Talk:Homosexual transsexual: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎NPOV tag: reply to WAID
Line 677: Line 677:
:::Actually, there are multiple RS's reporting that Jokestress' above list is incorrect. Although Jokestress and other political activists disagree with the idea (as is their right), the RS's nonetheless indicate that the items in that list boil down to only three types: FtM, androphilic MtF (aka homosexual MtF), and gynephilic MtF (aka autogynephilic MtF). Although Jokestress personally disagrees with Blanchard in this conclusion, it doesn't change the content of the RS's.
:::Actually, there are multiple RS's reporting that Jokestress' above list is incorrect. Although Jokestress and other political activists disagree with the idea (as is their right), the RS's nonetheless indicate that the items in that list boil down to only three types: FtM, androphilic MtF (aka homosexual MtF), and gynephilic MtF (aka autogynephilic MtF). Although Jokestress personally disagrees with Blanchard in this conclusion, it doesn't change the content of the RS's.
:::[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
:::[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it took me four seconds to find a reliable source on one of the many "types" of transmen ([http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/sexsf/2009/02/suck_my_manhole_porn_god_buck.html Suck my Manhole] in the ''[[San Francisco Bay Guardian]]'' this month). Anyone who has kept up on trends in sexuality since the 1980s knows there are reliable sources on all of these various trans identities and behaviors, including the wide range among trans men. I also recommend the film ''Still Black'' by Kortney Ryan Ziegler for those who know that reliable sources exist outside the world of one Toronto mental institution. Still, I am not sure all these identities merit individual articles. We can do [[Transwomen attracted to men]] as a separate one for that phenomenon, with a link from [[Transsexual sexuality]]. There are also lots of reliable sources on why some "experts" are so fixated on that subset of trans people. We can also include reliable sources discussing how happy trans men are that they are largely ignored by the taxonomic zeal of "experts." [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


==Collected references==
==Collected references==

Revision as of 22:57, 23 February 2009

Former good articleHomosexual transsexual was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 1, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 28, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 8, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject iconLGBT studies Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Redirect‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Toward a value-neutral lede

In addition to many other problems with this article, the lede is especially inaccurate as far as describing this term and the controversy in a value-neutral manner. The wording makes a number of biased assumptions that legitimize this terminology and assert its validity.

  1. Use of "same sex" perpetuates the confusion.
  2. One paper (Blanchard 1985) is cited ten times in the lede. That's a clear violation of WP:UNDUE.

I have proposed in the past that the lede comprise three paragraphs per summary style:

  1. A value-neutral description of the term that summarizes the usage and controversy.
  2. Use by proponents of the term
  3. Criticism by opponents of the term

I believe that is the clearest way to summarize the article. Comments welcome. If we can come to an agreement on this, I can propose some language. Jokestress (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support a rewrite of the lead. I would suggest having a read-through on WP:LEAD and WP:JARGON for ideas - the lead has to be accessible without being condescending, and must be a potted summary of the article's most important sections - an abstract, I'd call it. It's tough. Btw, I've tagged a couple of sentences in the lead with NPOV inline templates - they're either NPOV or have an off tone to them, I can't exactly put my finger on which. --Malkinann (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed first paragraph (explanation follows):
Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some behavioural scientists to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation. The term "homosexual" is controversial because it defines transsexual sexuality based on a person's assigned sex. These transsexual people consider themselves heterosexual based on their gender identity. Proponents primarily use this term to describe transwomen who are attracted to men, though they sometimes use it to describe transmen who are attracted to women.
This removes the POV language and keeps the first paragraph value-neutral. It replaces disputed terminology with language that does not reflect cognitive bias. Same citations, though I would also add Kessler and McKenna's 1985 book Gender as a citation for the concept of sex/gender assignment. The second paragraph would summarize use by proponents. The third paragraph would summarize criticism by opponents. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
looks good to me. Only thing is I would still link the "scientist who stdy..." part to sexology. Really good. I would be working her more but I just got really busy.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used behavioural scientists to combine the references to psychology, psychiatry, and sexology in the current version, which don't need to be mentioned separately. It adds complication to split them out. Jokestress (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As part of the ongoing effort to avoid writing this article from the "in-universe" perspective, I'm not sure that we should assume that transwoman and transman are part of the readers' vocabulary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's not necessary to get into that in the first paragraph or maybe in the summary. We could eliminate the last two sentences, and/or make them part of the proponents paragraph and provide a concrete example there. Jokestress (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WAID that transman and transwoman may not be in the readers' vocabulary, but I disagree that it should come much later in the lead than this, as it really helped my understanding - perhaps it could be better to go "Proponents primarily use this term to describe male-to-female transsexual women (transwomen) who are attracted to men, though they sometimes use it to describe female-to-male transsexual men (transmen) who are attracted to women." This introduces the terms in a way laypeople would understand, and then the article can go on to use transwomen and transmen with merry abandon. I would also add "at birth" behind assigned sex to try to give a bit more clarity to the phrase without the person having to leave this article. --Malkinann (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think something like that would improve understanding. It could be the other way around, if preferred: "...describe transwomen (male-to-female transsexuals)...". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting) Those suggestions all clarify this - here's a version incorporating those suggestions:

Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some behavioural scientists to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation. The term "homosexual" is controversial because it defines transsexual sexuality based on a person's sex assignment at birth. These transsexual people consider themselves heterosexual based on their gender identity. Proponents primarily use this term to describe transwomen (male-to-female transsexual people) who are attracted to men, though they sometimes use it to describe transmen (female-to-male transsexual people) who are attracted to women.

Additional comments welcome. If we're close, I can add in the citations in the draft. Jokestress (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps place "Proponents..." before "The term "homosexual"..."? --Malkinann (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A good general principle is to construct a position before deconstructing it. In this case a fair description of how proponents use the term is needed before an explanation of how and why the term is criticised. (But I'm happy to see constructive discussion taking place!) Geometry guy 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your comments, it sounds as if you're suggesting a three-sentence first paragraph, followed by paragraphs on views of proponents and critics:
  1. Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some behavioural scientists to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation. Proponents of the term define transsexual sexuality based on a person's sex assignment at birth. Critics of the term define transsexual sexuality based on a person's gender identity and describe these people as heterosexual or suggest using gynephilia and androphilia to avoid confusion.
  2. Proponents primarily use this term to describe transwomen (male-to-female transsexual people) who are attracted to men, though they sometimes use it to describe transmen (female-to-male transsexual people) who are attracted to women. (Brief summary of use)
  3. Critics of the term argue... (Brief summary of criticism)
Is that accurate? The only issue is that some critics also have issues with the term "heterosexual" and propose gynephilia and androphilia as workarounds. Does that confuse matters, though? Jokestress (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. We are simply suggesting reversing the order of two sentences. The more complicated construction you propose is not a lead section, but ideas for writing the body of the article. Your response illustrates the problem of trying to write a good lead while the body of the article is not ideal. I suggest trying to agree on an approximate lead based on the current one, then reworking the body of the article, then revisiting the lead to provide a good summary. Geometry guy 23:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with doing that, but I'd also like to have a clear consensus among a group of editors that this article should discuss the term "homosexual transsexual," and the article transsexual sexuality should discuss the general phenomenon of various types of sexual behaviors and identities among transsexual people. That's been a source of contention on Wikipedia for at least 2 years, and I'd love to hear the thoughts of uninvolved editors. My argument (outlined here) is that it's Wikipedia policy to present material in a value-neutral manner, and this article is about a term that is not value-neutral. As such, we owe it to readers to present all viewpoints without legitimizing or delegitimizing a contested term. Jokestress (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two ways of understanding your recommendation that the article discuss "the term". One is that Transsexual sexuality should have plenty of information on the phenomenon, and on other phenonmena, and that this article provide a reasonable level of context for the reader -- e.g., so that the reader knows that the idea of a transwoman attracted to men was not "invented" at the same time that the term "homosexual transsexual" was coined. (I support that understanding of your recommendation.)
Another interpretation is that this article have all general information removed so that it only contains information that is directly about the specific term itself (that is, the two words, and the researchers that coined the phrase). This approach removes significant context, history, and background information; the reader could not possibly understand anything except the linguistics without leaving this article to read Transsexual sexuality. I do not support gutting the first half of this article. There is no good reason to delete this information from this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, under your second interpretation, perhaps it points out a need for the two articles to be more synchronised? Jokestress, are you suggesting it would be beneficial to port some of the text from here to the other article? --Malkinann (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting) I misunderstood what Malkinann was asking. I thought she was saying that the existing second sentence should start with "Proponents," which is why I rewrote it to start that way. I believe this is what she meant:

Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some behavioural scientists to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation. Proponents primarily use this term to describe transwomen (male-to-female transsexual people) who are attracted to men, though they sometimes use it to describe transmen (female-to-male transsexual people) who are attracted to women. The term "homosexual" is controversial because it defines transsexual sexuality based on a person's sex assignment at birth. Critics of the term define transsexual sexuality based on a person's gender identity and describe these people as heterosexual.

If that works for everyone, we can do that. As far as Geometryguy's suggestion for getting the article in order before writing the lede, the key issue there is discussed below. Jokestress (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for being unclear - this is exactly what I meant, and I like it. :) I also like how now it says 'critics of the term' rather than implying that all transsexual people are critical of the term. I think we're at about the stage where the references could be put back in, in preparation for it going into the article. --Malkinann (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's better. It constructs the position before referring to criticism of it, and it does so in a fair way.
A general comment may be in order. Wikipedia is not value-neutral. The neutral point of view is a point of view, namely the point of view that Wikipedia articles strive to achieve. This viewpoint calls for fair representation of significant views without bias. That isn't value-neutral. Some value systems suppress points of view that many find objectionable. The neutral point of view also calls for representation with due weight. This can be hard to judge, but is also a value. If the majority of transsexuals, professionals and reliable sources consider the term "transsexual homosexual" to be offensive and/or misleading, that doesn't mean the article should be written from their perspective, only that more weight should be given to their viewpoint. Geometry guy 20:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never liked the word "proponents". It makes this sound like a purely political issue. As if there aren't real scientific reasons (at least as Magnus Hirschfeld and many others since him saw it) for this sex based taxonomy. However I can see why it can make sense to use it. The latest version of the first paragraph is also good by me. Needless to say I agree with geometry guy about the meaning of "neutral" here in wikipedia. Neutral means unbiased. I feel that much of what I write for WP really is unbaised because if it weren't one "side" or the other would like it without reservtions. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please suggest an alternative word instead of proponents? --Malkinann (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "behavioral scientist" would be appropriate. Since just about every "proponent" is just such a scientist. Though that makes it sound like all "behavioral scientist" agree.... Well actually it appears in terms of defining the term. Writing "Behavioral scientist primarily use this term to describe transwomen (male-to-female transsexual people) who are attracted to men, though they sometimes use it to describe transmen (female-to-male transsexual people) who are attracted to women." How about that?--Hfarmer (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing proponents with behavioural scientists, thus reiterating "behavioural scientists" twice within two sentences, seems to me to be creating a dichotomy of scientists against the world. What about rephrasing it in the passive voice? "The term is primarily used to describe transwomen (male-to-female transsexual people) who are attracted to men, though it is sometimes used to describe transmen (female-to-male transsexual people) who are attracted to women." --Malkinann (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Malkinann: exactly. "Proponents" and "critics" are all-encompassing, which is why I recommend them. It is more accurate. Some proponents of the term are not behavioral scientists (or scientists at all for that matter). Some critics of the term are scientists in various fields. Using all-encompassing descriptors avoids the attempt to make this seem as if it's "scientists vs. transsexuals," since that is the inaccurate POV put forth by the term's proponents. The passive voice suggestion is a problem, though, because it is important to clarify that this is how proponents have used the term. Critics have used the term in the exact opposite manner.
@Geometryguy: when I say value-neutral, I meant that Wikipedia policy is to avoid presenting controversial terminology (like moron) in a way that legitimizes its use. "Moron" is obviously not a value-neutral term, just as is the case with any other deprecated term used by psychologists. I'm not saying we shouldn't have an article on "moron" because it's offensive. I'm saying that Wikipedia should not assert a factive POV: "A moron is a person with an IQ of 51-70." Wikipedia should say "Proponents of the term once applied it to people with an IQ of 51-70." The second one is more accurate and remains neutral about the scientific validity of the taxonomy. That's what I'm saying should also happen here. I also agree that we should present both viewpoints in proportional measure (something that's not happening right now). Jokestress (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Outcome

The outcome of the mediation is that the case is closed due to one of the arguements, that of Jokestress, et. al. boils down to "i dont like it" This finding in favor of the position of myself and others means that this article must be written in compliance with the consensus of the editors who did not base their arguement on "I don't like it".

Furthermore in the course of the mediation disucssion new evidence on how this term, concept, and class of person exist in the real world came to light. In a news story about TG's from latin America seeking asylum a court case is mentioned. In immigration law there exist due to a court case the following category. "in a landmark ruling in 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals paved the way for transgender claims by recognizing "gay men with female sexual identities" as a group eligible for protection." -Border Crossers by SFtimes.com That sounds like a phenomena, a protected class of people under US Federal case law. There is no other way to interpret what the court meant for if that were not the case asylum would be denied. I think that a bit of this information should be included in the article in some form or fashion. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the case wasn't closed because Hfarmer's argument boils down to "i dont like it"? Jokestress (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Because one you don't like this term. Hereford does not really make that so clear in his writing. One can take any number of things he wrote out of their context and make the case the finding was for you.
Second it turns out that the outcome of the mediation almost did not matter. Because evidence, which must always outweigh anything has come to light. In particular this is the text of a immigration court decision "The primary issue we must decide is whether gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico constitute a protected "particular social group" under the asylum statute. We conclude as a matter of law that gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico constitute a "particular social group"" - A. Wallace Tashima (Circuit Judge) [1]
There! Now how about that Mr. Fung? (Using Mr. in the above does not mean I am calling AJ Mr. That's a quote from the OJ simpson trial that I have been dying to use at some point. Why not now?)--Hfarmer (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, they stated, "We need not consider in this case whether transsexuals constitute a particular social group," so its relevance on a page about the term homosexual transsexual is questionable. See Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000). Jokestress (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't read too much into the mediation outcome. I suspect the mediator simply got fed up. One of you "likes it", one of you "doesn't like it". That's no basis for reaching a compromise. Geometry guy 22:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Hfarmer's POV edits

Would someone (preferably Hfarmer) please revert all the changes made to the article by Hfarmer today? We are in the midst of working toward consensus, and the edits violate a number of policies and guidelines. They are all highly counterproductive to what we are negotiating on this page. Jokestress (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that be? Every edit I have done today at this point has simply been to summarize the information found in the body of the article in the leade. The user Geometryguy said that this was needed on the good article review page. There is nothing new there. As for it's being POV. I'm sorry but it isn't. If it has a citable off wikipedia reliable source then it is not POV. You could argue undue weight and give a source which contravenes what is in the article. But you cannot really call it POV. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is another misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. Every source has a point of view, however reliable. Wikipedia has a point of view too, called the neutral point of view: it is a point of view which tries to represent others fairly, with due weight and without bias. Citing lots of reliable sources which favour one point of view is not Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Neither is it Wikipedia's neutral point of view to dismiss these sources as "biased" or "discredited". Show, don't tell. Describe the controversy, don't engage in it. Platitudes, I know, but neither mediators nor reviewers will be able to have any effective dialogue with you until you take them on board.
From a reviewer's point of view, the revised lead is too long, and has too many citations. It seems to go too far towards legitimizing this controversial term. I suggest substituting for the first paragraph discussed above and below, and brutally copyediting the rest down to half the size. Then I suggest that it is impossible to write a good lead until you have a good article to summarize. Go through each section, thinking about how to improve it so that you can write a better lead. Geometry guy 22:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are seven citations needed for the first sentence in the article? As a reader, I find more than 2 or 3 citation marks per sentence to be intimidating. I have tagged some statements in the lead which I find to be NPOV. I have also reduced the amount of citations present in the lead by where a citation is repeated eg Blah blah blah,[cite] rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb,[same cite] fiddle dee dee.[same cite again] removing it, rendering it something like Blah blah blah, rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb, fiddle dee dee.[cite] Hope this helps. I would also like to draw everyone's attention to WP:TIGER, which says that "...we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." So although our passions inspire us to improve the article on the subject which is dear to us, in order for it to be of any use to people who don't see the subject quite as we do, we have to learn to step back, take a breath, and check our passions at the door as much as we can. --Malkinann (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Malkinann: Please review the proposed intro paragraph and minimized citations in the section immediately below this comment. Jokestress (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed-upon first paragraph with references

Per Malkinann's request above, here is the consensus-based first paragraph with references. I have included one reference for each sentence, which is all we need. Too many citations is a POV-pushing strategy, especially in the lede. In the cases of usage, I have included references for what I believe are their first uses in each context.

Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some behavioural scientists to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation.[1] Proponents primarily use this term to describe transwomen (male-to-female transsexual people) who are attracted to men,[2] though they sometimes use it to describe transmen (female-to-male transsexual people) who are attracted to women.[3] The term "homosexual" is controversial because it defines transsexual sexuality based on a person's sex assignment at birth.[4] Critics of the term define transsexual sexuality based on a person's gender identity and describe these people as heterosexual.[5]

Comments welcome. Once we get this sorted out, we can figure out what the other two paragraphs should look like per summary style. Jokestress (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already figured. Talk about the present not the past. I have evidence that this is not just a term and your POV attempts to make it so will not succeed. I agreed upon this paragraph. The first thing I did to this article was to insert it. Look at the history. Then I modified it based on the evidence. Aside from two adjustments the lead paragraph in the article is the same one you have here. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your "adjustments" to the lead paragraph are not part of the consensus we have all been negotiating. I again ask you to revert today's edits and resume working productively toward an agreement on the talk page. Jokestress (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the problem this article faces is that there is a phenomenon, and a controversial name to describe it, and it is difficult to separate the two. We have the article Transsexual sexuality, but that is more general. So, Jokestress, what terms from reliable sources would you like to see used to describe transsexuals who are homosexual with respect to their sex assignment, and heterosexual with respect to their gender identity? Geometry guy 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've had that conversation already. I believe that the term androphilic transwoman was proposed, but if you do an internet search on the exact (quoted) phrase, it's almost non-existent. It does not exist in any reliable sources (although I believe it would be appropriately descriptive without being insulting).
I have no objection to another article being created under a more neutral term -- but I do object to removing accurate, relevant, properly sourced information from this one, especially when it means removing information entirely from Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, no one is talking about removing information from Wikipedia, just moving it to the appropriate article so this one can be about the controversial term. Jokestress (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenon vs. terminology

(outdenting) @Geometryguy: Yes, phenomenon vs. term is exactly the problem, as I outline here and here. I believe our articles on the term moron vs. the phenomenon of mental retardation and the term Gay related immune deficiency vs. the phenomenon of AIDS are instructive examples.

The terms currently used by mainstream academics are gynephilia and androphilia. As an example of the experts who have become more sophisticated and accurate in their terminology, here is noted sexologist Milton Diamond:

Years ago Karlen and I (Diamond & Karlen, 1980[6]) suggested that terms such as heterosexual or homosexual be used as adjectives instead of nouns identifying people. I have since recommended that the terms androphilic (male loving), gynecophilic (female loving) and ambiphilic (both loving) be used as descriptors (Diamond, 2002a[7]). The first mentioned terms are often confusing when Intersexed or transsexual persons are described and it is not always clear if one is referring to the individual's original or final state. Also, the suggested terms can be used as adjectives without consideration of the original sex or gender of the person spoken of. The suggested terms also are not saddled with the taboo or political features of the hetero/homo/bi-sexual nomenclature and, again unlike the former terms, are not assumed to be a total description of anyone.[8]

Sexologist Jim Weinrich said in an interview:

Ray Blanchard and his associates at the Clarke Institute of Psychology in Toronto have continued to nail down their position that m-f transsexualism comes in basically two flavors (“androphilic” and “gynephilic” or man-loving and woman-loving). This has been done in a series of clever questionnaires and plethysmogaphic studies. Along the way, taxonomic zeal got Blanchard to claim that female-to-male transseualism was always woman-loving. ..[9]

Here's a few passages from a book by Ron Langevin[10] (who used to publish with Kurt Freund at the Clarke Institute and is at University of Toronto) using the term and mentioning the confusing terminology:

Transsexualism and androphilia. Freund and his associates [11] compared transsexual and nontranssexual androphilic men. […] In the Freund et al., study [11] little to no reaction to females as evident in the transsexuals indicating the were not “bisexual” in erotic object choice nor were they gynephilic. However, this may simply reflect the subject selection procedure. Nine percent of the individuals who were gynephilic were excluded from the results. Thus, this study presents a biased picture that there are no transsexuals who erotically prefer women over men [12][13].
Barr, McConaghy and their associates examined penile reactions to males and females in three further studies [14][15][16][17]. One report is an elaboration of another illustrating two cases of “apparent heterosexuality” in applicants for sex reassignment. Overall, the results support those of Freund et al that transsexual applicants for sex reassignment are generally androphilic preferring mature male partners. Nevertheless, they found some gynephilic transsexuals too.
Bentler (13) assumes without question that transsexuals may be gynephilic, androphilic, or asexual and devised a typology of transsexualism based on that distinctions. To highlight the terminological confusion that can result in this area, I will just note that almost all Bentler’s patients said that after surgery, they were “heterosexual”. This represents a complete reversal in self concept for the androphiles according to Bentler. What we do not know is whether they are judging their preference for men or women as women or as men. One can appreciate that meetings at gender dysphoria clinics must be quite confusing at times for the staff!
Other demographic information suggests that the transsexual can be either gynephilic or androphilic but is predominantly androphilic. [...] The best one can conclude from this available information is that androphilic transsexuals seem to be more numerous than gynephilic ones. However, it would be false to conclude that gynephilic transsexuals do not exist. Their small but persistent numbers suggests that something is amiss in the parallel of transsexualism to androphilia.
Preference for gynephilic male partners. Freund et al [11] found that androphilic transsexuals reported less gynephilic experience than nontranssexual androphilic controls. Early androphilic development was associated with less subsequent gynephilic experience. This agrees with the claim of transsexuals that they have always felt like women and thus would have little desire for sex relations with women, even from an early age.

Langevin then summarizes the extensive uses of standardized testing around femininity and feminine gender identity with transsexual and nontranssexual people, which I mentioned to User:WhatamIdoing earlier. Psychologist Sandra L. Johnson writes about the relationship of "male transsexual" typology to psychosocial adjustment:

Valid and reliable scales measuring the typological variables of erotic partner preference (androphilia and gynephilia), cross-gender fantasy in association with sexual arousal (cross-gender fetishism), and degree of feminine gender identity in childhood were used. Results indicate a significant relationship between social gender reorientation and the feature of androphilia and between work adjustment and gynephilia.[18]

Psychologist Uwe Wolfradt of Martin-Luther-University [19] describes the typological variables of male-to-female transsexuals, including androphilia and gynephilia:

Johnson and Hunt (1990[18]) examined 25 male-to-female transsexuals to determine whether introversion, depression, adjustment to work, and gender reorientation were associated with the typological variables androphilia, gynephilia, feminine gender identity in childhood, and age at onset of transsexualism. […]According to Devor, transsexualism may be an adaptive extreme dissociative survival response to severe child abuse. Similar to dissociation, depersonalization can also be considered as a defense mechanism to reduce negative affectivity (Wolfradt and Engelmann, 1999).

Wolfradt then summarizes Hartmann et al. (1997[20]), describing their subjects as "persons with gender dysphoria disorders (androphilic and gynephilic males)". Dutch psychologist Ditte Slabbbekoorn uses "androphilic MFs" (for which the counterpart would be "gynephilic FMs"):

In line with these findings, we were interested to investigate whether male-to- female transsexuals (MFs), androphilic MFs in particular, would show more... (etc.)[21]

I have limited my references to behavioral scientists who use "androphilia" and "gynephilia," specifically as a better alternative to "homosexual transsexual." People who are biologists, linguists, anthropologists, etc. have also weighed in on this problematic and largely deprecated terminology. I'll end with a passage from the Archives of Sexual Behavior that includes a quotation from sexologist Aaron Devor:

supporters of the Blanchard typology could: stop insisting that every trans person who doesn’t fit their schema is a liar; provide better evidence; stop using terminology that people find offensive (e.g., ‘‘homosexual transsexual,’’ which is also very confusing). As Devor (personal communication, September 9, 2007) said, ‘‘if what we really mean to say is attracted to males, then say ‘attracted to males’ or androphilic... I see absolutely no reason to continue with language that people find offensive when there is perfectly serviceable, in fact better, language that is not offensive.’’

Basically, use of "homosexual transsexual" comes down to a few holdouts at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry and their supporters vs. everyone else. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Jokestress (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: Where are all the reliable source that uses the exact phrase "androphilic transsexual" or "androphilic transwoman"? I'd be happy to have a proper article on the general idea under one of those titles -- except that none of our reliable sources actually uses those exact phrases. WP:NAME says to use the most easily recognized name, as determined "by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Zero reliable sources using the term = don't use that term for the article's name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the big picture here. No one talks like that except a small group of sexologists with too much "taxonomic zeal," to quote a source above. The phenomenon is transsexual sexuality, the article Hfarmer started. The companion article is classification of transsexuals. I have given half a dozen examples of how and why academics avoid the term "homosexual transsexual." There are many, many more. The idea that a "homosexual transsexual" is a discrete category of transsexual sexuality is similar to those whose taxonomic zeal led them to claim "moron" is a discrete category of mental retardation. You're asking "Well, what's the new term for 'moron'?" Nothing replaced "moron," because it was a bad naming scheme, just as "homosexual transsexual" is. Jokestress (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Jokestress going to the trouble to list all these sources. There are a number of issues here.
  • The statement that really needs a source is "Basically, use of 'homosexual transsexual' comes down to a few holdouts at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry and their supporters vs. everyone else." It's no good one of you (Js & Hf) citing lots of sources which say one thing, and the other citing lots of sources which say another. Wikipedia can't decide what is more correct, widespread, current, or scholarly. We need reliable secondary sources whose analysis we can cite.
  • I can understand that there is a strong movement in a very relevant sector of academia towards using less confusing and more neutral terminology. However, Wikipedia cannot advance an agenda, we can only report on it. For instance, in the first quote Milton Diamond seems to be advocating the use of androphilia and gynephilia instead of heterosexual and homosexual in a general context, not exclusive to transsexuals. This hasn't yet caught on as far as I am aware! Again we need RSS. For instance, are there organisations, governmental or otherwise, recommending usage among sex counsellors and other professionals?
  • Obviously "androphilic transsexual" means a different thing to "homosexual transsexual" (they both include male-to-female attracted to male, but differ on female-to-male). So, is it more notable to study transsexuals by the gender they are attracted to, or by gender difference? Or should we resist any attempt to combine and write separate articles on the four main possibilities with neutral titles?
  • If we are getting fussy about the meaning of "gender" for the subject of attraction, why is the same attention not paid to the object? Apparently their gender is unambiguous. A male attracted to female-to-male transsexuals is what? Homosexual, heterosexual, androphilic, gynephilic? It is easy to get wrapped up in well-intentioned attempts to clarify psychology, but we can't engage in original research: Wikipedia cannot lead the way, or support those leading the way. It can only report on the work being done, and how it is received.
Consequently I don't find the AIDS and moron comparisons compelling. In twenty years time, Jokestress's viewpoint may well be what we find on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and all we can do for now is describe the current situation, however confusing that may be. On the other hand, we should also not legitimize terms like "homosexual transsexual". The removal of the word "controversial" from the first sentence is unacceptable. Geometry guy 20:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your comments in order:
  • That statement is to give you background on what's going on, not something I have proposed to be put in the article.
  • This is a very obscure debate in a neglected corner of the tiny field of sexology. It's a footnote to a footnote. Most sexologists don't even care, let alone the mainstream media. Most transsexual people don't care, either, though transsexual people as a group vehemently oppose the term and its pejorative baggage. The only reason I care is because I am very familiar with the literature, and this article as it stands completely misrepresents the issues. There has not been much discussion of this outside sexology, except by people critical of the term. "Homosexual transsexual" is not used in the mainstream media, nor is "androphilic transsexual."
  • Transmen are generally ignored/invisible, both in sexology and in society in general. Theories abound as to why. Transgender women are probably the most sexualized group of people in the world, largely because the typical classification of transsexuals by "experts" traditionally categorizes us by transsexual sexuality. Using these taxonomic schemes as article titles reifies and legitimizes these contested concepts.
  • Someone attracted to trans people is called a "transfan" or "admirer," though the current execrable Wikipedia article is at the wholly unacceptable name tranny chaser. The fine folks who brought you the above convoluted naming scheme like to throw around silly words like gynandromorphophilic or gynemimetophilic, etc. Regarding splitting transsexual sexuality into four articles or something along those lines, I continue to maintain that this article should not take a stand on the validity of the term, and that just about all the activity on this article of late has been to push the POV that this term is scientifically valid. Splitting transsexual sexuality by sex and/or sexual orientation would further reify these concepts.
I'd like to see the agreed-upon first paragraph added to the article as a first step. I am abstaining from editing in the article space at this time in order to facilitate consensus, so would you be willing to put it in? Jokestress (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly placed the draft paragraph into the article and fixed up the references which became broken when I put it in. Further polishing of it can be done in the article space. I'm beginning to feel like this article could have words to avoid - for example, "The basic concept is that these transsexuals were always attracted to the same sex.", which I've removed from the lead seems to me to condescend to the reader and it is confusing. It also has an overly conversational tone to my mind. I'll put a note about words to avoid in the GA reassessment, as the words to avoid guideline must be adhered to for GA. --Malkinann (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all. I support the idea of changing the title of this article. It would take it out of the mode of thinking that many are in right now. That is this being only about Dr. Blanchard's theory. It is not. Nor is it just about sexuality. It is about a group of people who at this time, in many reliable sources are defined in terms of their sexuality. Though other cultural or socio economic terms could be used they just aren't. Because androphillic transsexual does not appear as such in reliable sources and homosexual transsexual does that tips it in favor of "homosexual transsexual". From the standpoint of a wikipedian I have to agree with Geometry Guy on that.
As for defining this as an article about a term, or a class of people...a phenomena, I have found a court precident that must have been used coutless times, which had to have taken into consideration all kinds of scientific and cultural evidence, which states plainly "homosexual males with female gender identities are a particular social class of people based on immutable characteristics" (best recollection). I hope that reference was not removed be cause REST ASSURED I WILL NOT LET that kind of information be deleted without a fight. It is hardly a open and shut case for AJ to say that this is only the POV of two or three people in Canada.
This will be my last comment for some days. Can someone explain how "The basic concept is that these transsexuals were always attracted to the same sex." is condecending? There are people in the world who hear the term homosexal transsexual and think of it as a doble use of the same word. I would hazard a guess that the words transgender, transsexual, homosexual, transsexual, gay, fa...t,... and so on are all synonyms to 60% of Americans! Trust me you have to cut big ideas and long words into small baby bites to ensure understanding. I mean look at the now archived featured article review. In all candor one of those people thought that the article as it was said that "all homosexuals were transsexuals".  :--? --Hfarmer (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hfarmer, I tried to be careful to not remove citations when I ported the draft paragraph into the article. I re-added the two citations which were broken when I ported it, and I checked the number of citations pre-port and after. The words "basic concept" I find are condescending, and I find it confusing to think of transsexual people being attracted to the "same sex", because of the tension between a person's sex assignment at birth and what they believe themselves to be. If you don't have a firm grip on the difference between sex and gender, which many "cis-gendered" (is this the right word? people who don't have a problem with the sex they were assigned...) folks don't, you're stuffed. So you can imagine that when I find the "basic concept" to be confusing, I feel condescended to. The fact that you refer to it as being cut into "small baby bites" reinforces my perception that it is condescending. I feel it is clear enough when it's said that it refers to transwomen (mtf people) who are attracted to men, and transmen (ftm people) who are attracted to women. --Malkinann (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see. You want the wording to take a more trans affirming perspective. The following in my mind applies to all TG/TS related articles on WP. Try and look at this from the perspective of "Joe the Plumber". Suppose Joe comes here and wants to find out information about transsexuals. Well to joe and allot of people like him, I would say a majority of people in the world, LGBT people are all gay, queers, faggots. This is not even in a totally hostile sense, for many those are the words they have. These are people who look at a transsexual woman who is attracted to men, and they would describe that person as a gay man who is attracted to men and dresses like or immitates a woman. In short gay, gayer, gayest, and so flamming that they could power the eastern seabord for 50 years. Which perspective should Wikipedia contain?  :-? Well believe it or not I prefer the first transaffirming perspective, you do and I know Jokestress does. However our preference is not what guides what we write here. WP policy is for a neutral point of view. That even goes down to the wording as well as the sources and content used etc. By saying the "basic idea of a homosexual transsexual is that they are a biological male who is sexually attracted to other males but lives as a female (has a female gender identity)" I was putting in one sentence that even joe the plumber could understand, and which is true to the sources.
The sources, many many sources, define a homosexual transsexual MTF as a male who is attracted to other males (kinsey 5-6), who also has a female gender identity. I put that sentence into the article specifically because a reviewer, for Featured Article Status said that they did not know what the article was even about. The read the whole thing and could not even say that. Do you understand where I am comming from on this?--Hfarmer (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want the article to not condescend to the reader, be they the hypothetical "Joe" or anybody else. In the "editorialising" section of the words to avoid guideline, words like "basically" are said to express a point of view. --Malkinann (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading section?

Might it be useful to assemble a further reading section in the article in preparation for the now inevitable-seeming rewrite? The sources could then be incorporated at leisure into the article and then deleted from the further reading list per protocol. --Malkinann (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a good idea. Would you say that's the next thing we should focus on to keep the momentum going, or something else? Jokestress (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Rewrite inevitable? This is WP the articles are in principle in a constant state of rewrite. Are they not? Nothing here is every really "final". That said I think that the further reading section could be a permanent part of this article (or any other) making sense out of the formal references can be a bit cryptic much of the time. Providing links that people can just casually click on is IMO always a good idea.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More WP:OWN/violation of consensus by Hfarmer

Yet again, User:Hfarmer is continuing a long-running pattern of editing in the article space without discussing those changes here first. That is counter-productive to developing a neutral article. Regarding all these claims about US case law, as I said earlier, that case specifically states it is not about transsexuals: "We need not consider in this case whether transsexuals constitute a particular social group." So its relevance on a page about the term "homosexual transsexual" is questionable. See Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000).

I am refraining from editing the article at this time, and my repeated requests for Hfarmer to do the same have been fruitless to date. Would someone revert all those unilateral POV edits until we reach consensus on what goes in the article? Jokestress (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed the changes before see above. I mention Giovanni Hernandez-Monitel VS INS a few times. You wrote.
"In that case, they stated, "We need not consider in this case whether transsexuals constitute a particular social group," so its relevance on a page about the term homosexual transsexual is questionable. See Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000). Jokestress (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
I have a few questions
  1. Who is the "they" you mention?
  2. It seems you have accessed the record of all testimony on the case (page 225) how is that?
    1. The actual ruling has only 25 pages.
    2. Nowhere does what you wrote appear in it.
  3. What does appear in the ruling?
"The primary issue we must decide is whether gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico constitute a protected "particular social group" under the asylum statute. We conclude as a matter of law that gay men with female sexual identities

in Mexico constitute a "particular social group "[22]

Are you saying that mere testimony in this case negates the actual verdict of the judge. You do know that court does not work that way. Many people on the stand said OJ was guilty but the Judges's decision or jury's verdict is what always carries the day. Does it not?
Now that judge did not use the word "transsexual" However clearly that is what is meant in this ruling. Consider the story that lead me to that ruling. Those ladies are for all the world transsexuals. Every one of them hase been judiciated to be defined as a "gay man with a female sexual identity"[23] If they were not they would not have assylum.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. "They" = Circuit Judges A. Wallace Tashima and Melvin Brunetti. 2. You are misreading a case citation, as discussed here. You are also wrong when you claim "Nowhere does what you wrote appear in it." 3. It appears in the decision written by Judge Tashima. Jokestress (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Symantics Jokestress symantics. How does this quote again not say what it says?
"The primary issue we must decide is whether gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico constitute a protected "particular social group" under the asylum statute. We conclude as a matter of law that gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico constitute a "particular social group " and that Geovanni is a member of that group. His female sexual identity is immutable because it is inherent in his identity; in any event, he should not be required to change it. Because the evidence compels the conclusion that Geovanni suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution if he were forced to return to Mexico, we conclude that the record compels a finding that he is entitled to asylum and withholding of deportation."
"...men with female sexual identities..." That's a MTF transsexual.
You also say that "" appears in the decision by judge Tashima. Please click on the link in the citation that I have provided. text of judges decision in Geovanni Hernandez-Montiel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service via UNHCR's ref world. You cite page 225 It's only 25 pages long. Was that a typo? And on page 25 what you say appears does not. As a matter of fact take that doccument which is the actual decision of the judge NOT the whole trial testimony that I think AJ is using and do a search for "We need not consider in this case whether transsexuals constitute a particular social group". It appears no where. Now AJ could you please check again what you are actually refering to and provide a hyperlink. So that I may examine this statement in context.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the links I provided that explain how case law citations work? You still don't seem to understand that 225 does not refer to a page number. Take a look at footnote 7 in the document you linked. You will find that you are wrong, and that the judges indeed state that the case is not about whether transsexuals constitute a particular social group. If you want to make an article titled Gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico and can find enough reliable sources, go for it. And please don't try to appropriate muxe into your medico-juridical paradigm as you have with other non-western social constructs, because muxe are not all gay and do not all have female sexual identities and do not seek asylum. The INS case's relevance to this article is questionable at best and in my opinion irrelevant. Jokestress (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's referenced in a reliblle source then it's neutral.

This is about the POV statement tags in the article. While info in a RS is just facts and therefore neutral it can be given undue weight. That said in the specific case here the following disputed statements have multiple relibale soruces to back them up, and one of those is in a source of foundational significance to the modern western medico-scientific understanding of transsexualism.

"The existence of this type of transsexual is not new or unique to western culture, nor is it a concept invented by only one man.[24][25][26][27]<[28] [neutrality is disputed] While the word "transsexual" is of mid 20th century origin, people the word seeks to describe have existed in many a historical and cultural context.[29][neutrality is disputed] "

let me try to explain why what is in "the effeminates of Early Medina" by itself backs up the statement "The existence of this type of transsexual is not new or unique to western culture, nor is it a concept invented by only one man." TEOM which is a article published in a journal which is peer reviewed and a reliable source says and I qoute.

"The last two statements imply that what the mukhannathiin underwent was jibdb, the more drastic form of castration in which the penis was truncated.

They serve to stress the mukhannathiin's lack of sexual interest in women, while the two preceding statements identify the essential psychological motivation behind takhannuth as gender identification with women."[24]

This appears in context of describing the reactions of the Mukhannath of Early Islamic Medina to an edict from the Caliph ordering the Castration of all mukhannathiin. I really don't see how this could be any clearer. The Mukhannathun were defined by their lack of interest in women and psychological identification with women as women. This matches the definitions given for a homosexual transsexual in many places which I have already cited. I then cited four other sources which concur with this one. Each of them defines this term from a different cultural and historical perpective. Starting from incredibly disparate origins and ending up in the same place. Richard green looked at simmilar sources and concluded. "Evidence for the phenomenon today called transsexualism can be found in records backward through centuries and spanning widely separated cultures. " and

"Clearly, the phenomenon of assuming the role of a member of the opposite sex is neither new nor unique to our culture. Evidence for its existence is traceable to the oldest recorded myths. Diverse cultures present data demonstrating that the phenomenon is widely extant in one form or another and has been incorporated into cultures with varying degrees of social acceptance. Appraisal of contemporary clinical material regarding such patients assumes a fuller significance when cast against the backdrop of this historical and anthropological perspective. Ultimately a comprehensive understanding, evaluation and management of transsexualism will take into account the extensively rooted sources of this psychosexual phenomenon."[29] --Richard Green

There you have a reliable source which says essentially the same thing that the article does in those disputed sentences. Is it now clear where I got the backing for those from. I hope so because this settles the dispute. WP:RS and WP:NPOV are on my side. So long as this does not violate WP:UNDUE. I think a foundational source like Green's contribution to Benjamin's book here deserves much weight. It deserves much weight and backs up the inclusion of the brief cross cultural and historical information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfarmer (talkcontribs)

Information in a WP:RS can have a point of view. From the RS guideline itself: "Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources." I work a lot with fiction articles, so we use reviews often - because they are determined to be a RS, does that mean that they become less glowing or damning? Of course not!  :) The way the History section is set up, it seems like more people than Green believe that these cultural groups are examples of homosexual transsexuality. I believe that the statement "The existence of this type of transsexual is not new or unique to western culture, nor is it a concept invented by only one man." is POV, as it uses gendered language, and it makes Wikipedia look like it agrees with Green's paper rather than just presenting it. --Malkinann (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Hfarmer, You are once again trying to use sources to push a point of view rather than to present the controversy in a neutral manner. That's been the problem for the last two years here. We should present Green's argument without claiming it is "the truth." That is one of the major problems with the people who cling so tenaciously to these taxonomies and models. They are so deeply invested in these concepts that they refuse to believe that ideas like "homosexual" or "transsexual" are social constructions. Their views deserve a fair and balanced treatment here, but your insistence on presenting them as some sort of obvious fact gets to the heart of the problem with all of this. These attempts to colonize other cultures by shoehorning their traditional sex/gender categories into a western medico-juridical model is highly problematic, as critics of these terms point out. The article cannot take sides, and the way you keep trying to present things does exactly that. Jokestress (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Malkinann. Indeed I would go further: all sources have a point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia has a point of view, which we call the "neutral point of view". It is one which presents other points of view without endorsing or dismissing them. It lets the reader decide for themselves. Points of view are not a bad thing. Wikipedia's point of view is quite extraordinary. It allows anyone to edit any article and still their joint efforts produce a remarkable encyclopedia. Geometry guy 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AJ the only deeply invested person here is you. You don't see me creating a littany of webpages or holding huge meetings to deal with this issue. I'm just trying to give a fair representation of facts here on WP. :-/
Maliknann: "The way the History section is set up, it seems like more people than Green believe that these cultural groups are examples of homosexual transsexuality." That's because more people than green do belive that. Green is just the only one I can find who has sought to complie a comprehensive study of a bunch of dispareate groups. Mostly the same ones I have included in the history section. If you read the rest of the citations that are in the paragraphs on each group you will see that other researchers concur. From Sam Winter in what he writes about the Kathoey or Thailand, to what he writes of the transwomen of the Phillipines. To what Desai writes about the Hijra's of South Asia. Or to what Rowson, An-Nawaawi, etc write about the Mukhanath of Arabia. They all describe them in no uncertain terms as being biological males, who dress and act like women out of a sense of identity as a woman, who have sex with and are attracted to men. Even if they don't write the verbatim term "homosexual transsexual" common sense says they are talking about the same phenomena.
As for my opening statement on that section. Feel freee to write a new one. Be bold. But I will feel free to change it if it's a total 180 and contraditcs all the sources I have found.
"I believe that the statement "The existence of this type of transsexual is not new or unique to western culture, nor is it a concept invented by only one man." is POV, as it uses gendered language,"
What gendered language? I have to specify that I am talking about transsexuals don't I? Should we write of people a zim ze and zir?  :-\


GeometryGuy: I actually agree with what you wrote above. WP's POV is neutral. But that neutral POV cannot be done by disregarding reliable and pertinent sources because we don't like what they say. I have found plenty of reliable sources, which spann the globe and about 1500 years of recorded history (i.e. the sources I cite with regard to the effeminates of early Medina.) They all say the same thing. They describe males who are attracted to other males who live as women dress as women etc... What am I to do with statements like those I have cited? Ignore them? Ignore them because they aren't originally in english and of course don't use a word coined in the 20th century? Were their not stars and plantes eon's before we were here to name them?
To say that only sources in english and written by western academics in the last 50 years count for this would be ethnocentric. As if there is some more fundamental truth to a doccument written in english and simple common sense cannot be called upon when confronted with a translation of an anchient text. :-| --Hfarmer (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have given it a go, Hfarmer. :) When I was saying "gendered language", I was referring to the use of the word "man". It's better to use the word "people" instead. I suggest reducing the current "history" section to the first and last paragraphs, and porting the other information to the respective articles on the hijira, kathoey etc. --Malkinann (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh did you think my use of the word "man" in that sentence was a reference to the MTF transsexuals or to the behavioral scientist who have studied them. They are perdominantly men though that is changing. So I suppose the word "person" would be better there. Good call. :-)--Hfarmer (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by drawing the attention to the sex of the behavioural scientists, it kind of implies to my mind that no female behavioural scientist would agree with their views - which isn't a logical assumption. So I've got rid of that statement entirely, as the next sentence can also serve as a lead-in to the topic. --Malkinann (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd always assumed that the "one man" was Blanchard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd always assumed that the "one man" was WP:OR and WP:SYN. What reliably-sourced statement is this factive POV assertion trying to refute? Jokestress (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "The existence of this type of transsexual is not new or unique to western culture, nor is it a concept invented by only one man." is gone now from the article, I removed it earlier today. --Malkinann (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modified Androphilia Scale?

What's a Modified Androphilia Scale and how does it work? I can gather from the name that it's a scale describing attraction to males, but how is it calculated? Could information about this scale be added to a page on the creators of the scale? The only information I've been able to find on this scale is in the literature, which I don't have access to. --Malkinann (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people involved in the "homosexual transsexual" classification scheme (mainly Kurt Freund) developed several scales, such as the Feminine Gender Identity Scale (FGIS) and the Masculine Gender Identity Scale (MGIS), which were these self-report multiple choice things kind of like the Bem Sex Role Inventory discussed on classification of transsexuals. He also created an Androphilia Scale and a Gynephilia Scale.[30] These were later modified specifically for use with "gender disorders."[31] It's kind of like the Kinsey Scale, where your sexuality is situated on an axis between totally gay and totally not gay. The Kinsey test was either a self-assesment or one made by a test-giver after taking a sexual history of a subject. The Freund/Blanchard test is a questionnaire, kind of like a "rate your mate" quiz in Cosmopolitan or a purity test. You tally up the score at the end and learn what you are. Jokestress (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cosmo Quiz commentary aside she is essentially right. I have looked on the net and barring a paper or two that one would have to pay to read I don't see any reference that gives the actual questions on the quiz. However I have taken the kind of test that the Modified Androphilia scale is. They are multiple choice, long, and crucially they ask the same question many different ways. Sometimes they ask a set of quesstions not necessarily one after the other, which are supposed to indirectly point to one answer or the other. Psychological test like this are not just used for sexual orientation but for a number of things. As abusrd as these test may sound think of them as a sort of meter stick. A way of quantifying just how gay or not gay, suicidal or not suicidal, Schizophrenic or not Schizophrenic, etc. et.al ad nausem.
You may be interested in the sample questionaire items on this page.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thank you both! :) Any chance of some of this getting into mainspace somewhere? --Malkinann (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is a f-t-m "homosexual transsexual" person further defined?

In the GA reassessment discussion, G-guy brought up the point that there is extremely little on the transmen who are attracted to women - I'm not entirely sure that they are mentioned after the lead. For their counterpart (transwomen who are attracted to men), we have a slew of demographic details. My perception is that there would be less work on transmen as opposed to transwomen (tomboys are accepted more than effeminate boys, so they are less intriguing). Is there any further work on "homosexual transmen"? --Malkinann (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happily, transmen have been generally ignored by these people. The fixation has always been on trans women in relation to male sexual desire. Back in the day, taxonomic zeal got Blanchard to claim that female-to-male transsexualism was always woman-loving (he's backed off those claims now), and the Chivers/Bailey paper cited in the opening paragraph are about the only citations where the term is used uncritically for trans guys. Transmen who are attracted to women are discussed as examples by critics, though (see Wahng and Bagemihl in the citations). Jokestress (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this from AJ's perpective she is right. The people associated with the clark institute do not seem to think much about FTM's. Dr. Blanchard's main intersest was in explaining non-homosexual transsexualism. He arrived at an answer which says that non-homosexual transsexuals are driven by the sexual desire to be with themselves. Named this desire Autogynephilia. Then took a really harmless sounding quirk and equated it whith peadophillia and zoophilia.  :-/ You can understand why Autogynephilia makes so many so angry.
In my opinion it is not right to see your question and this article only in relation to autogynephilia. What you have noticed is partly because of the relative few FTM's there are in the world. Every prevalence number I have seen from the DSM to Connway has the number of MTF's being much much greater than the number of FTM's. That is a large part of the reason why there is less literature on FTM's in general. Then of course the fact you pointed out that "masculine" behavior in females is generally tolerated, but even slightly feminine behavior in males is not.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Hfarmer erroneous POV edits

Could someone please remove the misinformation which Hfarmer added to the consensus-based opening paragraph? The cited US case law and the article do not use the term "homosexual transsexual." Once again, I will request that Hfarmer refrain from making changes to the article, since it is disrupting the consensus-building process. Jokestress (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again. The first paragraph of the text of the opinion, which I found on the website of the United Nation Human rights Comitte (sp?) says "gay men with female sexual identities". That is in a sense a very short definition of what a MTF homosexual transsexual is.
Last nite I asked on of my adult Nephew's this question. If I had a bastketball in my hands, and called it a flibble flabbel would it make a difference? Would it not be correct to say that flibble flabbel = basket ball? He thought about it for a minute. Then he said no what's in a name? It's just a label. Another thing I am reminded of is a physics professor I had. He would write a symbol on the board, then a student would get all tripped up on just exactly precisely what it was called. He would then say "call this one bob and the other one jill. What matters is knowing the definition of bob and jill." I could go on and on along this line. I don't think the way I interpret this is wrong at all. If the definitions are the same then the exact precise word, or the lantuage used (English, Arabic, Hindi, Thai etc.) does not matter. Those various languages would never use the same exact word even if Blanchard himself wrote a paper on this topic in hindi. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, you're OK with people calling you a transvestite, which is how you'd be classified under several naming schemes. Is that OK with you? If you don't believe precise terminology is important when discussing science (behavioral or otherwise), then why are you so intent on editing this article to fit your beliefs about terminology?
Bottom line is that neither the INS case nor the news article use the term "homosexual transsexual," so adding them in the first sentence makes that sentence incorrect. I again ask you to refrain from making edits to the article space while we sort out the issues here. They only prolong this tedious process. Jokestress (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on the definition of the word transvestite used in that model. I know that in many early models basically any biological male who dressed as a female for any reason whatsoever was defined as a transvestite. If we are discussing one of those models then calling me and every other transsexual or transgender person a transvestite is a precise use of terminology. A term only has the meaning we give it we can redefine them at will. Just so long as we then agree on and stick with that meaning. (Consider the case of the word Planet. When Planet was defined more loosely Pluto was a planet. Now that it is defined differently Pluto is no longer a planet. In science the definition matters more than the word. For without a definition a word is just a collection of letters and a noise.)
The bottom line is that both of the article and the court ruling use the definition of a homosexual transsexual. What you say is like saying that if I write about "a celestial body that (1) is in orbit around the Sun, (2) has sufficient mass so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (3) has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit." but do not use the word planet then what I as a physicist write and publish could not be used in a WP article about planets! --Hfarmer (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of planet article has multiple sub-articles, because scientists understand that precise terminology is important and does matter. That definition is as controversial as this one. For our purposes, though, it's best to use examples from ways humans have been categorized when discussing the problems here. You can claim that quadroon or mulatto or high yellow describe the same phenomenon ("mixed race"), but you will encounter resistance if you try to claim those are synonyms to be used interchangeably with more current terms, and legitimate ways to categorize people legally or scientifically. The INS case specifically stated it is not considering issues related to transsexuals, and your attempts to claim otherwise are WP:OR and WP:SYN. Please revert those changes and refrain from editing the article itself while we discuss these things. Jokestress (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've taken papers which discuss a "beautiful boy" character type in the Japanese context and fitted them into the bishounen article. I'm happy with that because "beautiful boy" is a direct translation, and often it's used as an English supplement to the word bishounen. I feel it would be tougher to do so with this article because of where it is in the lead - at that point, the definition is still unclear to the reader. I'm not convinced with the planet analogy - names are a human thing. It might be better to initially stick with sources which use the proper terminology and think about reintroducing other sources at a later date. Keep them in the further reading section, though. --Malkinann (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources we are talking about are often not in English originally. Nor had the English word transsexual even been coined. This would not only go to the sources that are about historical context but even some foundational scientific work. Such as Magnus hirshfelds. As Jokestress sort of pointed out above under Hirschfelds original model all TG people were only known as "transvestitien", he then latter worked to define the word transsexual. Benjamin then took up where Hirschfeld left off. Should we delete Hirschfelds work because it isn't in english? You say direct translation? Take the original words for mukhannath (using the arabic text in the article that it is linked to), Hijra, Kathoey, etc and plug them into google translator and see what you get.

You say if I were to ask about "quadroon or mulatto or high yellow " basically meaning mixed race I would meet resistance. I asked my mother, father, Adult Nephews and oldest sister just now. We are a mixed race black family and with the exception of one nephew (who though "high yellow" mean Japaneese :-? ) all agreed that those all three were synonyms. Though there are subtle differences. I see that the following logic is what the people I asked used.

(if one is a quadroon) ⇒(they are a mulatto)⇒ (they are mixed race).

(if one is high yellow)⇒(they are a mulatto)⇒ (they are mixed race).


Though the inverse is not necessarily true. At the skin tone I am I have had some black people who were just half a tone lighter tell me how dark I was, while others just half a tone darker would tell me how light I was. So there is a strong element of subjectivity in your example.

What I am telling you any good scientist would. Not all scientist are good scientist. The definition is more important than the word. Words only have the meanings we give them. If someone writing in arabic 1000 + years ago writes about males who look, act like, and live as females, who are attracted sexually to other males... that's writing about transsexuals. Modern SRS may not have been invented but in terms of the much more important state of mind, the true residence of gender, those ladies were just as transsexual as you or I.

"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something. "--Ricahrd P. Feynmann

Which leads me to the point that to each and every modern author from Benjamin to Bailey to you and I the word transsexual has had a slightly different meaning. for example, to some it requiers surgery to others it does not. When assessing even modern sources we should be mindful of this.--Hfarmer (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to add that you say the INS case does not "state specifically" that it deals with transsexuals. It mentions "men with female sexual identities" in the actual opinion that I have found. That is the most fundamental definition of a transsexual. Listen to the laureate look at what the birds do not what they are called.--Hfarmer (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is yet another reason that just occured to me to discount your "the case does not deal with transsexuals" claim. The sftimes article cites that case as being about transsexuals. So even if you want to call what I wrote OR well it isn't. That reliable source has backed it up. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions of you and your family regarding usage of terminology are irrelevant here. The reason we have separate articles on quadroon or mulatto or high yellow is because it is Wikipedia practice to separate a phenomenon from various terms about that phenomenon; in this case, Black people, multiracial, etc. Your opinion about what constitutes "the most fundamental definition of a transsexual" does not matter, as it is original research. What matters is explaining the way the term homosexual transsexual is used in a neutral manner. If you wish to write a definition of transsexual article that mirrors the definition of planet article, I believe that can reside under transsexual or classification of transsexuals until it is complete enough to merit it own article. "Homosexual transsexual" is used in a very specific manner and has been criticized for very specific reasons, which is why this article should be about those specifics, with the larger issues, such as who is a transsexual, covered in the general articles. Jokestress (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not just my opinion. That a MTF transsexual is a biological male with a female sexual (or gender as used in common parlance) identity. Is the commonly accepted definition. Google gives these various definitions which all basically say what I just wrote. Read WP:NOR You are not correct according to that interpretive document. As for the term homosexual transsexual WP:NOR enforces my position that the little bit of anlysis that leads one to conclude that a source writing about "gay men with female sexual identies" (which in the context of the case I am refering to are an immutable full time state of being.) are therefore gay=homosexual, MTF transsexuals="men with female sexual identities". You can repeat that this is OR again and again but that will not make it true.
As for your saying that this term comes up in a narrow context. This will surprise you but I agree to that. What I disagree with is that context is just the context of the research of Blanchard and the book of Bailey. In my poit of view that context is the history of research and literature on the phenomena of biological males who live as females and are attracted to males across cultural and linguistic boundaries. That requiers the simple analysis that WP:NOR and WP:NOTOR is ok. Very little analsys really. Richard Green and many other authorities make the connection.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that's what you want this article to be about, as evidenced by your edits, but your description is not inclusive of how this term is used. You are the one who has made this article about Bailey and Blanchard, by adding that misleading infobox and replacing the original criticism section with an WP:UNDUE rehashing of the Bailey nonsense. "Biological males who live as females and are attracted to males" are best described as a subset of transgender, because they are not necessarily transsexual. That article has a whole section about the phenomenon as it has occurred in other times and cultures. This article needs to be restricted to what this term encompasses. We can say that some people have classified this or that group as an equivalent to "homosexual transsexual," but that is not a universally accepted fact. For example, Wikipedia shouldn't say "Demographic group X is a kind of homosexual transsexual," etc. Wikipedia should say "Dr. so-and-so says homosexual transsexuals are analogous to demographic group X[32], but Dr. So-and-so says that demographic group X actually comprises something else."[33] Jokestress (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To your arguement that the people that use the hernandez Montiel case are not transsexual please see the below. I would add that most of the definitions one looks up for transsexual these days do not make reference to op status or desire as being THE defining factor. The Houston Journal of International Law's article on this case makes it perfectly clear Hernandez-Montiel was not just a transvestite. Nor are the women profiled in the Border Crossers article. See below.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A more appropriate passage from Benjamin

"From all that has been said, it seems evident that the question "Is the transsexual homosexual?" must be answered "yes" and " no." "Yes," if his anatomy is considered; "no" if his psyche is given preference.

What would be the situation after corrective surgery has been performed and the sex anatomy now resembles that of a woman? Is the "new woman" still a homosexual man? "Yes," if pedantry and technicalities prevail. "No" if reason and common sense are applied and if the respective patient is treated as an individual and not as a rubber stamp."-Benjamin chapter two transsexual phenomena. (verbatim)

I think this should go in the controversy section in place of the quote we now have from Benjamin as this one makes a more plain connection to the topic. It has benjamin IMO commenting on the concept of the "homosexual transsexual" not just the word homosexual. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hernandez-Monitel case

Fun fact. This article is the top hit if you Google Giovanni Hernandez-Monitel transsexual this article is the top hit. So i guess google thinks this article is important. Perhaps all the links pointing here have something to do with that. :-?

In the process of that I found that the article "border crossers" has been part of a little controversy of it's own. In reading about this I have found yet another link for the decision. In it I see the text jokestress has refered to. "We need not consider in this case whether transsexuals constitute a particular social group."The UNHCR version of the citation does not have that text. Honest Mistake. But it does bear mentioning that transsexuals have used this precedent to successfully apply for assylum in the USA. I write "transsexuals" but it seems that the word transsexual as used in that court case is being used specifically to refer to having or wanting to have SRS. (This is why I wanted to have the quote in the context of it's paragraph.

" In addition to being a gay man with a female sexual identity, Geovanni's brief states that he "may be considered a transsexual." A transsexual is "a person who is genetically and physically a member of one sex but has a deep-seated psychological conviction that he or she belongs, or ought to belong, to the opposite sex, a conviction which may in some cases result in the individual's decision to undergo surgery in order to physically modify his or her sex organs to resemble those of the opposite sex." Deborah Tussey, Transvestism or Transsexualism of Spouse as Justifying Divorce, 82 A.L.R. 3d n. 2 (2000); see Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 320 (7th Cir. 1993) (Posner, J.) ("The disjunction between sexual identity and sexual organs is a source of acute psychological suffering that can, in some cases anyway, be cured or at least alleviated by sex reassignment - the complex of procedures loosely referred to as 'a sex-change operation.'"). We need not consider in this case whether transsexuals constitute a particular social group. " --Hernandez-Montiel v. INS 225 F3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000).rtf). (verbatim)

This illuminates what the court means by transsexual when it uses the word. "A transsexual is "a person who is genetically and physically a member of one sex but has a deep-seated psychological conviction that he or she belongs, or ought to belong, to the opposite sex, a conviction which may in some cases result in the individual's decision to undergo surgery in order to physically modify his or her sex organs to resemble those of the opposite sex." Read in full context the text says that the court meant for the case to apply to any MTF TS or TG who is attracted to males and is seeking assylum from Mexico. Without any regard for surgical status. --Hfarmer (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. The text appears in the UNHCR version on page 16 of the PDF (page 10483 of the ruling in section IV.C.4 as footnote 7). Moving on, I believe you may be starting to understand the import of the ruling, though. Asylum is based on "immutable" characteristics, and transsexual people, through their mutability (or "soft immutability" as some have argued about this case) confound this definition. That's why this judge's ruling declines to make a determination about the status of transsexual people. This case isn't about transsexual people. They pose the same problems for rigid legal definitions as they do for rigid "scientific" definitions such as the one being discussed here. In law and science, terminology and precise definitions matter. That is why the court did not determine that "a gay man with a female sexual identity" is a transsexual. Jokestress (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you not cite that page when I asked you to point to it in the text. Furthremore jokestress Hernandez-Montiel was and is a transsexual just like the people profiled in the sftimes article. That article is a RS and that RS makes the connection for me. Therefore your OR arguemetn is moot.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally directed you to footnote 7, which I assumed would be enough information for anyone to figure it out. I apologize for making that assumption. Jokestress (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related to both of my last two comments I have looked at the issue of Original Research and found widely accepted supplement to that policy which is pertinent here in so many ways. WP:NOTOR list off various forms of analysis which are not considered OR. One of which is "Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented." I am not alone on this. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related information under a common heading goes under transsexual sexuality or classification of transsexuals, etc. Jokestress (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is your and only your opinion. I think you are not used to another transwoman openly challenging you. You stamp your foot and raise your voice and expect others to snap too. I used to defend you to certain other people who said that. Based on your behavior as of late I see why some people say what they say.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see this is devolving into a USENET-type argument again. Your personal attack above has no place here. I am going to take some time to write a proposed article so disinterested editors can see what I believe this article should encompass per precedent and policy on Wikipedia. Please strike the comment above and consider writing your own proposed version for comparison. Then we can discuss content. Jokestress (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is from an actual lawyers analysis of this case as appeared in the Houston Journal of International law. Redefining gender: Hernandez-Montiel v. INS. by Cox, Jason Houston Journal of International Law • Fall, 2001 • asylum granted gay Mexican national with female sexual identity Cox has this to say
"(101) Hernandez-Montiel, 225 F.3d at 1094. By making this distinction, the court specifically overturned the BIA's earlier ruling. See id. The court takes pains to note "this case is about sexual identity, not fashion. Geovanni is not simply a transvestite `who dresses in clothing of the opposite sex for psychological reasons.... Geovanni manifests his sexual orientation by adopting gendered traits characteristically associated with women." Id. at 1096. "
That foot note refers to this point in the text On page 3 of same.
"(98) The court concluded the group Geovanni belonged to was comprised of "gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico," a far less inclusive subgroup of gay men and women. (99) This distinction seemed to square the instant case with the court's previous ruling in Sanchez-Trujillo because such a subgroup is readily cognizable (or "small" and "readily identifiable," in the court's words). (100) Possibly anticipating criticism regarding immutability standards enunciated in Acosta, the court distinguished the social group as those gay men with female sexual identities rather than "homosexual males who dress as females." (101) The court offers little help, however, to immigration officials charged with determining whether an asylum applicant is truly aligned with an opposite sexual identity. Presumably, asylum applicants could attire themselves in clothes of the opposite sex and make plausible claims of `group' membership. The court noted "[g]ay men with female sexual identities outwardly manifest their identities through characteristics traditionally associated with women, such as feminine dress, long hair and fingernails." (102) These characteristics hardly seem immutable. However, the court saw these attributes as part and parcel of a sexual identity that a person either could not or should not be required to change. (103) " (Emphasis mine).
Cox writes "Geovanni is not simply a transvestite `who dresses in clothing of the opposite sex for psychological reasons.... Geovanni manifests his sexual orientation by adopting gendered traits characteristically associated with women." Hernandez-Montiel according to this reliable source is not just a transvestite, not just a gay man. But a person, who has adopted gendered traits of the opposite sex, a person who dresses in the clothin of the opposite sex for psychological reasons, a person who in the very way they describe themselves relates this to their sexual proclivities. A reliable source concurs with my elementary WP:NOTOR analysis of the first two sources. I will incorpoorate this one in to the article. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had to strike out the above because I realized I was a bit confused. What is said at one point in the courts decision in this case totally alluded me. The court actually wrote at 10485 (bottom of page 17 of the UNHCR's PDF of the text)."This case is about sexual identity, not fashion. Geovanni is not simply a transvestite "who dresses in clothing of the opposite sex for psychological reasons." American Heritage Dictionary 1289 (2d Coll. Ed.) (1985). Rather, Geovanni manifests his sexual orientation by adopting gendered traits characteristically associated with women." To fully Flesh out what the court used as a definition of transvestite one would need that particular dictionary, or at least one that is contemporaneous. If I am not mistaken the court would most likely have been using the old standard whereby a transvestite is 4-0 on the Benjamin scale and non-homosexual <5 on the Kinsey scale. In other words in saying that Hernandez-Montiel was not a transvestite they were saying she met the then current, and dominant definition they would have found for a "true transsexual" (as so much literature called it.) They called her a "gay male who expresses his sexuality and sexual identity which is immutable through clothing" They called a transwoman that and granted that transwoman rights that others have followed on (as the sftimes has told us) This is much more significant. This court in this case has taken the concept of a homosexual transsexual and used it, applied it and came to a conclusion which affirmed rights for at least a segment of the transgender population. (I find puzzling the need to restrict that protection only to androphiles. As if non-androphiles don't get beat on.  :-?) That is the exact OPPOSITE of the effect that every critic of Blanchard and Bailey has said would be the result of the acceptance of Blanchard's theory. Even I belived that at best the theory could do no real harm. I would have never imagined that a judge could write about a transwoman "you are a gay man who dresses up as a woman as an expression of your sexual (gender?) identity. Therefore I find in your favor." :-?
My mind was so far off Blanchard's theory that I did not even see that connection.
Where are the monuments to Hernandez-Montiel? I want to shake her hand.--Hfarmer (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for your pointing me to the foot note this is what you wrote. It's up above look for it.
"In that case, they stated, "We need not consider in this case whether transsexuals constitute a particular social group," so its relevance on a page about the term homosexual transsexual is questionable. See Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000). Jokestress (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)" (verbatim)
You quoted it out of context and for a very long period of this discussion refused to point it out. Perhaps because you knew that when read in context this statement does not seem to mean what you think it does. Multiple multiple reliable sources can be found that agree with the interpretation that appears in the article right now.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am sorry that you were unable to find the quotation after I directed you to footnote 7. I will certainly provide very precise and detailed instructions for finding a footnote in a paper next time, to help you avoid these kinds of problems and to keep the discussion moving forward. I hope we can move on now. Jokestress (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool. It's partly my fault I was distracted by the bleeping current events here in ILL.
I have refereed these questions in as neutral a way as I can to the NOR notice board. I will abide by whatever they say. The people who hang there have a very strict idea of what is OR. (i.e. reading distances off a map. :-?) So I think their is a 8/10 chance they will say that using sources that do not have "homosexual transsexual" in them is OR. So a quote like the one by benjamin which IMO is pretty damming would be out along with many many other things. There are a minority however who don't see the concept of OR that way. We'll see. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

The Dispute resolution page suggest conducting a survey. So I am going to do just that. I don't intend for this to be a discussion. Just a informal way of getting to what the current moods of those who are interested are. I suggest leaving this open for seven to ten days before doing anything more. Ten days is in hopes that more people could have a chance to vote. If less than four people comment then I would not see this as a consensus.

There are two essential questions.

Scope:Is this article...

  1. Limited in scope to a term used by Blanchard and Bailey et al as part of a two type taxonomy of transsexuals
  2. Broader in scope to a phenomena that has been commonly defined in various sources as that of biological males, who are attracted to males, who have female gender/sexual identities. Then reports on the historical and legal aspects that are specific to this topic.

Sources:Should we use only sources...

  1. That specifically mention the term "homosexual transsexual" verbatim to the exclusion of all others.
  2. That refer to this term or phenomena via a definition that is compatible with "homosexual transsexual". (Or a term such as "autogynephilia" which is related subject matter,or they define some other term (perhaps not in english) for "biological males, who are attracted to males, who have female gender/sexual identities", Or they simply speak of the notion of sorting transsexuals by sexual orientation in general.)

I tried to make room for people to write something SHORT with their responses. Let me demonstrate and take my vote.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope: 2. I have said many times above why I think this.

Sources: 2. Looking at WP:NOTOR clarifies that making a connection like word1 <==> Definition1 and word2<==> Definition1 therefore word1 = word2 is not original research. Further voting the other way also excludes many text critical of Blanchard that do not have the exact text "homosexual transsexual" anywhere at all. (i.e. the criticisms of Leavitt, Berger, Benjamin, and many others are gone.)--Hfarmer (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken the sources question due to a discussion at WP:NOR/N by four to two the consensus there is that a source having the verbatim words "homosexual transsexual". Is not necessary for using a source. Nor is the word "transsexual" needed for using a cross cultural source. However we have to be careful about how close the language is. IMO if a source does not say something like ""word) means mtf transsexual(s) who are attracted to men" or "homosexual (gay) males who live as and dress as women as part of their sexual (gender) identity" and any number of permutations. Or for that matter using sources that only refer to Autogynephilia and never mention "homosexual transsexual" to enhance the criticism of Dr. Blanchard's theory well that's ok too then.
I'll wait untill at least 5 or 7 others vote on this survey, or until Barrack is sworn in. After that I think due dilligence for consesensus will have been done.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the former is likely. While waiting for the latter, WP:CONSENSUS may be good reading. Geometry guy 21:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? 5-7 people casting votes? Barrack being sworn in? Or my waiting that long before making a move? Which did you doubt? By the by could you please vote?  :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding notification of deletion discussion entry for Template:BBL sidebar

TfD nomination of Template:BBL sidebar

Template:BBL sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 03:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this to a position above the "collected references" section. It is the standard procedure on this and related pages to keep the refs at the bottom. Otherwise no change. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable science

I have started a section in the article in response to the discussion on the BBL sidebars templates for deletion entry.Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_17#Template:BBL_sidebar. It was claimed by User:Benjiboi and concured with by others that this article has fringe science issues. After looking deeper in to the wikipedia policy on "fringe science" there is actually a strict standard for applying that label. In particular the following Arbitraion comitte findings refered to on WP:FRINGE as being representative. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases#Neutral_point_of_view, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases#Neutral_point_of_view_as_applied_to_science, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases#Neutral_point_of_view_2, and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases#Questionable_science. That last point by the ArbCOM makes me think that all we should do with these articles is mention that Dr. Blanchard's theory is considered pseudoscience by some. Furthermore Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability_versus_acceptance and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Sufficiently_notable_for_dedicated_articles. Support the existance of separate articles for these topics. It also make a disticntion between noteability and acceptance. However, looking at the actual text of WP:FRINGE"" refer's us to Wikipedia:Rs#Consensus Which states "The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material."

As I wrote on the template deletion page.

"I can cite 7 sexologist and other researhcers who have specifically published on this topic or an allied topic who do not agree that this is strictly fringe science. Yolanda L.S. Smith a, Stephanie H.M. van Goozen, A.J. Kuiper, Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis. Add Blanchard, Bailey, lawrence, Zucker, and others and you do not have a fringe group. Two or three people on that list are working on the American Psychological Soceities "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" five (DSM-V) in regards to transsexualism and gender identity disorder.Page 17 They are hardly fringe kooky people, or "Lone gunmen" who conspiratorlize about who killed JFK and alien abduction. They have been asked to write part of a book described in many places as the bible of psychology."

FYI Smith Van Goozen Kuiper and Cohen Kittenis for any who dont know published a paper where they tried to prove or disprove the blanchardian idea and they found supportive evidence.Page 8 Peggy Cohen has even been involved in a study which produced a paper Changing your sex changes your brain: influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure Which cast doubt on the findings re the BNSTc of Zhou et al. This was published in the European Journal of Endocrinology. Which unlike archives of sexual behavior no one would seriously question the neutrality of in all dispassion.

It is safe to say this article is not fringe or pseudoscience like the face on mars or Time Cube. There are too many scientist who are placed in too many positions of power to deny that there is a certain level of acceptance of BBL theory.

However there is plenty of scientific criticism of the terminology "homosexual transsexual". I have writen about this in the article already under the section Homosexual_transsexual#Questionable_Scientific_Use_of_Terminology. The mention of the level of unacceptance of this concept has been mentioned in the article from the begining in the form of the controversy section (Right back to the very first crude edition of this article. Check the history if you don't belive me.)

There is one other concern with just writing about this as if it were a total crakcpot, fringe, kooky scientific theory. There has to be according to Wikipedia:Rs#Consensus a reliable source that makes that conclusion. For any one of us to do that would have to be and WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. To make this article, I don't know, look "fringier" (?) one would by WP policy need a RS which declares it to be fringe. Not just criticizes it. But out right says it is fringe and not accepted by any serious behavioral scientist not even a little bit. (Or of course a source that says something simmilar enough to that).

That is my R e a s o n i n g for writing what I wrote. If you do not like it please save the wild accusations that I broke in to Diedre McCloskey's house, or that I am Alice Dreger or a pimply boy pretending to be trans. Or any of that garbage. Be WP:Civil and reply with your own reasoning. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few here who insist that this topic is a mere fringe theory in a small and forgotten science on par whith Phrenology and such. However as I detaield above while the use of language in Dr. Blanchard's work, as well as works by other sexologist who characterized transsexual women who were attracted to men as "Homosexual male transsexuals" is considered scientifically questionable, even by those who have used it (i.e. Harry Benjamin, John Bancroft, and many others)... The fact is that Dr. Blanchard's theory does not meet the defintions of a fringe or crakpot piece of science. On page 17 of this doccument from the APA it shows that researchres who have published extensively on this topic, including Ray Blanchard were selected for the working group that would rewrite the APA's "Diagnotic and Statistical Mannual". This is an indication of the regard those people are held in by their peers. Were the actaul crackpots or fringe scientist this would not happen. However this also does not mean their ideas are widely accepted. That is why I setteld on the language I felt was supportable, "questionable science".
I have written out my reasoning for writing that section on the scientific question ability of this article and thus far no one has objected. However the NPOV dispute tag remains. I am unsure what else can be done to make this less POV in the eyes of those who say that it is. Specifically the user who put that tag there in the first place is invovled in real life drama over this subject. It reminds me of this passage from Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F "Probably the only grounds on which there could be an NPOV dispute over an article that actually conformed to the NPOV is when one or both of the parties to the dispute did not understand either the NPOV policy, or enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing favoring one POV had actually been said. For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough." Could this be an example if there are those who feel that I did not make the article sound like the science in it is fringe or crakcpot enough? In particular if those people are invovled in real life drama over this? Such is why I have requested comments. Depending on those comments I will make whatever changes are suggested by editors who are not James_cantor, ProudAGP, Jokestress, or DickLyon... they are all either known to be or suspected of being principal real life actors in this case all of whom have massive COI on this topic. see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. On this particular matter and in the RfC below I humbly and respectfully request that they refrain from commenting.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review and the cleanup tag

I am going to request a peer review of this page depending on the results I will either remove the tag or make changes. But before I make changes I want to get two, independent peer reviews which hopefully will agree. --Hfarmer (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment and the NPOV Dispute tag.

Thankyou but this RfC is closed. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here from the "Maths, science, tech.." notice board and having very little past background in this subject, I've looked through the article and the talk page. Clearly, this subject is one that requires POV sensitivity. What I noticed as possible issues are two things. First, the section on "Description by Western science" could do a better job of distinguishing between describing the views of various participants in the controversy, and stating those views as if they were facts. For example, the "Sexual activity" section discusses "psychopathology" as though it is a fact that certain behaviors are "pathological," when that is actually a POV of some of the theorists cited. The other problem that stands out to me is that the opening paragraph (above the contents box) is something of a long argument unto itself, and eventually it will need to be shortened, with the majority of its contents integrated into the main body of the article (although I guess that is more of an editing issue than a neutrality one). I realize that this talk page includes a lot of prior discussion, but it is hard for me, coming in new, to identify what specifically the POV template refers to. WP:NPOVT states that "the templates that can be used for NPOV concerns generally suppose that the suspected NPOV problem is explained on the article's or category's talk page." Therefore, it would help if the editor(s) who placed the template could succinctly list here the specific bias problems as they see them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. You made an interesting point about the way psychologist decide what is psychopathology Take a look at this definition. " abnormal, maladaptive behavior or mental activity." So I suppose one is pathological if their brain does not work the way the majority of people's do.  :-? Psychology is generally 51% speculation and supposition. I will definately make it clearer about which researcher is saying what. As for the length of the lead section. Well a long discussion above concluded that the lead had to be a summary of all that is in the article, more than a few people complained that the lead the way it was before left them mentally unprepared to confront the rest of the article. I suppose I could shorted it a bit, but not by much.  :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons this is NPOV:

  1. Phenomenon vs. term not resolved.
  2. Case law mentioned in the first sentence is not about transsexuals and says so specifically in the document.
  3. Lede too long and unbalanced toward proponents' view.
  4. Proponents' view explained in great detail.
  5. Criticism not explained in as much detail.
  6. Too much focus on Blanchard-related matters. Controversy has been going on since before he was publishing.

There are a few more, but those are the main ones for now. Jokestress (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Ok so Phenomenon Vs. Term is not resolved.
  2. The case law mentioned in the first sentence is used by transsexuals who seek asylum and more than one cited secondary source says this.
  3. The lede is too long. Be specific about the Balance of the lede.
  4. Again be specific. What the article does in great detail is review the research that has been done on this topic by various sexologist.
  5. the article has one whole section devoted to the sexologist who question the use of this kind of terminology by other sexologist. They are the appropriate ones to be quoting and they are quoted.
  6. Didn't you say before that this was "just a term used by Blancahrd in his crank theory" and such? So we should minimize Blanchard now?
Those are my immediate reactions here is what I am going to do about them.
1.) We can do a request for comment on that topic again. However the last time we did I had the distinct impression that the consensus was to write about this as a pehnomena.
2.)As far as the case law thing is concerned. Multiple secondary sources say that case is used by and deals with transsexual and transgender women. In particular This from sfweekly "Gay and lesbian immigrants have been eligible for asylum protection since 1990, when the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld a judge's decision deeming gay men in Cuba a "particular social group." That was later extended as a precedent to sexual orientation claims from any country by then–Attorney General Janet Reno. However, transgender people aren't yet explicitly acknowledged as a distinct social group — at least not in name. But in a landmark ruling in 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals paved the way for transgender claims by recognizing "gay men with female sexual identities" as a group eligible for protection. ... At the center of the case was Geovanni Hernandez-Montiel from Mexico, who started dressing like a girl at age 12. Hernandez-Montiel said he was sexually assaulted twice by the police when he was 14, and soon after was attacked with a knife by a posse of men who mocked his sexual orientation. His sister kicked him out of the house as a teen and he fled to the United States, filing for asylum and withholding of deportation in 1995.":That is the word of a secondary source. For a point of law a judges decision really is a primary source. At wikipedia the OR policy keeps us from interpreting primary soruces in general. Unelss a secondary source backs up that interpretation. The secondary source which I have just quoted backs up the interpretion of that case in this article. This is why I write what I write.
3.)I am shortening the lead. Though I am unsure just what I can do aside from doing a hatchet job on Blanchard and Bailey that woul satisfy Jokestress. As I said i think her real life Drama over this matter makes her an unerliable judge of POV. As the text on NPOV disputes explains an article can be totally neutral and get hit with the NPOV tag because an ideologue feels it does not reflect their POV enough. Which leads me to...
4.) and 5.) Proponents view is explained in great detail. Critics not enough... sigh. Again the only thing explained in great detail here are the research findings of sexologist who have used the term in their research. The views of sexologist who criticise the term are explained in great detail in a section totally devoted to that. Called scientifically questionable use of terminology. I suppose I can make this section a bit longer. Mabey a paragraph longer.
6.) Jokestress's postion in the term vs Phenomena debate an in other palces has been, if memory serves, that this was just a piece of perjorative terminology invented by Ray Blanchard and only used by peopel at the Clarke institute. So I am a bit confused by this last point. So I should cut out reference to Blancahrd's theory. You realize that Blanchard did not coin this term. (Unlike Autogynephilia which he did coin, there is less written about, and it's article reflects that.)
Last but not least could you please list what the other problems you have are. Please be specific so that I may either adress or debate them. I am sure this article is not perfect.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm coming at this from afar, but I think that this is progress. I suggest that you both continue to specify your concerns, and try to edit in ways to address those concerns, or ask for further clarification. I think that if both editors cooperate in this, it will be possible after several iterations to come to a good result. Good luck, everyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, is #6 supposed to say "Bailey" instead of "Blanchard"? I was rather under the impression that Blanchard invented this term, and if so it would be very hard for the term to exist before he published it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can completely understand how someone reading the current POV-pushed article might come to that conclusion. The term predates both Bailey and Blanchard, but did emerge from plethysmograph "science" conducted by Blanchard's mentor at the Clarke Institute. I believe the first published use of the term in English was in 1974 by Kurt Freund, when Blanchard was still experimenting on rats or prisoners or both. The 1974 citations were the first two footnotes in the consensus-based lede, though that may have changed with all of Hfarmer's unilateral POV insertions. Academics and researchers were commenting on the problems with applying the term "homosexual" to transgender people in the 1960s, though. Jokestress (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
jokestress the fact that Kurt Freund coined this term to describe what he saw has been in the article since at least April 2007 if not longer.
What am I doing you have misunderstood but not because of what Jokestress said. While reading around on the net most websites makee it sound like Bailey invented this word while drunk in a bar full of Latina trannsexuals.... It was actually coined by Magnus Hirschfeld in 1923 and published in German before being translated into english in the late 1940's. it's reference #15 in this iteration of the article and comes at the very top of the section entitled Description by western science. ( Hirschfeld M (1923). Die intersexuelle Konstitution. Jarhbuch fuer sexuelle Zwischenstufen. 1923: 3-27,) Blanchard Writes
"Hirschfeld basically distinguished four main types of “Transvestiten,” according to their erotic interest in men, women, both, or neither. (The last type lacks erotic interest in other people but not necessarily all sexual drive.) Hirschfeld labeled these types the same way that he labeled non-transsexual individuals, that is, according to their biological sex. Thus, in Hirschfeld’s terminology, a male-to-female transsexual who was erotically attracted to men would be labeled a homosexual transsexual. "
Which backs up the claim that Magnus Hirschfeld, someone totally unrelated to the Clarke institute in Canada, described this concept a long time ago. Though again he did not do it in English. The concept, which describes the phenomena has been around for a long time as I have always said, and shown secondary sources for. This is nothing more than Jokestress trying to push her POV which is that this is just a term invented and used only at the Clarke institue (CAMH). Which the source I have cited should prove to anyone of good faith is not true even if we only consider western science and ignore other intellectual traditions which reached a simmilar conclusion.
Now jokestress could you name the remainder of your specific concerns with the article so that I may fix them.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the list which was given in so far as I could...

  1. Still need to do an RfC on this point. On second thought Formal mediation would be more productive.
  2. I have shown a secondary source which says what the article says.(Being the piece in sfweekly.)
  3. I have shortened the lead greatly but not cut anything from the paragraph which is devoted to criticism.
  4. Unless summarizing the results of the reasearch of many many sexologist who have worked in countries as far afield as New Zeeland, and the netherlands is writing about a proponents position this was in my estimation never true.
  5. I have expanded the section of Criticism by making the second quote in it more prominent. The third quote, from Bancroft I think should remain as it is. WP is not a list of quotes. I'm sure.
  6. I have removed the emphasis on Blanchard.

Now jokestress I humbly request that you publish what are the balance of your concerns, in concise list form as before. So that I may address them. Doing this peice meal we could go on forever. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noting another secondary source on Hernandez-Montiel

I would like it to be noted that I am adding a citation from a immigration law organizeation around transgender asylum and such. It is a history of how the case law has evolved since Hernandez-Montiel. From reading it any reasonable person will see that the correct interpretation, indeed the one used in practice has been that "gay males whith female sexual identies" is synonymous with transsexual in these cases. In particular 5.5.1.2 Reyes-Reyes v. Ashcroft where the court used "gay males with female sexual identities to describe the particular social group Reyes-Reyes belonged to and wrote of her...


In Reyes-Reyes, the court again grappled with an applicant’s gender identity and its connection to sexual orientation. In a footnote, the court wrote:

It is not clear from the record whether Reyes’s female sexual appearance was fully manifest at this age [16]. We note, however, that Reyes’s sexual orientation, for which he was targeted, and his transsexual behavior, are intimately connected. As we have recognized, it is well-accepted among social scientists that ‘sexual identity is inherent to one’s very identity as a person …. Sexual identity goes beyond sexual conduct and manifests itself outwardly, often through dress and appearance.[55]

"

In relation to a case known as Morales Vs Gonzalez is noteable as the first time that the court used the word transsexual instead of "gay males with female sexual identities, to describe people who are clearly transsexuals (pre- or non- op at the least since they are said to be living full time as women.)

In 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued another decision concerning a transgender asylum-seeker. In Morales v. Gonzalez, the Ninth Circuit again remanded the case to determine whether the applicant met the standard for withholding of removal or CAT.[59]This is the only published decision in the asylum realm that uses the term “male-to-female transsexual” rather than the awkward “gay man with female sexual identity” employed in prior cases. Morales was a native of Mexico who began dressing as a woman and working at a bar at the age of 15.[60]She was arrested for working in a bar as a minor on two occasions, and on one of these occasions, was raped while in jail, with her cries for help going unanswered.[61]

This secondary source clearly backs up and affirms what is written in the article about the case. This was already backed up and affirmed by the sftimes article already cited IMHO. But others have raised questions. Lest someone feel wronged there are now two reliable sources which address this matter.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

various historical groups ... non-western.

My issue is that as the sentence stands now it implies that transsexualism has been historically non-western which does not match my reading of that attributed source which includes western people. With various a and b ... various would apply to both, but agreed that the grammar would be a bit sloppy as fixed. But as it stands now it is also problematic and implies something false. I.e. It should be some historic *and* some non-western. The source list: Greek, Roman, French, American Indians, Africans, Siberians, etc. PaleAqua (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the kind of wording you want is that makes it sound like the non-western groups are not also historic. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye needs to include all groups. Which is why I'm not completely satisfied with my own tweaks either. The point of the source is that it is not just contemporary western groups, but also historic groups (both western and non-western), and contemporary non-western. The wording needs to be such that it shows that. Quoting Richard Green conclusion, "Clearly, the phenomenon of assuming the role of a member of the opposite sex is neither new nor unique to our culture." The point that needs to be reflected from that source is that neither new nor unique to western culture bit. PaleAqua (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made another attempt. Please improve it if you can. Thanks. PaleAqua (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.  :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

I have added back the NPOV tag that was removed before outstanding content issues were resolved. I ask once again that involved editors all come to an agreement on this page before editing the article. Jokestress (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok So what are the rest of the outstanding issues? Have we not settled the whole phenomenon VS term thing or what? Please specify your concerns.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Looking back at your original list of problems that seems to be the only one left standing. If it's the validity of the legal issue mentioned here, well I don't know what to tell you. I have found secondary sources which make the conclusions that these people were transsexuals. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phenomenon vs. term issue has not been settled. They are two distinct matters requiring two distinct articles. This article conflates the two, thus asserting a non-NPOV legitimacy to the use of this term. This term has been notable for decades as a controversial term and thus merits an article. The term homosexuality has an article distinct from the general phenomenon. The term transsexuality has an article distinct from the general phenomenon. The term homosexual transsexual should have a term distinct from the general phenomenon. Jokestress (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a sec. You say that Homosexuality and transsexuality have articles for the terms separate from the phenomena? Where are these articles. Because the article on transsexuality goes into legal aspects, historical aspects, etc in great depth. Thus covering it as a phenomena. An article that was just about a term would just be a dictionary definition. Which is what WP is not. What it sounds like you want is a POV forking of this article into say "homosexual transsexual and "homosexual transsexual (term)" or some such. Well Here it is. You want to make an article about Homosexual transsexual(term). Create the article if you wish.--Hfarmer (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be a rational person, or do you always need to fly into a tizzy over every disagreement someone has with you? --Puellanivis (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Puellanivis' comment is grossly incivil.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above was not me. I did not fly into a tizzy. I simply felt that Jokestress think's she's talking to a fool. "The term homosexuality has an article distinct from the general phenomenon. The term transsexuality has an article distinct from the general phenomenon." That's blantantly false. Just where is the article that talks about transsexuality as a phenomena instead of a term or vice versa. The same for homosexuality. Jokestress really has only done the minimum she needs to to keep that Npov tag there a bit longer. Because her, and you, and so many out there so emotionally hate this term that even it having a good looking WP article seems to make it too legit for you, even if that good looking article is 1/2 negative criticism of the term. As for me, if people insist that I diagnose my self I will. Truth be told I really dont give a fuck. That is really truly why I don't look at this the way the rest of you TS's do! (WP:FUCK)--Hfarmer (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with there being an article about this term. It's relevant and historically important to the transsexual community... all of the community. I think specifically, that many people don't object to the idea and concept, because it's based on empirical facts. It's the term itself that is offensive, as it defines one's sex as relative to their gender at assignment. What happens when we successfully prove that humans are sexually dimorphic in the brain? (I say "when" not "if", because the idea is flatly accepted in rats.) In such a result, we're saying that the "body's" sex is more important than the brain's sex. Even more specifically, those individuals who are most likely to be covered by the term HSTS are most likely to be accepted simply as female, and more likely to be able to live in "stealth". The idea that those transsexuals that are most likely to be accepted without question as female..... are explicitly labeled men by this label. Plain and simply, I don't care that you self-diagnose with this term, that simply shows your personal investment in the term itself, rather than the phenomena. I match the phenomena almost perfectly... to such a point that I actually was counseled by Anne Lawrence for awhile, until she felt no reason at all for me to keep being counseled, because she would diagnose me as an HSTS, and she's really quite inadequately prepared to treat an HSTS for therapy. So, even though I have been diagnosed as an HSTS by one of the BBL epinomes, I still reject the term, because it states that my brain is less significant than my body for determining my gender. I seriously try and avoid editing any articles anymore because both sides get so irrationally emotional. You flew off the handle by saying that Jokestress "obviously wants to POV fork" which is expressly discouraged by policy, and not what Jokestress wants to do, and thus is a strawman attack, which is a fallacy, and thus by definition, irrational. Please recognize that the other side is not the only side getting emotional. You are prone to getting so emotional that you throw around fallacies like they're worth 100 points each. That's why I stopped arguing about these terms and such... no one can really handle this matter rationally, we all have far too much invested in the issues... myself included. --Puellanivis (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down and avoid profanity. Wikipedia separates any number of articles into the phenomenon or concept and various terms, especially in the case of controversial terms. We have homosexual and gay and lesbian for a reason. You wish to conflate a sexual typology and an identity because you believe it is your identity. That also makes it very difficult to discuss these matters on Wikipedia without your taking the discussion to be some sort of personal attack. That's why I consider you to have a conflict of interest in editing this article and have repeatedly asked you not to edit the article itself. Until this conflation is resolved, this article needs to be tagged NPOV in my opinion. We are not doing readers a favor by presenting this in an uncritical manner that legitimizes your worldview and self-identity, as well as this controversial term. Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides like that. Jokestress (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is being conflated in there. Each and every source in this article uses the term homosexual transsexual or some contortion of it. from "gay man with female sexual identity", to non western words which describe that particular group as male living female who sleeps with males. As for profanity. See the place I linked to about the word WP:FUCK. It was not used towards a person. Or even a persons idea. Specifically my not giving a fuck what pyschological theory. Hence I can be neutral and you can't.
Let me turn your line of reasoning back around on you. You have made it a large part of your life's work to trash this term, deride the idea of this as a phenomnea, and to personally attack anyone who would ever disagree with you.
The examples homosexual gay and lesbian are not separate articles for terms and phenomena.being gay is a term, and a phenomena, being lesbian is a term and a phenomena, being lesbian is a term and a phenomena.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for me having a COI don't make me laugh. I have no vested interest outside of making sure wikipedia's article is balance and fair. Just to get this ball rolling. OK I WILL MAKE THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE TERM RIGHT NOW. IT WILL BE BALANCED AND IT WILL NOT GO ON FOR HALF OF IT"S LENGHT TALKING ABOUT HOW TRANSWOMEN DON"T LIKE IT!!!!--Hfarmer (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There now all of it's historical and legal context. is gone. It is not any longer about a phenomnea at all. It aslo is not and never really was about something Ray Blanchard just made up or any of that other stuff. As a term it was used for a very long time before blanchard, as we both discovered or at least, had made more clear by researching this.

All of this crap about my identity and such and such is totally irrlevant. All I have ever fucking wanted was some place on the web with really unbiased good information that everyone uncontroversially agreed upon. Since having the phehomena words in there prevented that and you would not budge. I did. I am the bigger and better person for it. You got what you wanted by being bull headed. Yes bull headed I may get banned for 48 or even for two weeks for saying it and it would be worth it because it is true. You got me to acquiess to you because you were bull headed not because of your reason or argumentative ability, but because life is too short to spend my time aruging over this stuff with some hollywood pseudo intellectual such as yourself.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what looking at the articles you mention homosexual transsexual etc. They go into specifically related legal and historical aspects as well. So I am reversing my last edit. Including replacing you npov tag. No recognition that what we have here is at least a good if not A class article on this topic is not needed. It's more important for the encylopedia to have a good article even if you don't like what it says for it's not being negative enough to your taste. You want to call me names for this. Attack me off wiki, or whatever fine. I'm back on wiki break. --Hfarmer (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is any person who wants to split this into two articles prepared to divulge their preferred names for the two articles? Homosexual transsexual for the term itself, of course, and the other one is what? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As divulged many times previously [2][3][4][5][6][7], Transsexual sexuality and Classification of transsexuals can and already do discuss these phenomena. I have also proposed an umbrella article Conceptualizations of transgenderism (currently sandboxed) to cover all the extraneous stuff in the current article here. Jokestress (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So your "split" involves something that might be uncharitably interpreted as "lose this information in a large article about transwomen and transmen in general, instead of in an article entirely dedicated to the phenomena of transwomen that are attracted to men"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We don't need articles on every permutation of transsexual sexuality, unless you want to write the following:
If you think we need to split all those out, perhaps we should write the transsexual sexuality article and then split out all the permutations per WP:SUMMARY as the main article gets completed. Personally, I don't think that will be necessary for quite some time. Homosexual transsexual is a notable term for its decades of controversial use to describe four groups of people:
That controversy and its application to those four groups certainly merit an article. "Homosexual transsexual" does not simply mean "transwomen attracted to men," hence the problem here. The phenomenon of Transsexual sexuality certainly merits an article. We need to split the phenomenon from the term in order to address these matters in a NPOV manner per policy. Let me know if you still don't understand and have questions. I thought I had made this clear several times before, but I am happy to continue explaining until it's clear. Jokestress (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
user:Jokestress said "I thought I had made this clear several times before, but I am happy to continue explaining until it's clear."
WP:Tendentious editing says that a characteristic of problem editors is: "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people."
That essay advises "If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both."
On that basis, I believe that Jokestress is editing tendentiously and that this WP page would be best served if the advice of that essay were followed instead.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we can find reliable sources that deal with every single one of those subjects. We have sufficient reliable sources to create Transwomen attracted to men, and we have editors interested in presenting this information separately from other transpeople on Wikipedia. Will you object if the information is moved to that article? Or would the creation of such an article simply result in a merge proposal and/or demands that editors (other than yourself) create all the other articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are multiple RS's reporting that Jokestress' above list is incorrect. Although Jokestress and other political activists disagree with the idea (as is their right), the RS's nonetheless indicate that the items in that list boil down to only three types: FtM, androphilic MtF (aka homosexual MtF), and gynephilic MtF (aka autogynephilic MtF). Although Jokestress personally disagrees with Blanchard in this conclusion, it doesn't change the content of the RS's.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it took me four seconds to find a reliable source on one of the many "types" of transmen (Suck my Manhole in the San Francisco Bay Guardian this month). Anyone who has kept up on trends in sexuality since the 1980s knows there are reliable sources on all of these various trans identities and behaviors, including the wide range among trans men. I also recommend the film Still Black by Kortney Ryan Ziegler for those who know that reliable sources exist outside the world of one Toronto mental institution. Still, I am not sure all these identities merit individual articles. We can do Transwomen attracted to men as a separate one for that phenomenon, with a link from Transsexual sexuality. There are also lots of reliable sources on why some "experts" are so fixated on that subset of trans people. We can also include reliable sources discussing how happy trans men are that they are largely ignored by the taxonomic zeal of "experts." Jokestress (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collected references

  1. ^ Freund K, Nagler E, Langevin R, Zajac A, Steiner B (1974). Measuring feminine gender identity in homosexual males. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 3, Number 3 / May, 1974, pp. 249-260.
  2. ^ Person ES, Ovesey L (1974). The Psychodynamics of Male Transsexualism. In Friedman RC, Richart RM, and Vande Wiele LR (eds.) Sex Differences in Behavior, pp. 315-331. John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 9780471280538
  3. ^ Chivers, ML, Bailey JM (2000). Sexual orientation of female-to-male transsexuals: A comparison of homosexual and non-homosexual types. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 29, Number 3, pp. 259-278.
  4. ^ Livia A, Hall K (1997). Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender, and Sexuality. Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195104714
  5. ^ Wahng SJ (2004). Double Cross: Transamasculinity Asian American Gendering in Trappings of Transhood. in Aldama AJ (ed.) Violence and the Body: Race, Gender, and the State. Indiana University Press, ISBN 978025334171X
  6. ^ Diamond M, Karlen A (1980). Sexual Decisions. Little, Brown, ISBN 9780316183888
  7. ^ Diamond, M. (2002a). Sex and gender are different: Sexual identity and gender identity are different. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 320-334.
  8. ^ Diamond M (2006). Biased-Interaction theory of psychosexual development: "how does one know if one is male or female?" Sex Roles: A Journal of Research
  9. ^ Mass L (1990). ‘’Dialogues of the Sexual Revolution.’’ Haworth Press, ISBN 9781560240464 p. 122
  10. ^ Langevin R (1983). Sexual Strands: Understanding and treating sexual anomalies in men. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, ISBN 9780898592054 pp. 181-183
  11. ^ a b c Freund K, Langevin R, Zajac Y, Steiner B, Zajac A (1974). The transsexual syndrome in homosexual males. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 158:145-153.
  12. ^ Meyer JK. Clinical variants among applicants for sex reassignment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 3(6), 527-558.
  13. ^ Wise T, Meyer J. The border area between transvestism and gender dysphoria: transvestite applicants for sex reassignment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 9(4), 327-342.
  14. ^ Barr RF (1973). Responses to erotic stimuli of transsexual and homosexual males. British Journal of Psychiatry, 123, 579-585.
  15. ^ Barr RF, Raphael B, Hennessey N. Apparent heterosexuality in two male patients requesting change-of-sex operation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 3(4), 325-330.
  16. ^ Buhrich N, McConaghy N (1977). The clinical syndrome of femmiphilic transvestism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 6(5), 397-412.
  17. ^ Buhrich N, McConaghy N (1977). The discrete syndromes of transvestism and transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 6(6), 483-495.
  18. ^ a b Johnson SL, Hunt DD (1990). The relationship of male transsexual typology to psychosocial adjustment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 19, Number 4 / August, 1990 349-360.
  19. ^ Wolfradt U, Neumann K(2001). Depersonalization, Self-Esteem and Body Image in Male-to-Female Transsexuals Compared to Male and Female Controls. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 30, Number 3 / June, 2001 301-310.
  20. ^ Hartmann U, Becker H, Rueffer-Hesse C (1997). Self and gender: Narcissistic pathology and personality factors in gender dysphoric patients. Preliminary results of a prospective study. International Journal of Transgenderism
  21. ^ Slabbekoorn D, van Goozen SHM, Sanders G, Gooren LJG, Cohen-Kettenis PT (2000). The dermatoglyphic characteristics of transsexuals: is there evidence for an organizing effect of sex hormones. Psychoneuroendocrinology, Volume 25, Issue 4, May 2000, Pages 365-375
  22. ^ text of judges decision in Geovanni Hernandez-Montiel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service via UNHCR's ref world
  23. ^ Border Crossers,November 25, 2008 at 2:57pm
  24. ^ a b Rowson, Everett K. (October 1991). "The Effeminates of Early Medina" (PDF). Journal of the American Oriental Society. 111 (4). American Oriental Society: 671–693.
  25. ^ Al Muqni, Matan. al Sharh al Kabeer. pp. volume 7 347 - 348.in Arabic
  26. ^ See, for example, In Their Own Words: The Formulation of Sexual and Reproductive Health Behaviour Among Young Men in Bangladesh, Shivananda Khan, Sharful Islam Khan and Paula E. Hollerbach, for the Catalyst Consortium.
  27. ^ Hirschfeld M (1923). Die intersexuelle Konstitution. Jarhbuch fuer sexuelle Zwischenstufen. 1923: 3-27, German
  28. ^ Blanchard, Ray (December 1985). "Social desirability response set and systematic distortion in the self-report of adult male gender patients". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 14 (6). Netherlands: Springer. 1573-2800. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  29. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference green was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  30. ^ Freund K, Steiner BW, Chan S (1982). Two types of cross-gender identity, Archives of Sexual Behavior Volume 11, Number 1, pp. 49-63.
  31. ^ Blanchard R (1985). Typology of male-to-female transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 247-261
  32. ^ Citation 1
  33. ^ Citation 2