Talk:Homosexual transsexual (term)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

POVish external links

If we're listing Lynn Conway's personal website ("Investigation into the publication of J. Michael Bailey's book...") in the external links of this article, then why is Dreger's peer-reviewed Arch Sex Behav article on exactly the same subject absent? Why is the long article from The New York Times absent?

I'd be in favor of removing the Conway website, since it's more about Bailey's book than about the subject of this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For one thing we already have two external links that point to sites sympathetic to Ray Blanchard. I would say that we could be more generous with the external links though. If you wish to add more links that are sympathetic to BBL then I am obliged to add links that display the other side of the argument. such as tsroadmap, and even genderpsychology. When it comes to the external links we do not have to be concerned about reliability or neutrality they are just supplemental information. I would say that a page about the book is not the best place on Conway's site to link to. I would link to the page written by JSM. What that page has to say is more germaine to the topic of the article. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A page about JSM is likely to be much more pointful. The Conway page without the other side(s) of the "investigation" is unbalanced, but the biggest problem is that it's essentially off-topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I have always thought that. I also think, how to say this, the article is a bit technical. "Maria's story" serves the dual purpose of giving a bit more voice to the anit-Bailey side as well as putting a picture to these words. Where such a person plainly tells us why she does not think that this label applies to her. As one of the GA reviewers opined and I agree with the prose in this article is kind of dense. Since a picture is not going to happen adding that external link could make this more understandable to the uninitiated.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The page doesn't actually mention HT; it should be repointed to an obviously relevant page or removed. Also, were you aware that WP:EL deprecates having more than one link to any website? Perhaps the better of the to pages should be chosen. (The "origins" page might be the more EL-ish one.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On a related note. Jokestress says that including this link here and mentioning the two facts. In the book Bailey called her a homosexual transsexual, and that she disagree's is defamatory. Those facts are now history and via this site that page will get more views. She writes that by way of that page she debunks what Bailey said about her. So what is the harm. Do you want the only voices in those links to belong to Blanchard? --Hfarmer (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Which link is "this link"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The one pointing to "Maria's Story"--Hfarmer (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Word choice

Subconscious? Is that really an accurate word choice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Subconcious is the right word. Substituting the term "Subconscious sex" comes to me from Julia Serano. That makes a bit more sense to me than the notion of gender identity. Since gender is a specifically cultural thing, where some cultures have many more than two genders. While a person's sense of what sex they should be sounds more like something that would be invariant to culture. Because, leaving aside the intersexed for now, there are two opposite sexes. (where the intersexed could be thought of as between those two.... in the past this is where I could put this in mathematical terms but what is meant should be obvious enough). --Hfarmer (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Subconscious, as usually defined, refers to things that are not available to the conscious mind. Once you are aware of something -- anything -- it simply cannot be considered subconscious. A person that self-identifies as any gender cannot be that gender subconsciously because the identity is part of the conscious mind.
It we will be mathematical, the set of things which you are simultaneously consciously aware of and not consciously aware of is the the null set. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Intuitive sex/gender might be a more appropriate word choice for what I think the concept is supposed to be (although I wonder whether it's really that arational: inductive inference ("my experience matches what seems to be that category") could probably explain a good deal.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Well for me it was a little bit of both. It was feeling different from boys as well as noticing how simmilar my emotional responses (for example) were to those of girls and women.... Transsexualism defies a really simple one or two sentence explaination. Such is why I would agree with Jokestress that Blanchard's theory cannot be the whole story... but sex is likely a bigger part of the story than most are willing to admit. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


I think it's appropriate to mention Bailey's book in this article, but I really think that the entire I-didn't-have-sex-with-that-prostitute subsection is irrelevant to this article because it says nothing at all about HT as a concept. It's kind of like putting James Bevel's conviction for incest under Racism: verifiable, but clearly off-topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The section is not just "I did not have sex with Juanita" it also contains the accusation. As you can see I have written a controversy section which hilites those aspects that deal with homosexual transsexuality and homosexual transsexuals. The allegation that Bailey had sex with "Juanita" is the most direct real act of protest against the book or the theory done by anyone who would be termed a homosexual transsexual by the theories definition. For that reason this is relevant.
I will also preemptively defend including the statements from the book that I did. They are in fact controversial and I have choosen to quote them here and let the reader's decide what they think. I personally think that if I were forced to write something, like this article, so that the widest audience could read it I may have to be about as crude. (Consider that as plainly worded as this article is now it takes a 10th grade reading level to understand it. Imagine how it would read if it was written for a 8th grader.)--Hfarmer (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The inclusion of Bailey and "Juanita" is wholly inappropriate here. We can mention the book as an example of one of the last gasps of this deprecated terminology, but their personal/professional relationship does not need to be rehashed here. Jokestress (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure you want that removed? I will but..I mean it's not like this is the first place it has been written about on the internet. Everyone who has taken even a cursory look at the sources can figure out who's who and Dreger exposed that for the world then told us how to find out her legal names. :-/ However I can see a rationale for removing that from here, and every other page on wikipedia which mentions the sexual miscounduct alegation. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

While your correcting Grammar

Please consider the reading level of the article and try to keep it below 12th grade. The easiest way to find this is to look at the archived featured article candidacy page and click the link for a readability test. Right now it takes a 13th grade level up from a 10th grade level. Remember this has to be acessible to as many people as possible. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What the featured article review told me that made the take the actions I have

Comments by Moni3

  • The FAC page is no stranger to controversial topics. This one may qualify, but the majority of reviewers here care about comprehensiveness, accuracy, reliability, and readability. Right now, I have to agree that it's difficult to understand because the article makes assumptions that the reader has a background in sexology. Though most would like to have such a thing, it would benefit the article to explain some issues clearly:
  • You might try by expanding History of term to make it simpler. (Sexologst) Richard Green states that since the term "transsexual" is very new (how new?), it is necessary to examine historical specifics to identify transsexuality in history (redundant?), and distinguish it from other roles that are described as "change of sex", such as homosexuality and heterosexual cross-dressing customs. (Break the previous sentence down to explain change of sex to an average reader) Green describes the cultural roles of groups such as the Two-Spirit, Hijra, Kathoey and Khanith, (a sentence about each of these roles from these cultures would be helpful) stating that these people are mentally indistinguishable from modern western transsexuals. (Can you provide Green's proof or reasoning for this?) In part, because of this history, past researchers have referred to the "homosexual" category as being the "classic", "primary" or "true" transsexual. (Does this mean all homosexuals are considered transsexuals? This is confusing.) At one time (when?) due to the heteronormative bias of many psychologists, transsexual people who did not fit into this category were often screened from receiving hormones and sex reassignment surgery
  • I found this writing style throughout the article. I suggest going through it to simplify everything per the example of the first paragraph.
  • Featured articles tend to stay away from bulletted lists unless it's completely unavoidable. I suggest putting the Leavitt and Berger study in prose to explain their findings.
  • The Prostitution section is very slim and doesn't explore the association between transsexual homosexuals and prostitution as a sociological phenomenon.
  • I find the same with the Frequency of Autogynephilia section (watch the capitalization in subheadings). These sections appear to list facts without exploring what implications they have on the people they describe.
  • Overall, the article seems to lack substance of what all these facts mean. If your sources don't cover this, perhaps it is not the right time for an FA. If there are sources that cover this, you need to get to them and include them in this article. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


  • Current ref 11 - why is there a "cf" in front of the author's names? And it's lacking a publisher
  • I'm assuming the hirschfeld ref is in German? Should note that.
  • Several of your book refs are lacking page numbers. Double check them all for page numbers, please.
  • Current ref 19 (Bailey) is Joseph Henry Press the publisher? If so, shouldn't be in italics. Needs a page number too.
  • Please standardize your refs to Benjamen's work.
  • Article titles should be in quotation marks for current refs 21, 22, 23 (Bentler, Blanchard, Blanchard)

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I can't say I know anything about the topic or possible controversies, but I suggest if there is such an issue with this article it be taken to dispute resolution or some other process, not FAC. The prose is waaay too dense for someone without an understanding of technical phycology or the like to get that deep in it. It's also a very short article (<1000 words if you remove the lead) and therefor may not meet comprehensiveness concerns. Topics mentioned in the lead never come up in the prose, which suggests to me a bias, if unintentional. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

he international Journal of Transgenderism". The page numbers that we do have are from people who do have access to such a copy. As for Dr. Bailey's book thought I once owned a copy after reading it a couple of times I gave it away. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I take three major points from all of that

The article as it was before was confusing and used allot of big words all together which made it very hard for the uninitated to understand. The article did not discuss enough about the topic. It needs explanation to people. i.e. somehow from the way the article was written before someone got the idea that it claimed that all homosexuals were also transsexuals. When it says that it is about transsexuals who are attracted to the same biological sex. Basically the way the article was. The way I and jokestress and everyone else left it for the longest time. Was good (or at least good enough) to us but utterly confusing to everyone else.

Simplify. Expand. and Clarify. That's what we should do. --Hfarmer (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag: Issue 1- Phenomenon vs. term

Since it appears this is going to be forced into another long debate before we wrap things up on The Man Who Would Be Queen, I have tagged this as disputed until we resolve key issues. Let's start with the main issue and go from there. As I have said many, many times, this article is about a controversial term, like nigger or moron. It is not about a demographic group. That information is covered in the article transgender. The term transsexual is a 20th-century medicalized term. The word homosexual is a 19th-century medicalized term. The two terms were not used together as one term until the mid-20th century. As such, calling people from ancient and/or non-Western cultures "homosexual transsexuals" is confusing, scientifically inaccurate, and anachronistic. Let's discuss if this article is about the phenomenon vs. the term, and then go from there. Jokestress (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one who calls those groups transexuals Green is the cited source for that. But you ask a good question that deserves a detailed reply.
Like you said let's discuss weather this article is about the term or the phenomena. First of all a term would not need an encyclopedia article it would just need a wikitionary definition. So really if this is just about a term then the whole article (and the one on autogynephilia) should be deleted. Then replaced with a mere definition.
I personally feel it is about the phenomena. "homosexual transsexual" is just the latest in a series of terms for a certain kind of transsexual. Without doubt transsexuals, who were obviously feminine boys and/or young men, who became transwomen exist. That is a phenomena which exist and has been given a series of names by western science. It has been called primary transsexualism, "True" transsexualism (level 5-6 on the benjamin scale) etc. This article is about that idea as much as it is about Blanchard's latest use of that term.
As for the other non western non English terms. I see no real difference between a katoey, a Hijra, a mukhannathun from Arabia and a transwoman from America I am not alone in this. Consider the following. Go to Googles translation tool. Take the Arabic to English translation tool and input the Arabic مخنثون for Mukhannathun it will give "The lady boys" How is the word Khatoey usually translated? Ladyboys. Now if you put in the plural form المتخنث it translates to transsexual (of al Mukhannathin it should say "the transsexuals" it's close enough). In a sort of round about way what I am saying and have said, is that these terms are all cross culturally, and linguistically equivalent. This is not just my own original research. There is much research done by Sam Winter, and Nun udomsak which says that the katoey of Thailand are basically transwomen...same going for hijra, same for two-spirits, and even for the mukhanathun. Much of it from Richard Green who wrote that one appendix for "the transsexual phenomena". I am just following those sources in reaching this conclusion. These same sources also assert that members of those groups are overwhelmingly attracted to men and that this was obvious from a very young age.
You also compared this to the word Nigger. There also exist the word Nigga which means something different to black people. Weather a word is perjorative or not is not inherent really. It depends somewhat on the context. One black person to another nigger can mean something totally different than when a white says it to a black person. Or if that white person is friends with a particular black person. Understand? (Perhaps more pertinently it is like when one of my transseuxual friends calls me a bitch it means something different than when a gg says it.)
Last but not least this all helps to explain and contextualize the latest version of this idea. It answers certain questions like "Why would Blanchard say that some non-homosexual transsexuals would try to represent themselves a homosexual transsexuals?", "Why in the controversy was more said about, why is it said (like at that NWSA panel) that autogynephillic transsexuals would be more aggreieved?" History kind of explains that social desirability bias. I prattle on. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
One more thing if I have sources that say basically what I have written how can it be a POV edit? perhaps you should have used a different tag?--Hfarmer (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please spare me your attempts at instruction about gender and race. We have articles for both nigger and nigga because they are separate terms that merit articles (vs. mere Wiktionary entries), and because they are controversial terms in different ways. If you wish to expand an existing article about "a certain kind" of transgender person (namely, the kind you apparently believe is your kind), do so. We have several articles where that would be appropriate, such as transgender or transsexual sexuality. "Homosexual transsexual" has been a problematic and controversial term since first use, and it is no longer used (with CAMH/ASB people being the notable exceptions). Outside of the CAMH/ASB people who use the term uncritically, most of the published literature is about why the term is problematic for academics and activists. That's why this needs to be about this specific term, and the phenomena that predate the term can be discussed elsewhere. Jokestress (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this article should be more about the phenomenon than about the specific term, just like I think allergy should recognize that not all "allergies" are Type 1 IgE-mediated immunogenic reactions -- although I can trivially produce a dozen highly reliable sources that will tell you that if you swell up and die after eating MSG, that you didn't actually have an allergic reaction.
Rather than excluding this information entirely, I think we need to put it in the proper context. Surely Blanchard and others were not entirely ignorant of these older ideas; other writers have apparently found a connection between the concepts. We don't need to present it as True™, but as one idea.
I do think that we can lose the subsections (short single paragraphs don't usually need level 3 headers), and most of the section heads need to be de-capitalized. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The phenomenon of androphilic gender-variant people should be discussed separately from this term for the same reason we do not have the phenomenon of trisomy 21 discussed under the term "mongoloid" or the phenomenon of sexual diversity under "perversion." As with those terms, "homosexual transsexual" is a term that is scientifically inaccurate and deprecated outside of acolytes from one holdout clinic in Toronto. Do you have any precedent involving demographic groups, rather than your example of the term "allergy," so we might make a more apt comparison involving a controversial term and a phenomenon about other human groups? Jokestress (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Well AJ you are the one who brought up the word nigger. I merely responded to your arguement. If you don't want to talk about race (we are already automatically discussing sex and gender by this topic's nature) then don't bring it
To accept your argument you are asking the uninvolved editors to ignore all of the sources I found who, though they do not use the phrase, described people who are fundamentally the same as the one's Bailey described. Different culture, different language, different religion, different time period, same phenomena. So says the sources.
Related to that fact is the fact that psychologist other than Blanchard and people at CAMH first used that term. Going right back to Harry Benjamin. This term has more history than you just said it did.
You also said that the way you would like this done is to have this article be just about the term. Then have other articles be about those groups (which already have existing articles by the way). Are you telling me that linking to an article about the term would be OK by you. Somehow I doubt that. In your usual style you would write some highly offended sounding thing like..."This is a perjorative and horrible term equivalent to nigger, or kike. A term which is only used in a book that is as bad as Mein Kampf. I want 10 peer reviewed articles that say that each and every (hirja, katoey, fa'fafine, et al.) is a homosexual transsexual and it better be in english..." Oh yeah I think for a minute you would consent to that. :-/ --Hfarmer (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Down syndrome is discussed at Mongoloid#Down.27s_Syndrome. But -- unlike HT -- mongoloid has a meaning that predates its application to Down syndrome, and it's reasonable for the article Mongoloid to primarily discuss the original meaning (and for Down syndrome to discuss the outdated racial theory, which it does at Down syndrome#History.
I do not support having this article be the only place that androphilic gender variance is discussed on Wikipedia, or even the primary place, but -- just like Down syndrome does with mongolism -- it is perfectly reasonable to mention these terms and to compare and contrast the terms. It provides context for the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Right. My point is that we don't have the main articles for those two phenomena (Asians and people with trisomy 21) written under a deprecated/controversial term, as that would be an NPOV violation. Those demographic groups exist, but we don't have an article about the history/phenomenon either group of people under the title Mongoloids. To call either group mongoloids is a good analogy to the situation here. I am sure we can find one or two people over on the Human Biodiversity Institute list who use the term "mongoloid," but as with "homosexual transsexual," it is not a value-neutral term. That is why scientists avoid the term. Jokestress (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
That is just your opinion though jokestress. As I said in my reply I don't think that you would long leave alone a wiki link from here to say katoey. You say this is a deprecated term. All I need to disprove that is one reference which uses that. Right?--Hfarmer (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not merely my opinion; it is an issue discussed in reliable sources. The Benjamin and Bagemihl quotations you removed from the article in the past clearly show that the term has been controversial for decades. I can provide a number of other citations discussing the usage problems associated with the term. The term is not used outside of an insular group of holdout sexologists for that reason. And no, citing one recent use does not mean "homosexual transsexual" is not controversial/deprecated. Unsophisticated academics still use "hermaphrodite" to describe people in scientific publications (especially those whose first language is not English), but citing one example of its use does not "disprove" that the term "hermaphrodite" is deprecated/controversial. Jokestress (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

outendenting Here is a reference which uses Dr. Blanchards notion of the homosexual transsexual to understand the phenomena in Israel. It is from one of the peer commentaries which you so strongly argued should be included here as if they were peer reviewed. True to my own standard this source should be treated with caution...however it would not surprise me to see a peer reviewed article by this team on this topic in the near future. (I wonder if you will now see the question of these peer commentaries my way. :-/)

Sex, Sexuality, and Gender Dichotomized: Transgender Homosexuality in Israel Journal Archives of Sexual Behavior Publisher Springer Netherlands ISSN 0004-0002 (Print) 1573-2800 (Online) Issue Volume 37, Number 3 / June, 2008 Category Peer Commentary DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9330-4 Pages 489-490 Subject Collection Behavioral Science SpringerLink Date Wednesday, April 23, 2008

--Hfarmer (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my comment above before posting that? Jokestress (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
No I hadn't. To respond to that. I did not remove the Benjamin and Baghemil quotations. I just digested them. Benjamin and Bahemil wrote whole paragraphs about the topic. In an effort to make the article short and simple I took the strongest language from Bagemihl and Benjamin and included that then described the rest.
Also I have not said it was not controversial. Just that it is not depracated just because AJ, Lynn Conway, and Diedre McCloskey don't like it.
Remember I wrote a big long controversy section for this article. Remember that? (Which I would say is better than any attempt that preceded it to cover the controversy from a purely neutral but homosexual transsexual perspective. All too often any offense that could have been caused to transsexuals who would be so named is given token mention only.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I have apparently not been entirely clear: I do not think that this article should be the primary page for describing all transwomen that are attracted to men. I also do not think that this article is the primary page for describing these people, and if it is, then the fault is in the lack of information in the other articles, not in the presence of the brief summaries in this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Those little bits about hijra and katoey etc are there to provide a bit of historical background. Those are groups that have long long histories. They are groups that researchers oter than Blanchard or Bailey have called homosexual transsexuals. Though not meaning that the way Blanchard did. As far as the question is concerned I see two out of three editors here me and WhatamIdoing who seem to agree that this article is about the phenomena of androphilic transsexuality and not just the term as used by Blanchard and Bailey. (For the pehnomena of a boy who is naturally effeminate and attracted to men growing up to be a transwoman is not something Blanchard made up. It was noted many times before he came along. That's a fact.) Therefore we have a consensus in favor of phenomena. Could someone please comment on the idea of changing the articles name to the less controersial and loaded Androphilic transsexual? --Hfarmer (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The point of distinguishing between the phenomenon and the term is not to rename this article. As I have said many, many times, this article is about a controversial term and its history. We need a separate article on the phenomenon, as well as an article on this term. This term merits an article, because the term itself is a notable topic of discussion. The phenomenon is as well, but should not be conflated with the term and subsumed under this article (which has been the ongoing problem here). Jokestress (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That does not really make sense. Consider this there is the term "fishing" and there is the act of fishing. I am sure we could write articles about them separately but we do not. Terms have definitions in dictionaries not big long encyclopedia articles.

I propose this, we rename this article "Androphilic transsexual" Rewrite it a little bit to reflect that change. Then add a wiktionary entry for homosexual transexual.

If you insist on having an article about the term then I insist on reporting about all of it's use by both western academics and in non-western context. There is just too much evidence that this is not just something Blanchard came up with. Evidence that cannot be ignored. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I insist on that, too. This article can and should discuss all uses of the term "homosexual transsexual" and the surrounding controversy. There should also be an article that discusses transsexual sexuality, one that discusses transgender in non-western cultures, one that discusses gynephilia and androphilia, etc., etc. As I have explained many, many times now, Wikipedia has many articles on controversial terms. As far as I am concerned, we can list every use of "homosexual transsexual" here (just a few dozen people have ever used it) and list all criticism of the term so readers can understand the controversy. Jokestress (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that a page move is the right way to deal with this. If Wikipedia doesn't already have an appropriate page (or pages) for discussing the broader topic, then that page should be created de novo. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So the issue is the scope. You see this as just being about a term that has been used by biggoted sexologist. Which is your off wiki POV. I see it as a phenomena and don't really care what it's called no matter what language. A different word for the the same thing.... Let us take a breather and let some uninvolved editors tell us what they think. Is this a phenomena or just a term.

If "homosexual transsexual" is depracated then what is the current term for a "homosexual Transsexual".

Would that be androphilic transsexual? --Hfarmer (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes doing a quick googleing I see the word Androphilic transsexual is used by people as widely separated as James cantor and people studying the fa'fafine, Lynn conway and Anne Lawrence. So let us move the article, change it's name and re write accordingly. This could go along way to clear up the misconception about this concept. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are conflating the term and the concept/phenomenon. As WAID notes, the solution is not to get rid of this article about this term, but to make other related articles better. It is my belief that once you understand this, much of the ongoing conflict about this article will be resolved. Jokestress (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you use double-quotes in your search? I get ten Google hits for "Androphilic transsexual" and 54 for "Androphilic transsexuals", which is not a heck of a lot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that "androphilic transsexual" has complications as well and usually requires additional descriptors (so it does not appear exactly like that). An androphilic person who is trans is usually distinguished as male or female, which is done by a number of naming schemes and also sometimes is confused by those who use "male" and "female" based on sex assigned at birth vs. gender identity. For instance, "transsexual male" is used by some to mean what others in academia call a "transsexual female." That's why these terms are all debated and why I added the assigned sex vs. gender identity to the first paragraph (removed by Hfarmer today). Jokestress (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know what you mean about that. So we have to keep the HSTS title with all it's baggage.  :-? I just don't want this article to just be about Blanchard. The phrase and the idea are not his invention. As blanchard said in "Origins of the Concept of Autogynephilia" "I began my research by defining and labeling the same groups of male-to-female transsexuals identified by Hirschfeld: homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and asexual (i.e., transsexuals attracted to men, women, both, or neither, respectively)." He inherited that term from Hirshfeld who wrote about it in the 20's 30's and 40's. The other articles of which you speak exist. All I have done here is mention these things as historical examples. Thus providing a context that non transpeople could use to relate to this subject.--Hfarmer (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So it seems we have consensus against the idea of renaming the article. sigh. It's just as well anyway. The relative few people who find this article have a hard enough time already. :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you've got your answer, then you might want to remove the RFC tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The RfC is about the question is this about a term or a phenomena. If I read things right. You agree with me that this is about a phenomena. While jokestress says term. I could say well this is consensus and forge ahead. However I would like to hear at least a few comments on this. Unfortunately it often takes something dramatic and unignorable to get uninvolved editors to look at this. It may be a long wait.
Jokestress did say this was just one concern of her's perhaps we could move on and address those?--Hfarmer (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
No, we are going to deal with this matter first, then move on. Everything else follows from that. This article should be about the term, who has used it, why they used it, and why other experts consider it unscientific and problematic. If we wish to discuss sexual behavior of gender-variant people in various times and cultures, we already have other articles to discuss these phenomena. Jokestress (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Once again, from the top: if other perfectly good articles on the general topic exist, then why would anyone care if some of that information is repeated, in a summarized fashion, here? This is a perfectly normal style on Wikipedia, and exactly why templates like {{Main}} exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Once again, perfectly good articles don't exist, because Hfarmer is trying to make this the article and ignoring articles that should be about these phenomena. It's like making nymphomania the main article for women or pedophilia the main article on Catholic priests. Someone can say it's a "scientific truth" that there are "two kinds" of priests, pedophiles and non-pedophiles, but that reveals the clinical bias of the "scientist" who organizes them that way. Wikipedia strives for value-neutral, scientifically accurate articles, and "homosexual transsexual" is as value-neutral as "perversion" and other outdated "science" terms for sexual minorities. As Leavitt said, "Transsexuals, as a group, vehemently oppose the label and its pejorative baggage." This is among the many quotations from experts that Hfarmer continually removes from the article as part of POV pushing. Jokestress (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
So when you wrote above "we already have other articles to discuss these phenomena", you meant to write "we [DON'T] already have other articles to discuss these phenomena"?
The solution to this problem is to fix the other articles, which you and/or any other interested person is invited to do. The solution is not to remove information from this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
We don't have other "perfectly good articles," which is your phrase to which I was responding. We have other incomplete articles. All the focus has been here because I have been dealing with Hfarmer being camped out on this because Hfarmer thinks this article should be about Hfarmer. My hope was to get the Man Who Would Be Queen nonsense resolved, then move on to more general articles. ProudAGP is off enjoying the Chicago fall or something, so that article's progress has slowed down. To be honest, I'd rather be writing biographies, but this series of articles has been so blatantly distorted and messed up through POV-pushing by Hfarmer that I simply couldn't take it any more. Jokestress (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
What in the heck are you talking about? "Hfarmer thinks this article should be about hfarmer"? LOL! bwaaaahahahahah! LOL! You have got to be kidding me right? You are the one pushing a POV. A POV which is that this article is all about Blanchard's use of a term which you assert he invented. I have shown that others such as magnus Hirschifeld used the term to describe a phenomena. A pehnomena that Richard Grteen wrote about in a appendix to the transsexual phenomenon by the venerable Benjamin. A term used by benjamin to describe a phenomenon in his book. A term used by many psychologist around the world in many different circumstances to describe the cross cultural phenomenon which in english today is called homosexual transsexuality by sexologist. Will no reason or evidence reach you?--Hfarmer (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Show me where I assert Blanchard invented the term "homosexual transsexual." Jokestress (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
So if I understand this complaint, the relevant issues are:
  1. This article's content is more or less okay (leaving aside the endless NPOV concerns)
  2. Except that there should be more detailed information in other related articles
  3. Which you don't choose to {{sofixit}} yourself
  4. And neither apparently does anyone else.
Which adds up to what now? That the overall encyclopedia is out of balance, due to lack of information elsewhere, so we should gut this article as well, so that the encyclopedia is equally and uniformly incomplete? I understand being frustrated with the absence of other fully developed articles, but that problem must be solved elsewhere, not here. Have you considered trying to recruit help for the related articles at WP:LGBT? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This article's content is not OK, as much of the published work discussing scientific problems with the term has been removed. Other articles need to be expanded, but the imbalance here is so egregious that this is a top priority as far as I am concerned. I want to see this article expanded as well as other articles. It should include all uses of the term (only a couple dozen people have ever used the term uncritically) and discuss why the term is not widely used. As you know, Wikipedia does not grow evenly, and some articles that should have more/better information have less/worse coverage than less important topics. It's not my responsibility to expand other articles before working on this one. I believe that once this obscure cluster of articles is balanced, everyone can move on to other issues. This cluster is a lot like other forms of quackery I've been involved in editing, like live blood analysis or race and intelligence. A couple of people who are deeply invested in this as an idea and believe in its legitimacy come in conflict with scientific skeptics like me or Stephen Barrett, or off-wiki with Stephen Jay Gould or Robert Todd Carroll, etc. I am sure you have seen it on articles you edit. I believe Wikipedia articles should clearly mark topics considered quackery and bad science as such. I am not alone-- see the debates on evolution, etc. These articles are the most troubling example of invoking scientific authority to perpetuate pseudoscientific beliefs about trans people. We're talking about an out-of-print book and a handful of out-of-touch sexologists who insist on the legitimacy of a naming scheme that has never caught on because it is scientifically inaccurate and biased. If it weren't for six vocal wannabes who have latched on to these terms as self-identities, none of this would be an issue at all. I believe that in the next six months, we can get this whole cluster of articles nice and stable, after which they can sit there waiting for those who wander into this obscure corner of Wikipedia. Jokestress (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
"Scientific Sceptics" like you. You are not a scientist and your secpticism has nothing to do with science. A scientific sceptic LIKE I AM believe it or not. Would study the topic with an open mind. Admit that it has some merit, which is all I have ever said. Then be able to write an article about it which is neutral. You are just chafing because you can't use the anonymous words of your friend (I have almost figured out her name.) I have written else where about what troubles me with this theory. Specifically who decides that a given sexuality like autogynephilia is a paraphillia? Who defined this sexual practice or that as a paraphillia? I even went so far as to write up my own theory for how this all works based on the the hypothesis that the BSTC controlls what we call gender identity and the INAH controls sexual orientation. I constructed it using quantum mechanics. It explains what transsexuals say about themselves and what Blanchard and others have observed without making any value judgements. One of it's predictions was tested by a team who worked on the brains of homosexual men and women and compared their hypothalamic responses to those of heterosexuals. They did the same work using bissexual mtf's and natal females. What they found about how the brains of such people work was in line with my theories predictions. That is what a scientific sceptic does. You on the other hand just try to assasinate the character of those who don't kiss your booty. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A Place where Jokestress has asserted that this is all about blanchard.

"As with those terms, "homosexual transsexual" is a term that is scientifically inaccurate and deprecated outside of acolytes from one holdout clinic in Toronto."

Among many other times which are now archived.

As for my pov pushing saying that I have removed the quote by Leavitt and berger. No I haven't? It has been in the article for the longest time. I also have the quote by Benjamin. Look at the section I wrote for this article about the pre 2003 controversy surrounding this term. I wanted to include the criticism of someone who was directly harmed by Bailey's book. But you find that to somehow be POV pushing. What she has online is public record for all to see I don't see any harm in linking to it here. (Heck if I wanted to be evil I would put a link to the video of her in her own words talking about life "When I was a shemale" (her own words). :-/ Get a hold of yourself. Go enjoy some SoCal weather. Take a chill pill and relax. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So to review, I never said Blanchard invented the term (I have in fact removed claims that Blanchard introduced the term, which was misinformation added by CAMH employee James Cantor aka WriteMakesRight aka MariontheLibrarian). You have entered Deirdre McCloskey's home uninvited by her, and are now working hard to uncover the real name of Dr. Wyndzen. It certainly proves that Dr. Wyndzen is wise to keep her identity from CAMH employees and allies, because of the climate of disinformation, intimidation, and fear they have created among professionals. You removed all of the summary about the controversy that appeared in the lede. An uninvolved editor has tagged your rewritten controversy section, because your POV-pushing has reduced the controversy to a shell of its former version. Once we get this all worked out that this article should be about he controversial term, then I'll chill. Jokestress (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, doesn't BLP apply on talk pages? Do you really mean to throw around unverifiable accusations of trespass and invasion of privacy and such? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, Hfarmer has discussed entering Dr. McCloskey's home without her knowledge and boasts about Dr. Wyndzen "I have almost figured out her name" above. No BLP. Just reviewing Hfarmer's own statements. Jokestress (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, last I checked, the standard for BLP was 'supported by reliable sources', not merely accurate, and the original comments were unsourced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, last I checked, repeating statements by editors on talk pages did not need to be footnoted from a reliable source. You can find published materials about Hfarmer if you feel a deep need for verifiability and reliable sources. I'll leave it at that. Now, do you have any thoughts to share on the questions by Malkinann? Jokestress (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
More hyperbolic statements from AJ surprise surprise. History shows how she reacts to being opposed. Right now I am amused by this little internet tussle and remain neutral. But be warned this is what I do to my enemies (figuratively speaking of course :-) )don't cross the line from internet fun into real life personal attacks.
First of all I was let into Dr. McCloskey's condo by her grad student at the time. (My Aunt lives practically across the street from Dr. McCloskey). This person sought my advice on certain subjects which she did not feel comfortable asking Dr. McCloskey about. She told me how people would say apalling things about Prof. McCloskey when they thought no one would hear. I told her about things I have had to deal with at UIC. We were able to comisserate on that level. If Dr. McCloskey had an issue with my being in her place she knows where to find me, she is a prof at the very UNIV I have attended for quite some time. The way you write it I was breaking and entering how absurd!
That nite we had went to a talk at NU held by Julia Serano. I met and spoke at length with Dr. Serano she and the peopole there saw me iwth Dr. McCloskey's student who was there but not dressed as a woman. (She lacked confidence at the time.)
As for Dr. Wyndzen. FYI I found the information on K.H. on YOUR WEBSITE TSRoadmap! You left a link there which refered to "writings by K.H." which pointed to Genderpsychology. {Ironic tone}YOU enabled me to find out what I know. Which I found by accident. I was reading a conversation you had with someone from a autogynephilia yahoo group.  :-) (Ironic grin) {/ironic tone}. If I had done some "investigation" to find that information then I don't see how it would be different from what you have done in relation to transkids. But of course you would because in your world view you can do no wrong. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why I requested comments. I have moved the RfC below. It's been four days can we let this rest for a bit longer so we can get a third or fourth opinion?--Hfarmer (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


The The basic issue:One editor says that this article is about an obscure term and that the article should have limited scope. Another says it is about a phenomena, a set of behaviors, and should have broad scope. Who is right?--Hfarmer (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


I've got a couple of questions about a couple of the terms I'm seeing in the article - when describing someone's sexuality as classically homosexual, is that a quote? Although it's not specifically listed as a word to avoid, the word classic implies a value judgement, which butts up against WP:NPOV. If it's a quoted term, it's alright. Also, what's a "nuclear transsexual"? --Malkinann (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks for the work you have done to improve this article. The article Transsexual sexuality is the main article for these topics. Those terms are all discussed there. Terms like "true transsexual" or "true hermaphrodite" (or synonyms "classical" or "nuclear") are no longer used much because they are unscientific and reflect the clinical biases of those who used them. As science strives for value-neutral terminology, there has been an evolution in terminology about gender variance. The term "homosexual transsexual" and "male transsexual" are generally avoided for the same reasons these days: both terms are confusing and make assumptions that reflect the views of the people who use them. After John Money began promoting the concept of gender identity, most sexologists moved away from concepts that conflated gender identity and sexual behavior. "Homosexual transsexual" is the most controversial of these older terms. It's not widely used (maybe 30 people total have published work using the term uncritically), but there's a small but tenacious group of people associated with a Toronto clinic who continue to promulgate the term. The term and its "expert" users are widely reviled by trans people, because the term completely discounts trans identities, negating both their gender identity and sexual orientation. Calling someone who identifies as a straight woman a "homosexual transsexual male" gives scientific authority to the most pervasive prejudices trans people face. This Bruce Bagemihl quotation summarizes things well:

A particularly revealing example of the heterosexist and generally biased reasoning of medical professionals can be found in the language used to categorize and pathologize transsexuality. Clinical studies and definitions have traditionally employed a confusing terminology in which, for example, a female-to-male transsexual who is attracted to women is labeled a "homosexual transsexual," while a female-to-male transsexual who is attracted to men is labeled a "heterosexual transsexual." In other words, the point of reference for "heterosexual" or "homosexual" orientation in this nomenclature is solely the individual's genetic sex prior to reassignment (see for example, Blanchard et al. 1987[24], Coleman and Bockting, 1988[25], Blanchard, 1989[26]). These labels thereby ignore the individual’s personal sense of gender identity taking precedence over biological sex, rather than the other way around. With this clinical terminology, people can be conveniently described as "escaping" a stigmatized homosexual identity when they become involved with members of the opposite sex following reassignment (erroneously assumed to be “the norm”). The myth of the heterosexual imperative and the primacy of biology is thereby reasserted and rebuttressed, while the transgressive status of all transsexuals is trivialized.

Let me know if you have additional questions. Jokestress (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes the classically homosexual thing is a quote from Leavitt and berger a source [1] Scroll down to the sixth line of that transcription. As for the above quote. Jokestress has a ax to grind with this topic and would like to load it in an unbalanced way with overly long quotes. The quote above is enormous and would have to be condensed as I did to it and placed in the article. I gave it due weight in my summary of the pre 2003 controversy found in this article. While her article on transsexual sexuality is admirable it is not the "main article" to refer to on all of this. The term homosexual transsexual has a long history in sexology, and equivalents in other languages also have a long history. I'll go ahead and put quotation marks around clasically homosexual. As I wrote in the in text comments that do not show. If that was clarified any more then the page would no longer be rated G. Basically I hink Leavitt and Berger are driving at that homosexual transsexuals who derive pleasure from their penis are more likely to engage in "topping" and recieving oral pleasure as well as being a bottom. I just don't think that would be appropriate content. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
From Talk:Transsexual sexuality:
"I have created this article to act as an umbrella for articles that deal with issues of transsexual and transgender sexuality." -- Hontas Farmer, 26 July 2006
I agreed with that decision then and now. That article has always been and should remain the umbrella article for issues of transsexual and transgender sexuality. Homosexual transsexual (as Banjeiboy's comments below show) is a very confusing term, which is why it never caught on. This article should discuss the history of the term and why it is a problem. Jokestress (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's important to be clear when using seemingly value-laden terminology ("classic" or "true" transsexuals seems value-laden) that it is the terminology at work, not Wikipedia calling these transsexuals better than any other kind. I'm sorry that wasn't clear. WP:NOTCENSORED says that when dealing with offensive content, we should attempt to discern whether it would be relevant to the article. For example, in lesbian, there is a subsection and daughter article on lesbian sexual practices. I had thought that this article would be a daughter article to Transsexual sexuality, as surely there are mtf transsexuals who aren't attracted to men. (and ftm transsexuals who aren't attracted to women.) --Malkinann (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the issue here. Wikipedia should not legitimize this problematic term by using it uncritically. It would be like having the main article on lesbians under dyke. As with this article, "dyke" merits an article focused on the term, not the phenomenon. We can discuss androphilic transwomen and gynephilic transmen on the transsexual sexuality page. No one in either group would describe themselves as "homosexual," and would in fact vigorously oppose being labeled as "homosexual transsexual." This article should explain the history, usage and criticism of this controversial term, just as dyke or nigger or moron are about those terms rather than about certain demographic groups. We wouldn't use those terms uncritically on Wikipedia, either. Jokestress (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Again this has not been used "uncritically" there is plenty of criticism just not the undue amount you want you include. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, how much critical commentary has there been on the term? Has there been any defense of the term? I'm finding it a little strange that if the term is so controversial, the section explaining the controversy is smaller than the one about the kathoey etc. --Malkinann (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
There used to be an extensive section on the controversy about the term and a discussion in the lede, but Hfarmer removed it. Jokestress (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
It's also problematic to have a section largely made from quotes, as it makes it difficult for the article to be neutral. It's a fine line. --Malkinann (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Look through the archive. The removal of that original controversy section, which if you look farther back I mostly wrote in the first place, was a decision reached by consensus of which she was a part. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Malkinann, there is a fair amount of criticism of the concept out there. For instance, philosopher Talia Mae Bettcher writes: "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)." Sexologist Aaron Devor adds: ‘‘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.’’ (both Bettcher 2008) I can whip up a paragraph on the talk page if it would help. Jokestress (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Malkinnan, there are many, many people that object to the term, but they're united in their reasoning. This term negates their current gender identity by defining them as being males instead of females. There isn't any nuance to this complaint. There isn't any complexity. There aren't twenty different views on the subject. The major controversy can actually be explained in a single sentence: "Transwomen consider themselves real women, and they do not want to be rudely addressed as gay men." The fact that this objection is not difficult to understand does not make the criticism less valid or less widespread. In fact, I'm not sure how you could really turn this into a much longer section, unless you were prepared to be tediously redundant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Once again, you are posing this as hypersensitive transwomen vs. objective science, which is the paradigm James Cantor and colleagues hope to promulgate. There are a bunch of problems with that. One, transmen object as well. Two, it's not just trans people who object. Experts in several fields point out that the term is confusing, especially to lay people. Each field has a different point of view on why the term is problematic. For instance, Bagemihl argues that it linguistically reinforces the heterosexist ideology of a "heterosexual imperative." Devor points out that there are better options out there in his field of sexology, referring to gynephilia (removed from this article by guess who) and androphilia. The criticism section should summarize why the term is problematic by providing quotations from critics. Your single sentence summary lacks the nuance and scope needed to encompass all the issues. This isn't about being "rude." It's about scientific sexism. Many people will come here wondering what's the big deal about a term. We need to explain that this term epitomizes every way in which "science" has been used to oppress a group who doesn't conform to prevailing ideologies. But before that happens, I believe we need to come to an agreement that this article should be about this term, with transsexual sexuality as the main article for related phenomena. Jokestress (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Sexism, like all forms of bigotry, is a form of rudeness, whether it's done by scientists or anyone else.
Providing a dozen quotes to prove that the term is disliked for the same basic reason -- that it denies the womanhood of the transwoman -- is really not necessary. We just state it, and the reader will understand it and believe it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
My point is that objections to scientific racism like The Bell Curve are usually not described as "Black people consider themselves intelligent, and they do not want to be rudely addressed as unintelligent." Your summary of the issues here makes it sound as if it's just some faux pas or insensitivity. This is about deep-seated bigotry and pathological science within academia, particularly in psychology and medicine, not someone being "rudely addressed." It denies the womanhood of the transwoman (several quotes are about that). It denies the manhood of the transman (several quotes are about that). It denies the sexual and gender identities of all transpeople (several quotes are about that). Jokestress (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The loudest comments that speak to the offensiveness of this term, in particular as it is used by Bailey come from TMWWBQ. It was not his intent but it is the effect of his words. What more comment is needed on such language? I do agree with whatamidoing though. Jokestress we cannot just lazily cut and past a bunch of blockquotes into this page. As far as I am concerend the most important criticisms are already in there, Benjamin, then leavitt and berger. Honestly people outside of transgender studies would have never heard of Bagemhil. The quote you keep pushing for is very long and to include all of that would be to give them the most exposure they have ever had. lol honestly. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I hope you're not serious. Bruce Bagemihl is certainly more notable than Leavitt and Berger combined and has written extensively on LGBT issues. And of course it was Bailey's intent to be scandalous and outrageous. He has boasted about his intentions, and has stated that he no longer cares how much pain he causes trans people. LOL honestly. Jokestress (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Importantly, for the race-and-intelligence comparison, we have some fairly reliable and reasonably accepted means of testing for intelligence. If you want to compare certain aspects of intelligence between two groups of people, you simply line them up, give them the same tests, and compare the results.
We don't have such means for determining perceived gender. The world's only option is blindly trusting the statement made by a putative transwoman. At this time, we have no reliable and accepted means for objectively determining whether the two groups (transwomen and natal women) are really the same or are really different. So yes: this is all based on what transwomen say that they believe about themselves, and we do no one any favors by pretending that we can objectively prove these statements true or false.
Your response suggests that you consider rudeness a trivial thing. I don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd direct you to the Bem Sex Role Inventory and the MF scale in the MMPI, which have been used to compare trans and non-trans people. As far as rudeness, "If I repent of anything, it is very likely to be my good behavior." Civility has its place (like here), but incivility definitely has its place, too. Now, since this is devolving into a lame USENET argument, how about we get back to the article at hand? Jokestress (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Favorite people

One thing that the internet allows us to measure objectively is how much impact a persons writings have had. Google Bruce Baghemihl then google leavitt and berger (no quotes on either). Baghemihl gets 12100 hits leavitt and Berger get 154,000 hits, One order of magnitude more hits. Therefore many many more people have heard of leavitt and berger than have heard of Baghemihl. Just as I said Jokestress Leavitt and Berger are much better known and the google results prove it. Quod et Demostratum. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Well to be a little more fair I googled leavitt and berger 1990 (no quotation marks) this gave 33000 hits still twice as many as Bagemihl this would include just that one paper they both did in 1990 and not all the other things they did individually. (In either number there is the issue of people with the same name popping up in the results.)--Hfarmer (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Every time I turn around, you are introducing more misinformation into this discussion, due to your lack of understanding of academia and science. Do you know how to use Google Scholar or how to do an h-index? If you look up Frank Leavitt, Jack C. Berger, and Bruce Bagemihl, you will quickly learn who has the most academic influence, and it's not Leavitt or Berger. LOL honestly. Jokestress (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
We were talking about who more people (not necessarily academics) had heard of this. I know how to look up the various articles and books and figure out their "impact index" (as it is called in physics. A rating based on how may papers cite a given paper.) What you propose would only prove what I have already said that people who study gender issues will have heard of Bagemihl and his work, but the average TS/TG cisgender who reads through this is much more likely to know Benjamin, or have heard of Leavitt and berger's study. But for what it's worth do the searches you propose and show the results. You know what I 'll just do that.
The result is when the query is entered ( author:Bagemihl Bruce ) In Google scholar he gets 18 hits. while ( "Jack Berger" author:Berger) and ( "Frank Leavitt" author:Leavitt ) get many more hits. Leavitt get's 227, Berger get's 46. Either is many times more than what Bagemihl get's. Now cut out the childish acting AJ, act your age. Come on "lame usenet arguement"... why because your loosing and it's clear your points have nothing to do with facts or reality? Grow up and admit that on this point you are in the wrong. Were you in the right, and the record shows this, I would have conceded the point.
Like you said let's move on. The consensus is that this is about a phenomena, not a term and that Bagemihl has been given his due weight. The evidence shows how little known he is even IN transgender scholarship circles, as compared to Leavitt and or Berger never mind Benjamin. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I hope you are just playing around. Do you honestly believe that you did that search correctly? I don't know how to proceed if you can't understand that Bagemihl is much more widely cited than Leavitt or Berger. It's a fact that you refuse to acknowledge. Do you understand that your search includes everyone with those surnames, rather than the authors in question? I have tried to be very patient while working with you over the years, and I assume good faith, but you are making it very difficult to proceed in any orderly or logical manner. It seems to be getting worse and worse, too. There has been no consensus regarding whether this article is about a phenomenon vs. a term, and you yourself have stated in the past that the main article (which you created) should be transsexual sexuality. I hope we can get back on track here, but you are kicking into this mode I've seen before where you are making a lot of unilateral changes that don't reflect what's going on on the talk page. I ask that you remove all that irrelevant stuff you just added about Bailey. We have already all agreed it doesn't belong here. I would like to proceed calmly before this escalates into even more distractions. Jokestress (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually by searching for ("Jack Berger" author:Berger) with quotations around "Jack Berger" I only get those authors with the first name jack and last name Berger. I did not do that with Bruce Bagemihl which would have reduced the number of hits I got from him below 18. Also as for the term Vs Phenomena thing. I have done due dilligence to get third opinions. None have been offered. WhatamIdoing seems to agree that this is a phenomena not a term. As for the idea of the "main Article being transsexual sexuality I don't see what that would have to do with this article containing the breief cross cultural history that I have in this article. Don't see how that is mutaully exclusive. I am not making "unilateral changes" either. The reviewers for FAC and GAR have made suggestions. I am addressing those suggestions. The next suggestion I address will be that of Benjiboi.

Just admit it. You can't stand that this article is no longer just about HSTS as used by Blanchard in juxtaposition with the term autogynephillia. There is much more to it than that. Everyone sees that. Open your eyes.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance has been cited at least 136 times according to Google Scholar. Show me anything by Leavitt or Berger that has been cited that much. Bailey's sexual escapades are not relevant to this article. I have always stated that this article should be a comprehensive overview of all uses of this term, and why it is controversial. I have in fact added many of the uses of the term which predate 2003. Your attempts to make this about all this other stuff covered elsewhere in Wikipedia are simply part of your long-running attempts to redefine "homosexual transsexual" to include you. If you want to make that case, I wish you would do it elsewhere. It doesn't make this article better; it only confuses matters. Jokestress (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
AJ The only person who is making this about me is you.
As for your assertion about how many refernces a wok by leavitt or berger would have vs the references for that book. First of all a book is likely to have more references if it is any good at all, than an article of simmilar quality. Because a book is longer, and covers a wide variety of topics. One has more time to make points in a book of arbitray length vs an article which rarely could exceed 20 pages and not often at that. Conversely the article will be shorter and not cover as many topics. Cases in point "Heterosexual and homosexual gender dysphoria" by blanchard from 1987 has 60 citations. From a doccument 13 pages long. About 4.6 times as many citations as pages. While Bagemhil's book has 751 pages to get those 136 citations. About 0.181 citations per page. Or compare more pertinently to the paper from leavitt and berger 1990 it is 14 pages long and according to google scholar has 13 citations. 0.92 citations per page. This is known as citation density ratio analysing this is one accepted metric for just how much weight a given scientific doccument has. Surely any PhD. worth his/her salt could write a book the size of war and peace and get the citation density ratio that Bagemihl has for "Exuberance".
The above is true even with the fact, that google scholar is not really accurate for works from before 1992. Presumably there are more references than it would show for leavitt and berger (not to mention Blanchard.) Quantity by itself does not imply quality. In this case they track eachother because leavitt and berger are both separately more prolific than Bagemihl and together wrote a work more dense with useful citable information than Bagemihl's book as evidenced by the citation density ratio's. (No offense to Dr. Bagemihl. I am sure he has written journal articles with much higher citation density ratio's than 0.1. Articles by nature have to take less time to get to a point, and so are shorter and usually denser with new info than books. Those articles are not at issue here. )--Hfarmer (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
In relation to the above parenthetical... "The crossing constraint and ‘backwards languages’" has a citation density ratio of 0.47 32 cites/68 pages. That is the best quality article he has written if Google scholar can be completely believed for an article from 1989. It likely has more references than 32 in reality. But I hope you see what I am driving at.
PS what have I written here on this article that would redefine anything? All I have done is rely on many many more reliable sources than any other author on this cite. Every sentence has a citaiion to back it up. In that HOW would I have had a free hand to do any redefining?--Hfarmer (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Now you've switched from your original measure of "hits" to "citation density" because you were wrong about hits. I'm going to take some time away from making any direct responses to you, because it appears you just want to have a USENET-style argument instead of a productive discussion about improving the article. Jokestress (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
No that's because you were using citations in a misleading way. The hit's to which I was refering to was how many papers the person has authored not their citations. You were refering to how much a article has been cited. Those are distinctly deifferent things. What I have written is still true. Bagemihl wrote a book almost 1000 pages long and it has been cited by 136 scholarly works, Leavit and berger 1990 is only 14 pages long and has been cited 13 times. Those 13 pages had allot more effect than all of bagemihls ink.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need to continue this. The mere number of citations isn't important; the density isn't important. After all, you might cite a paper as the source of an error. The fact is that most people have heard of none of these people, including Harry Benjamin. We don't need lengthy quotes to emphasize a fairly straightforward criticism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)