can be used occasionally in this article with in-text attribution, as we do; we don't need to explain to Sangdeboeuf's satisfaction, because they could simply never be satisfied and use that as a veto. Quoting WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity.

Regarding TMWWBQ, I stand by this: It is a reliable source for reporting what the proponents of the typology believe, and including that is WP:DUE....[I]t is widely cited for this purpose...it is a huge part of the discourse about the typology....[Certain things are] due to mention, but could be sourced somewhere else. You of course have the right to reply to me and say if you disagree, but if it's not convincing, neither I nor anyone else is obligated to spend time replying again and again until you are satisfied. You individually not being satisfied does not justify removal, as the 5 other participants in this discussion about removing the book did not agree with the proposal. And don't try to argue it's not a consensus because you still disagree - in that case, see the first paragraph of this reply. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I also stand by the statement that Crossroads made above, that starts with "I stand by". Afaic, consensus is established, and further discussion is pointless. Sangdeboeuf, if you feel that it's worth your time, you can always create an Rfc on the topic. Meanwhile, I don't see that busy editors ought to waste any more time with this. Just my 2¢. Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think an RfC is an excellent idea, and the logical next step assuming no consensus here (I'd refrain from evaluating the present "consensus" as an involved participant). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The parts I quoted are not describing what the proponents of the typology believe; not everything proponents believe is relevant anyway (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Crossroads is apparently confusing satisfaction with substantive engagement with opposing arguments; they have not addressed the arguments that (1) Bailey is a primary source for his own findings, (2) the book has not been vetted by the scholarly community, (3) an "imprint" of the National Academies Press is not a guarantee of academic rigor, and (4) being a huge part of the discourse does not in itself make a source reliable. Nor have they explained why these particular statements are duly weighted. As for sourcing Bailey's claims somewhere else, I'm open to hearing what those alternative sources might be.

Curious about the (so far unproven) claim that Bailey's book is widely cited for describing what proponents of the typology believe, I decided to check the citations on Google Scholar. Looking at just the first page of results, this does not seem to be the case:

Works citing The Man Who Would Be Queen

In Imagining Transgender: An Ethnography of a Category, David Valentine cites the book as an example of "somewhat questionable ... scientific thought" (p. 61), later writing, "I refuse [Bailey's] assertion that transsexual women are 'really' homosexual men" (p. 239). In Transgender Emergence, Arlene Istar Lev calls "[Bailey's] descriptive language ... [steeped] in sexist and homophobic commentary" (p. 100), labels as "disturbing" Bailey's assumption that gay men and transsexuals "are lying or denying what he has deemed the 'truth'", and questions Blanchard's and Bailey's attempt to "fit all transsexuals into [their] schema", while noting the book's polarized reception (p. 136). A paper co-authored by Bailey, "A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal", cites the book as a source on transsexuals' "male-typical pattern of sexual arousal" along with "evidence that psychosexual differentiation is multi-dimensional" (p. 742). Not an independent source, and this isn't a specific reference to Blanchard's theory. Eric Anderson, author of In the Game: Gay Athletes and the Cult of Masculinity, cites Bailey for the idea that "boys must vigilantly adhere to behaviors coded as the opposite of feminine at all times, something also described as fem-phobia" (p. 28). Not particularly relevant to this topic. In Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences, Rebecca M. Jordan-Young mentions Bailey as a proponent of various ideas relating to sexual orientation, such as the attention given to "sex-reassigned children without hormone disorders" (p. 75), a proposed "sexual orientation center of the brain" (p. 160), the questioned existence of true bisexuality (p. 170), and sexual orientations as "discrete categories" (p. 171). The author rebuts all these ideas in turn. Not very relevant to Blanchard's theory. In Assuming a Body: Transgender and Rhetorics of Materiality, Gayle Salamon states in a footnote that Blanchard's & Bailey's autogynephilia theory "replicates with suprising faithfulness" the narcissistic theory of homosexuality, citing Bailey as an example of a "trend" and the augogynephilia theory as a "misreading" and "rejected by most" trans women (p. 198). A fuller description isn't available in the preview, but this seems more or less to be a dismissal of Bailey's claims. In "Queer Diagnoses", Jack Drescher has a footnote on the controversy surrounding the book and the attacks on Bailey (p. 429). Nothing about the typology itself. In The Lives of Transgender People, Genny Beemyn and Susan Rankin name Bailey and Blanchard as as researchers who consider transsexuality a mental illness, rebutting this view on the next page (pp. 5–6). Not relevant to the typology. In "Questioning Gender and Sexual Identity: Dynamic Links Over Time", Lisa M. Diamond and Molly Butterworth cite Bailey, among others, for the idea that "the primary 'dilemma' of all transgender experience is a conflict between one’s psychological gender and one’s biological sex", which they reject, citing "increasing evidence that dichotomous models of gender fail to capture the complexity, diversity, and fluidity of transgender experience"; they further cite Bailey as an example of how "conventional understandings of transgender experience, particularly those drawn from the narratives and experiences of self-identified transsexuals ... suggest that transgender women and men typically feel they were born with the 'wrong body'", which they counter with contrary findings of "multiplicity in gender identification". It's hard to see how "conflict between one’s psychological gender and one’s biological sex" and feelings of being "born with the 'wrong body'" are especially relevant to Blanchard's typology. "Autogynephilic" and "homosexual" transsexuals are not mentioned. In The Transgender Phenomenon, Richard Ekins and Dave King discuss the "storm" over publication of Bailey's "popular account" of Blanchard's theory (not "scientific" or "scholarly" account), and the campaign to discredit the book (p. 88); they identify specific criticisms of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence on p. 90. Their focus throughout is on social trends and history, and how the Bailey controversy fits into such trends. They only use Bailey as a source on the typology itself vis-a-vis the practice of "lumping". This might plausibly be relevant to the statement "transgender women who are attracted to men are part of the same fundamental phenomenon as the most feminine gay men", but one would have to check the book itself to make sure, since the two citations are 16 pages apart.

The independent RSes summarized above do not generally cite TMWWBQ as a source on the typology itself. The ones that do, such as Lev, Salamon, and Valentine, are careful to note the book's controversial reception as well as point out what they see as flaws in the book's arguments. These are reasons not to cite TMWWBQ as the sole source for any important claims. Once again, these are just the first ten results from Google Scholar, representing works that are well-cited themselves. If there is other scholarship that cites Bailey as a source on the typology, I'm open to hearing what it is. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTEVERYTHING is entirely subjective, so if everyone else thinks the info is relevant, it amounts to just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Same goes for the feelings of others that it is WP:DUE; if only you disagree, then it is just your opinion and insisting on it is IDONTLIKEIT. I think "no consensus here" is unlikely, given that 5 out of 6 gave no agreement the book should be summarily removed, which sure looks like a consensus against removal of the sourced content. It also does not bode well for an RfC. In any case, the RfC would be premature, as I didn't yet replace some of the Bailey references with other sources, as I said would be good. I may even cut one or more, depending on the context in Bailey's book. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Repeated assertions based on feelings ... that it is WP:DUE are also entirely subjective. Funny how that works. I've given multiple reasons based in policy and reliable sources why the book should not be used as a sole source; this directly refutes the comparison to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the best argument for retaining the information is a head count, that doesn't bode well for inclusion. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I haven't really dug into the sources myself yet, but if the statements that Sangdeboeuf quoted are just Bailey's own musings about trans people, and aren't based on Blanchard's research, then I actually side with with Sangdeboeuf on removal. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Citation style

Many of the citations in this article are formatted in the Vancouver style with the |vauthors= parameter. Since this is a social-sciences topic, and since most of the available sources seem to prefer APA style, it seems logical to use that style in the article. When using the drop-down {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} templates in the edit window, something like APA style is already the default, at least for author names. If there are no objections, I'll switch the remaining Vancouver-style citations over in the coming days. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)