Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology

Blanchard comments on the now-deleted autogynephilia article

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

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

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

Should be listed under Pseudoscience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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