Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism etiology/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

My weak defense of this theory

I am one who would be described by this simplistic theory as a "Homosexual Transsexual" a label I reject because it fundamentally rejects my gender self identification. I also reject the whole prehomosexual agenda it espouses. Nothing in my opinion is more transphobic than the idea that transsexuals are all just really deranged gay people.

However, I will say some things in favor of this theory and the book "The Man Who Would Be Queen". For one thing it is correct that there are two broad categories that transsexuals can be and people in those categories do not get along with the other. I noticed that issue myself years ago, in a support group I attended. Consider the following: Up untill five years ago transsexual / transgender people attended the same support groups. Those groups were dominated by people who tended to be older, established in their careers, passing would be a tough challenge for them. Every once in a while a younger transsexual would come in and get shouted at if she metioned some of her problems. Issues such as passing without effort and the beatings, abuse, and difficulties that can cause. Problems getting through school without getting in trouble with the administrators, avoiding the traps they set for you.... Raiseing simmilar issues got me shouted at for "falunting my passing privialge." Consequently transgender/transsexual youths attend their own groups which may even be held in alternaitve locations. Thus transsexuals of one type need never come in contact with the other. If there were no differences why would caregivers take such a step?

Furthermore B.B.&L were not the first to notice such a two tiered categorization. A muslim scholar who studied these issues from a different perspective and a very long time ago noticed such a division (seeMukhannathun). Note that in the link the difference is not age or look but behavior. One type seems to inately, effortlessley, present as a female. The other has to "put on" femininity. Moral ideas aside this seems accurate.

Such is also true in Bailey's book. For example there is a little test for telling which category a transsexual falls into The Man Who Would be Queen "Autogynephilic and Homosexual Transsexuals: How To Tell Them Apart". People focus on the age and sexual orientational aspets of this. In fact those are just two factors considered. One can have a couple of features of both types of transsexual wihout contradiction to this theory.

The fact that two very different people researching the same thing and under different circumstances can logically reach the same conclusion is the best type of verification a scientific theory can have when ethical experiments are either unavilable or impractical. In many sciences this is the level of proof we are forced to settle for. While far from perfect it is the best we can do.

However the generalizations he makes are beyond all reason or scientific support. Saying that all Autogynophiles must mastrubate to the idea of being female. Saying that all Homosexual Transsexuals must be whores or petty thieves is beyond scientific supportability. Basically describing all transsexuals in perjorative terms while makeing homosexual males look relativly steady and sane is not supportable. Leaving those out of this article and leaving in only the supportable science will make this article shorter and better. 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC) edited by 15:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What you described has been well known within the transsexual universe for about as long as their has been one and goes back to one of the oldest transsexual jokes I know: What's the difference between a transsexual and a transvestite? A transsexual can't wait to get home and take off her bra, a transvestite can't wait to get home and put on his. I think, however, that the majority of the controversy isn't over the observation that transsexual women come in two general categories: naturally feminine and artificially feminine. Rather, the controversy seems to be over who falls into which category and why. One of the best refutations of the theory is the theory itself. If overly feminine males transition for socially and sexually advantageous reasons, why is that limited to homosexual males? Every study I've read of male femininity has found feminine males who are gynephilic (attracted to females). And if the criteria is being socially and sexually advantageous, why is that limited to a specific age range? The claim that masculinization is permanently irreversible beyond puberty is disproven by adult males with feminine facial structures, slender builds, and a wide range of other features that fall between male and female norms. The theory contains no support for the theories own conclusions, namely that the things required to transition advantageously are the exclusive providence of a specific sexual orientation within a specific age range. -- 04:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know. I have seen the division myself. the Muslim scholar who I refered to who lived about 1000 years ago saw it. The two broad categories thing seems loosely valid. BB&L using sexuality as the only adjustable parameter is an over simplification done for public consumption. Concepts people already understand to explain new things is a tried and true method of imparting knowledge.

As for the age range issue. This is a matter of training. Young women are expect to just know certain ruels of ettiqute and comportment that they are taught from the say they are born. A younger transsexual apart from having a body that will respond much more to hormones and heal much better after surgial procedures has this advantage. They have the advantage of being able to catch up to only 11-25 or 30 years of lost female learning. Some of those more feminine looking males you may have noticed could look the way they do because they are intersexed (XXY) or they attempted transiton earlier and backed off for whatever reason. Who knows. On average assuming a medically healthy male he will masculinize and being to grow facial hair rapidly at the age of about 15 or 16. He will be big tall and broad by about 18-25. It is trivially plain to see that if you are not tall broad and bearded you will make a more passable woman. Who can hide if she needs to. it's rotten but that's the way things are.

Have you ever read a book called "A Brief History of Time" By Stephen W. Hawking (This matters to my point)? In it Dr. Hawking bemoans the fact that his publisher told him only to use or he would confuse people. "The Man who would be Queen" read like that to me. Physics is much more complex than one equation. GID is much more complex than age and sexual oreitation. I am certain that Bailey knows that as well as we do. But to write a book full of all the complexities and expect normal, casual readers to get it would be unrealistic.

Like I said My defense of the theory of Autogynephillia is only weak. I dont agree with TVf being called a paraphillia along with beastiality and all that. I don't agree with how it denies the true femaleness of us all. I don't agree with any of the suppositions and assumptions made. However there is no denying the basic observations. Untill a more comprehensive and current theory is advanced this is waht we have to settle for. Psychologist and others will categorize by this theory. :-( --Smartgirl62 14:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The biggest foible that I find in his categorizeation of "homosexual transsexuals" is who he chooses to use as a publicly know example. Caroline Cossey who is known now to in fact have been intersexed by XXXY chromosomes. I guess a psychologist can write that one off because most peopel with that disorder have no way of knowing that they do. But it is funny that he would choose some one who technically would not stricly fit into the transsexual box as an example in a theory on transsexuality. --Smartgirl62


It occurst to me that this article should be deleted and all pointers redirected to the article on Transvestic fetishism. These seem to me to be two words for the same idea with no real differences. One who is diagnosed as a "autogynephillie" would in fact be diagnosed with "transvestetic fetishism". Such a diagnosis exist int the DSM IV and autogynephillia does not. So it can be said that this word is not worthy of an article of it's own. What do the rest of you think of this idea. Without objection I will execute this plan in 24 hours. As a matter of fact I will initate a vote for deletion. 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Let it be known that Smartgirl62 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) and --Smartgirl62 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) are the same person.

I really don't think you understand what this article is about. As a self-identified "homosexual transsexual" you ought to realize that this article about the BBL theory is hardly even remotely the same as Transvestitic fetishism.
You also copied too much from the page which explains how articles are put up for deletion. Maybe you could remove that? -- John Smythe 19:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As to the fact that transvestetic fetishism is the same as Autogynephillia I present the following evidence. The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism (2003), page 169, third paragraph. Where one of the psychologist who originated this theory makes the connection betwwen these two things. (Which I do not agee with 100% but that's neither here nor there.). As for how much I copied from the wikipedia manual. The only thing I copied was the tag to be used for a page that is being listed for deletion for the first time. I guess the tag you want is the one for a page that has been listed for deletion before. It seems to me that this page has not been listed before. So the tag I used is appropriate.--Smartgirl62 10:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I know I am repeating myself, but you might take notice of the fact that this article here is about the whole BBL theory, while TVF is about - well, TVF. Only TVF. With no references to this particular nutcase and unscientific theory. The TVF belongs to the field of current diagnosises, together with Gender Identity Disorder and so on. This article belongs to a seperate set. The difference being that TVF is not about transsexual and trangender people (well, in theory), while BBL claim that it is; hence BBL is different from the currently accepted set, hence it belongs into its own article.
You may identify as one half of the BBL theory, but that hardly excuses your attempts to file the other half with people who according to current standards are not transsexual or even transgender. I might add that the link you give goes to a work that is not by the person who originated this theory, that dubious honour belongs to Blanchard, not Baily. Not to mention that I would be somewhat carefull to cite out of a work whose author lost his job because it was so bad.
The deletion tag is correct (well, technically), but you seem to have copied more than the tag. The bit
To list an article for deletion after adding {{subst:afd}} at the top, you have to do the following:
and following does not usually belong onto the template. Of course, that might have been a template problem instead, but it looks odd. -- John Smythe 13:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not trying to file anybody as anything. I mention the way I am categorized as a way of stating where I stand in relation to this theory. There seems to be an assumption that people who would meet the defnition of a "homosexual transsexual" would be in favor of this theory. Because in his book Bailey says we're pretty? He also calls us boy crazy, low IQ, thieving, whore's who whore for kicks. Would you like being called that? At least the autogynephille has a nice family and a nice legit career in his book. A much moe normal and well adjusted person compared to the homosexual transsexual in many ways.

Oh and if we say we have never done any of that we are also liars no doubt.

If anything my proposal would diminish the prominence of this theory in wikipedia terms. From a subject mertorious of it's own article to a mere hyperlink redirect. In any case I think this article needs revision. As it stands it is not more than an arguement on why this theory sucks. Like an article on any other scientific theory the article itself should be a dry presentation of facts. Any debate should be directed to the talk page. For the sake of having a good wikipedia article we have to do something about this. --Smartgirl62 14:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone does not get me I am actually not in favor of this theory. I am just infavor of the best possible article about it. Which people will see when they google this topic. --Smartgirl62 14:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleting this article, which is what you effectively propose, is not exactly a good way to make this "the best possible article". Also, regarding your "argument" that the article mainly refutes the theory, well, we already had that a while ago. Read the archives to see why it is not an argument for deletion or even revison. -- John Smythe 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

you need to have read my plan. The first step is delete this article. The second step is redirect autogynephillia to Transvestic Fetishism. The third step is edit the article on transvestic fetishism to included the autogynephillia aspect of that diagnosis. I believe that will make both the article on autogynephillia and transvestic fetishism better articels.

From what little I know of the subject it seems that transvestic fetishism is the DSM word for autogyephillia. Get a copy of the DSM IV and you will see transvestic fetishism listed as a paraphillia related to GID. Such is how BBL would describe Autogynephillia (AGP). As I have admitted on the VFD page it seems nobody who cares wants to delete this page.

I still feel it is in need of a heavy revision perhaps even a total rewrite. As I have no job right now I would have the time for that. The article needs to sound like less of an argumeent and read more like... an article. --Smartgirl62 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your plan is clear, but I doubt you can get through with it. And as you so correctly say: "From what little I know ..." -- TVF and autogynophilia are not the same thing, and the DSM TVF is distinctively different from the concept of autogynophilia. I already mentioned it, but the difference is that the former is explicitly not a case of transsexualism, while the latter explicitly is. (Not to mention that one is part of the currently accepted model of gender-variant behaviour, while the other is an outsider theory.)
See for example [1]:
"This (TVF) occurs in heterosexual males and is not part of Gender Identity Disorder."
"Differential Diagnosis
Some disorders have similar or even the same symptoms. The clinician, therefore, in his/her diagnostic attempt has to differentiate against the following disorders which need to be ruled out to establish a precise diagnosis.
  • Gender Identity Disorder Not Otherwise Specified - Those who wish to belong to the other sex and to be rid of their own genitals.
  • Transsexualism."
The DSM also classifies TVF as a paraphilia which is obviously different from GID. It lists TVF as a "Differential diagnosis" and both diagnosis can be applied to a person:
"Males with presentation that meets full criteria for Gender Identity Disorder as well as Tranvestic Fetishism should be given both diagnoses. If gender dysphoria is present in an individual with Transvetic Fetishism but full criteria for Gender Identity Disorder are not met, the specifier With Gender Dysphoria can be used." [2]
Hence autogynophilia, which is a hypothesis describing transsexual women, is obviously distinctively different from the DSM diagnosis of TVF.
So it seems to me that there is no factual basis of your "plan", hence you should not exactly count on being able to pull it through. -- John Smythe 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I just feel that any transwoman who sees TVF on her differential diagnosis must realize that their psych has labled them an autogynephille. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14 June 2006

Errr ... how is that? A differential diagnosis means that is something you don't have. And if you don't have TVF, how can you be autogynophiliac? (Providing the latter would be a real diagnosis in the first place, of course.) -- John Smythe 12:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No I believe a differential diagnosis is a list of things you could have but the psychologist just haven't narrowed the list down to one. To provide a list of things you dont have they would have to list every mental illness in the DSM. How does that make sese? It wouldn't make sense to make a list of things you do not have. Just a heads up to anyone transwoman out there who sees this on a psych letter. If you see "transvestetic fetishism" designation on your letter the psych thinks you are an autogynephille. You could seek another psych. Or you could just say to heck with what they think and take the letter. I vote for the second option.

Oh and Mr. Smythe this article is only about "The model is an attempt to explain transwomen (male-to-female transsexual and transgender persons) who are not exclusively attracted to males, including lesbian (or "gynephilic"), bisexual and asexual transwomen. " as quoted from the article. The whole BBL theory goes on at length about the psychology of the so called "homosexual transsexual". Yet nowhere is there an article about said people. I am considering unilaterally creating one. The argument above against creating such an article doesnot hold water. The concept refered to by the term "homosexual transsexual" is not really covered anywhere. At least not in perpective of the BBL theory. --Smartgirl62 13:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merge

Someone has just created homosexual transsexual. I've suggested that it be merged (or redirected) here. -- Karada 15:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well merging these two articles would be difficult. I would have to somehow integrate the two concept together define both. Then compare and contrast them. Really autogynephillia does not make sense unless the "homosexual transsexual" is known. It could be done but would it be fair to the either idea? I don't think so. --Smartgirl62 16:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The article Homosexual transsexual is the crappiest I have seen for a long time, and it does not even come close to being neutral. (Which is especially funny because it was written by somebody who claimed this one was too critical of the theory.) Anyway, one might try to salvage the few bits from the other one and put them in here, I think. One might consider, though, whether this article should not be renamed. "Autogynephilia" is certainly the term that comes to mind first when thinking of the BBL theory, but it does just name one half of the theory. -- John Smythe 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you want me to do. Heap personal insults on Bailey? What good what it do? and please please please put comments on the article you are talking about in the talk page of the article you are talking about. That's basic wikipedia procedure. --Smartgirl62 18:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The article sure does a bad job of it, the many typos in themselves are bad enough, but as it has been stated the "homosexual transsexual" is a distinct part of this theory and cannot really be included with "autogynephiliacs" without risking a serious mixup of the terms. Not that it really matters, because the theory IS utter crap anyway... But still, either there needs to be a completely new article on the theory as a whole or a merger does not make much sense. Preferably under the category of junk science. --TheOtherStephan 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
There's always Category:Pseudoscience, Category:Quackery and Category:Obsolete scientific theories :-D - Alison 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The beauty of Wikipedia is if one does not like an article they can change the article. Please impliment your changes or stuff it. Stepahn

As for the post merger article I propose Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory as the replacement. The articles autogynephilla and "homosexual transsexual" will redirect here.

If only so many lazy news reporters did not get info from this source I would not care. sigh.--Smartgirl62 00:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Executing the Merger

Since I have no life this weekend I can go ahead an execute this. What I plan on doing is creating an article on the "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory" of Gender Identity Disorder. This article and the article on "homosexual transsexuality" will redirect there. The order of the names in the title follows the scientific convention of priority I believe that Blanchard came up with it, Bailey is the junior researcher who expanded on it, and lawrence supports it. I will use both this article and the one I wrote on Homosexual transsexuals as starting points. I will give equal time to both. This theory is known to those effected in terms of both of those designations. I will try to cover both the perspectives of those who accept the theory and those who reject the theory from all sides equally.

I will not let the proposition stand that the notion of the "homosexual" transsexual only makese sense in Juxtaposition to the notion of the autogynephillic transsexual. I will not contribute to the subbornation of the issues of the younger transsexual to those of the older. I have my reasons for feeling so strongly about this. See my talk page for that reason. It's a good one.

Anyone who want's to help please feel free. --Smartgirl62 08:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If any one is interested I have written up a few paragrahps on my talk page about why I have the POV I have on this. It's not because I am evil or whatever. Just personal experiences. Reading it may help us understand eachother and wor together better. I really try not to put that POV into my writing but I am only human. --Smartgirl62 13:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)