Talk:Ray Blanchard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Blanchard may have supported re-listing of SRS, but only if the Clarke was the only gatekeeper. I'd put this in the entry, but I cannot find a source.74.12.155.220 07:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality website != WP:RS

reverted edit: National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality website is not an WP:RS. Pete.Hurd 05:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation?

I have again removed the claim that Blanchard studies the 'biological origins of sexual orientation.' This expression does not suggest simply that there are biological influences on sexual orientation, which is most likely correct, but rather that sexual orientation has exclusively biological causes, which is most likely not correct and certainly not supported by any kind of scientific consensus. Skoojal (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should directly wikilink to the actual name of our article here. Jokestress (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it, so I won't revert it again. Nonetheless, the sentence as it stands is poorly written. To say that one studies X and Y is to imply that one studies two different fields rather than their intersection. It would be more accurate and less ambiguous to say that Blanchard studies "the role of biological factors in the development of sexual orientation." Moreover, the name of the article, "biology and sexual orientation" was a poor choice. A more accurate name would be "biology of sexual orientation" or "biological basis of sexual orientation."
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think the sentence is poorly written, then re-write it to anything that could not be taken to imply that sexual orientation is exclusively biological, or anything else obviously POV. Skoojal (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanchard's "man without a penis" comment

I'd like to discuss this quotation from Blanchard that was removed today:

According to The Globe and Mail, "Toronto psychologist Ray Blanchard, one of Canada's leading -- and most controversial -- gender experts, argues the transgender movement is rife with delusion. 'This is not waving a magic wand and a man becomes a woman and vice versa,' he says. 'It's something that has to be taken very seriously. A man without a penis has certain disadvantages in this world, and this is in reality what you're creating.'"

This is an accurate quotation in one of Canada's largest papers, and it is a good summary of Blanchard's view of trans women. I am fine with including additional quotations he has made, or quotations others have made about him and his work, but I don't feel this should be removed outright. Jokestress (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed from it's context, the above is not at all an accurate description of what Blanchard thinks—it is, however, entirely consistent with Jokestress' long-standing and well-documented campaign to characaturize and misrepresent what Blanchard and his colleagues think. In context, Blanchard's description of the medical outcomes is shared by other prominant clinicians and researchers working in gender dysphoria, such as Harry Benjamin (whom sees as a pioneer). I have no opposition to including Blanchard's quote when it is correctly described; however, Jokestress deleted the contextualization I added to this page, leaving the naked Blanchard quote with (at best) grossly undue weight. Jokestress rejected my addition of context to correct the undue weight, leaving deletion of the unduely weighted claim as the only other solution. I am open to suggestions from others.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 12:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The views of others are not relevant unless there's some cited source showing a direct connection to Blanchard's views. The Benjamin quotation should definitely go in the Benjamin article, along with some reliably-sourced commentary about Benjamin's bigotry and clinical biases. It's not relevant here, though, unless there's a cited source that mentions similarities between Blanchard and Benjamin. Otherwise it's just synthesis and WP:OR to say, "well, a guy born 123 years ago has the same deep-seated biases as Blanchard," as an attempt to mitigate Blanchard's more recent statements.

What sort of description do you think the Blanchard quotation needs to be correctly described and contextualized? The necessary contextualization would be a reliably sourced third-party quotation mentioning Blanchard, or a direct quotation from Blanchard clarifying his views. Jokestress (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the quote is relevant to the DSM at all; its inclusion for justifying the protests, not for informing readers about Blanchard's appointment to the DSM (and not a gender-relevant portion of the DSM at that). That is, a proper description of how experts discuss transsexualism would certainly include Blanchard's views; however, such a discussion is not relevant to the DSM. It was quite a stretch to include there in the first place.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The protests are the main reason the appointment is notable, though. I believe the article should give some context on why the appointment was protested, explaining to unfamiliar readers why he's so controversial. Perhaps a separate section on his views would be better. Jokestress (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing a page so that it includes only a de-contextualized quote from Blanchard is protest, not a discussion about protests. An informative discussion about such protests (which seems to me a misleadingly strong term for an internet petition) would analyze the behavior, leaders, history, and outcome of the protests, which no one has done.

Information on scientists' views is frequently appropriate to biographies on scientists. However, there are very few RS's that contain Blanchard's views. Most existing discussion regards what various non-RS's infer his views to be (mostly incorrectly).

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) We can add other quotations or put this one back in context:

But experts are divided on the subject. Toronto psychologist Ray Blanchard, one of Canada's leading -- and most controversial -- gender experts, argues the transgendered movement is rife with delusion. "This is not waving a magic wand and a man becomes a woman and vice versa," he says. "It's something that has to be taken very seriously. A man without a penis has certain disadvantages in this world, and this is in reality what you're creating."

Dr. Blanchard, who heads Clinical Sexology Services at the Toronto-based Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, has treated hundreds of transsexuals since the 1980s. He says gender-identity disorder is a psychiatric disorder, not unlike anorexia, in which the sufferer believes she is overweight, and recommends sex-change operations to only a handful of the 45 patients he sees each year.

Dr. Blanchard does not go so far as to say transsexuals should be counselled out of their disorder, but he thinks surgery should be used as a last resort. A sex-change operation and treatment requires that a patient receive hormones for the rest of his or her life, which can cause liver damage. As well, there have been numerous cases of botched sex changes, which have damaged urinary tracts and even perforated bowels.

He has also raised questions about the motivations for sex-change requests, and has promoted the idea that there are subsets of transsexuals that include, among others, some homosexuals and a group of heterosexual men who are sexually aroused by the idea of having female genitalia.

His views are reviled by most transsexuals, but the psychologist makes no apologies. "That doesn't mean that I think transsexuals are delusional or not competent to live their lives. . . . It simply means that I don't think that the desire to have your genitals removed and replaced with those of the opposite sex is an innocuous decision like deciding whether you're going to wear slacks or a dress today."

As for female-to-male surgery, gender expert Ray Blanchard said he has seen few credible, artificially created penises. "They get a kind of lump that in the best, most expensive, $100,000 cases, kind of, maybe, look like a penis from across a room."

This article seems to be a pretty balanced report on how he views trans people and how trans people view him. If you have other reliable sources, we can use them as well. Jokestress (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is no way by which you could know whether that article is a balanced reflection of how Blanchard views trans folk; you have never had a conversation with Blanchard.
• There is no way by which the article could know what the views of trans folk are; having no poll, the paper was merely reporting on the contents of the internet, exactly where you have worked actively to influence the opinions of others towards precisely that opinion for years.
• To single out Blanchard as if he were the only person to believe what is actually shared by many top experts is inaccurate. In my opinion, it is merely your next attempt to slant the bio's of folks you don't agree with. An NPOV article would be about the idea: where it came from, who agreed and who disagreed, and how and whether the idea changed over time. To pick out some guy in the middle of the history and ignore everyone/everything else spreads POV about the guy, not info about the idea.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 23:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We can have an article about the idea, but this is a biography. Any conversation I might have with Blanchard is irrelevant here, as it would be WP:OR. We can only include reliable sources, and the one above is especially good because we have his views in his own words. If you have a reliable source that says his views are not reviled by most transsexuals, we can include it, too. If he wrote a letter to the editor claiming his views were distorted or he was misquoted in the Armstrong article, we can include it, too. As far as what others believe, that's not relevant or appropriate here, as I mentioned before. Blanchard is controversial, his DSM-V appointment is controversial, and readers here should have some explanation as to why. Jokestress (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is shifting as you go. Before, you were saying that the quote should be included because it was "a pretty balanced report" (which it is not), and now you are saying the quote should be included in because the newspaper is an RS (which it is). I can only repeat that Blanchard's statement is not properly understood when taken out of the context in which the quote was made, not the context in which the newspaper provided the quote (which is what you still seem to be addressing). In other words, by taking Blanchard's statement outside the realm of medicine (which is where he means it), it is misunderstood as a socioloigcal statement, which is not how he means it. The only ways to solve that problem are to remove the quote or to provide the medical context in which Blanchard meant the statement. That would require restoring mentions of other scholars/physicians, which you deleted.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 01:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What you had added is considered synthesis, which is not appropriate here. If you have others commenting on Blanchard, or Blanchard's own words in other sources, we can include them. Harry Benjamin's opinions, though equally odious, are irrelevant. This article is about Ray Blanchard, so it should be about what he says and what others have said about him. Jokestress (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Citation counts

Is there precedent for pumping up the reputation of individuals by citing counts of citations to their work that are found by using tools like Web of Science or Google Scholar? Are these WP:RS? Or is this an example of WP:OR? Seems to me more like the latter. I've never seen this before in wikipedia bios. Dicklyon (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've seen it in a couple of bios. And I've seen it in bios where it didn't really pump up someone's reputation either... WoS is definitely an RS and citation counts derived from it are routinely used in AfDs concerning academics. As for Blanchard's citation count, I was not really very impressed with them. They're good, but certainly not outstanding, far as I can tell. I am less enthusiastic about GS as I often find it to be imprecise, but it is often used as a handy shortcut, given that it is freely accessible, which WoS is not. Whether citation counts should be mentioned in bios is another question. I reverted your removal given the edit summary stating that WoS was not an RS, which, as I already said, it most certainly is. --Crusio (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you wouldn't object if I removed the citation count as being essentially WP:OR, as I did with the Google counts, and essentially unprecedented and/or meaningless in a bio? Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it is OR. It is in GS, where you have to do the ranking and counting by hand. However, WoS gives the h-index automatically, so here you cite it from that database, which is our normal procedure for sourcing. I am also not so sure that it is meaningless. Here in France this kind of personalized citation scores are rapidly overtaking the ungodly use of impact factors in evaluating a researcher's output. Also, the fact that something is unprecedented does not mean that we cannot decide to start doing it or to do it occasionally. What is against including this information? --Crusio (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that a database in which things could be looked up would satisfy the usual meaning of an RS, but more like OR. But I'm on break, so not interested in pushing the question at this point. Probably someone should bring it up in a more appropriate forum. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• That would probably be the best way to solve this. As I said, my own opinion about this is not crystallized yet either. What do you think would be an appropriate forum? --Crusio (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think Google Scholar and Web of Science are reliable sources and citation counts from these cites may be useful for some purposes. But as for stating how many times a particular person has been cited in a biographical article about that person, I don't know that it's very encyclopedic, but I guess it could be. Andrea Parton (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Transsexualism section

I strongly object to the recent edits made by editor 182.48.140.189 in the section about Ray Blanchard's views on transsexualsm. First, this editor totally buried the lead. It's very off to have the first sentence of this section be about how Blanchard supports publicly funded sex reassignment surgery. Lots of people support such publicly funded surgery, and it is not particularly notable that Blanchard also does. In contrast, Blanchard PERSONALLY CREATED AN ENTIRE THEORY of transsexualism, the theory of autogynephilia, which has its own long Wikipedia entry and has appeared in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This is very notable. This should be the first thing about Blanchard's views on transsexualism that are discussed. Also the editor has reinserted language that is confusing and violates the MOS:IDENTITY guidelines. . .for example, language such as "transsexual males." Transsexual males are trans men, not trans women. To call trans women "transsexual males" goes against what has become common usage in the 21st century (even if it's what Ray Blanchard thinks and it's what used to be the standard way of referring to trans women 20 years ago), and as I said, it's a violation of Wikipedia style guidelines. This editor has also removed important context for understanding the controversy around Blanchard's work. Blanchard is often VILIFIED in the transgender community (as one can see simply by looking at this talk page of his article and who some of the different editors have been). Editor 182.48.140.189 removed language that was key to understanding the extent of this criticism and where it was coming from (and language that is backed up by verifiable, reputable sources). So, for all the reasons I have stated above, I have decided to revert 182.48.140.189's edits. I am willing to talk about this and reach consensus, but I think that this is something that should be discussed here on this talk page first. Rebecca (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I made the edits you reverted. Given your criticisms, it's clear that reversion was an over-reaction: nothing you complained about could not be easily remedied by a few less drastic edits. Furthermore, my edits by no means were intended to represent a finalized version of the article, they largely an attempt to improve upon a poorly formatted portion of the article by adding subheadings. I agree that the first sentence is problematic, but it was more awkward tacked on at the end, and given undue importance with it's own subheading, so I put it at the beginning, not wanting the delete it as I assumed somebody added it for a reason. I really don't see how it detracts from the typology, which is a labelled subheading and linked out; it's not as though this sentence is the opening to the article, it is merely the opening to a subsection. That said, feel free to modify the short opening if you wish.

I used "transsexual males" because it is the terminology the Blanchard prefers, which seemed appropriate given the article is discussing his theories. You say "[t]ranssexual males are trans men, not trans women", but you're confusing sex and gender here: males and females refers to sex, men and women refers to gender; this is the standard way of doing things.

I removed the note about the trans* communities rejection of Blanchard because it didn't seem any more appropriate for a discussion of the validity of a scientific theory than the fundamentalist rejection of evolution. Perhaps a "popular reaction" subheading would be useful here? I assume by "language that was key to understanding the extent of this criticism and where it was coming from", you mean to refer to "One trans woman" and "largest association of medical professionals who provide care to transsexual people". I removed those a) because the section looks and reads better without them, b) the information is readily available for any reader who is interested and clicks on the links, and c) it seemed POV to trump up the critics of Blanchard more than is necessary.

I am reinstating my edits with a "popular reaction" section, feel free to make your own improvements; it needs fleshing out a lot still.

182.48.140.189 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is misleading to have Blanchard's advocacy of state-funded sex reassignment surgery as the lead of this section. It is totally contrary to standard practice on Wikipedia to have a trivial detail appear to be the topic sentence of an entire sub-section, while burying the thing that Blanchard is actually known for in relation to transsexualism (his autogynephilia model). If you are concerned about flow. . .I'm sure there is a better way to edit this sub-section with that concern in mind.

In terms of your use of "transsexual males," it doesn't matter what terminology Blanchard prefers here since we are paraphrasing him. And the reality is that trans women are transsexual females, not transsexual males--at least according to Wikipedia style guidelines. "Male" and "female" are most commonly used in our society as gendered terminology and as interchangeable with "man" and "woman." And Wikipedia style guidelines prohibits using gendered terminology that's inconsistent with an individual's public self-identifcation. Most trans women identify as female, not male. Therefore, trans women should not be referred to as males in this article. You seem to be falling back on the idea that the so-called "sex/gender distinction" is valid and that "sex" is entirely an objective biological fact, rather than partially being a social construct. This is a fine opinion for you to hold, but it is heavily disputed whether the sex/gender distinction actually exists, and it is POV to push such a belief in an encyclopedia article as though it were a universally accepted truth.

Your analogy of Blanchard's theory to evolution is quite ridiculous. Blanchard's theory hardly enjoys anything like universal scholarly acceptance in his field (as evolution does); it is highly disputed by a variety of experts (as you will see if you read the article on his typology). The whole point is that Blanchard's critics, many of whom are also scientists and have published their criticisms in peer-reviewed journals, dispute whether Blanchard's ideas even qualify as "scientific." His ideas are not endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association or the World Professional Association of Transgender Health. Therefore, criticism of his ideas should be included in the spirit that criticism of any controversial idea of dubious scientific validity would be included. And a major component of this criticism has been the reactions of transgender activists to his ideas. So this should be included, and this is notable. It's also notable that the professional association that actually addresses the health concerns of the population Blanchard studies rejects his ideas. It helps readers understand that, far from being like evolution, Blanchard's theories are actually fairly marginal in his field. Rebecca (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my revisions. If you object to the opening sentence, then delete it or edit it. If you object to the terminology, then change it.

It's absurd to say that having a short sentence correcting possible misrepresentations of Blanchard is "burying the thing that Blanchard is actually known for"; if anything, having his typology briefly described in a poorly formatted paragraph filled mostly with criticisms is what constitutes "burying". Furthermore, the opening portion of the article clearly describes Blanchard as "best known for his research studies [...] on pedophilia, transsexualism, and sexual orientation". As I said if you object to the sentence, edit it, delete it, or rework it to fit somewhere else.

You say that "'[m]ale' and 'female' are most commonly used in our society as gendered terminology", but this is contrary to the accepted (descriptivist) dictionary definitions, where "male" is "[o]f or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes" and "female" is "[o]f or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs". If you want an example on the male/female man/women usage I describe, see Haslanger's Gender and Race: (What) Are They? (What) Do We Want Them To Be?. You call "sex" a social construct, which is ridiculous: sex is biological by definition. And again, if you object to the terminology, change it.

I used the analogy to show how criticism by the transsexual community should not be presented along side criticism by experts and experts organisations, which I don't object to in the slightest.

I'm reinstating my revisions again, please do not revert them again, if you object to some piece of them fix it.

182.48.140.189 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't the editor who reverted your changes last time, though I agreed with the revert. The editor who reverted your changes last time was Georgia guy, and we are not the same person. So there are at least two editors here who believe your changes are inappropriate. And what I've been trying to explain on this talk page is that I disagree with pretty much ALL the changes you made. That's why I believe reversion is appropriate in this case.

The opening sentence of this article describes Blanchard as "best known for his research studies AND CONTROVERSIAL VIEWS (emphasis mine) on pedophilia, transsexualism, and sexual orientation." In other words, Blanchard isn't solely known for being a researcher, and it's just as important to describe the reaction to his ideas as it is to describe his ideas themselves, given how notable the debate surrounding Blanchard has been. You simply have provided no compelling reason why Blanchard's typology shouldn't be the first thing addressed in the section on his views on transsexualism. Blanchard's typology and the debate surrounding it are what he is most known for in this area, not his advocacy of state-funded SRS.

Also I never said that sex was a social construct. I simply said that it is CONTESTED among scholars as to what extent the category of sex is biological versus to what extent it is socially constructed. That's all. And even if you sincerely believe trans women are transsexual males, I would hope you could at least recognize how such terminology can be confusing and is not NPOV. Some types of discourse refer to trans women as transsexual males, others types of discourse refer to trans women as transsexual females. If you are not willing to use the term "trans women," we should at least settle on something such as "male-to-female transsexuals" that is more likely to be universally understood.

In short, I don't object to some piece of your edits. I object to the entirety of your edits. Therefore, I am reverting again. I would suggest you don't get involved in an edit war with me and that you rather try to build consensus here on specific changes you think are in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As of now, there are two editors (Georgia guy and I) who have found your edits thus far to be inappropriate and worthy of reversion. Rebecca (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm on Rebecca's side here. Serano, J. M. (2010). "The Case Against Autogynephilia". International Journal of Transgenderism. 12 (3): 176–187. doi:10.1080/15532739.2010.514223. is, as always, very elucidating on the subject of autogynephilia; I find the comparison of the trans community to fundamentalist creationists rather strange as Serano notes many flaws in Blanchard and co.'s work, such as begging the question, false dichotomy, goalpost moving, cherry-picked data, borderline unfalsifiability; things more associated with the Intelligent Design pushers than evolutionists. Further more, respectable scientists don't include diagnostic specifiers simply to "not be accused of sexism". And secondly, he is way more known for autogynephilia than his support of GRS; indeed, from my viewpoint there is something akin to Iran's "forced transition to pretend we don't have gays" in his support. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.nowpublic.com/world/big-brother-effect-or-biological-error

  Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for EL's

Hi, folks. I don't edit this page, but I thought other interested editors might want to consider adding one/both of these Youtube-available video's of Blanchard summarizing his work:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQKXiZc3FXg
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXlczn2sMbM
  

— James Cantor (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Added. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"gender dysphoria sub-working group for the DSM-IV"

"Blanchard served on the gender dysphoria sub-working group for the DSM-IV and served as Chair of the paraphilia sub-working group for the DSM-5."

Can someone clarify what this is supposed to mean? Gender dysphoria was not a diagnosis in the DSM-IV, "Gender Identity Disorder" was. Gender dysphoria did not exist until DSM-V, and Blanchard was not involved (at least not directly) in the sub-group that worked on revising "Gender Identity Disorder" (he was working on the paraphilia subgroup, and only working on revising transvestic fetishism). (Source: Julia Serano's article "Trans people are still disordered in the DSM-V". (From her book Outspoken. And old version can be found here.)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redzin (talk • contribs) 19:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of this stuff is written as though its completely true

Especially the Fraternal birth order effect section, WP:NPOV 2407:7000:9C6A:DB00:AC1E:EAA0:DF19:5435 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Why doesn't this page have a "criticism" section?

The articles on many known researchers and thinkers have a section dedicated to criticisms of their ideas, as are many other articles on things with a certain stance. And even this article says WPATH reject Blanchard's work and trans people criticise it, so there is some mention of this here, this doesn't even create an image that his position is well beloved and accepted. The "criticism", section is standard, why isn't it here? Tomer 070 (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that criticize him?CycoMa (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Bettcher, T. M. (2008). Pretenders to the Throne. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(3), 430–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9326-0

And all the research Serano cites here http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-real-autogynephilia-deniers.html Tomer 070 (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I do believe the first source may be useful but I doubt that the second one is reliable. Blogs in general aren’t reliable.CycoMa (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, although Julia Serano is an expert in some areas, I think Tomer wasn't saying to cite her site (SELFPUB shouldn't be cited for criticisms of another BLP), but rather to cite the references her page lists. (I'm reminded of Timothy Messer-Kruse pointing to a list of RS on his site and being similarly, understandably, misunderstood.) However (@Tomer), reading the excerpts, I want to note that if the papers "merely" found results inconsistent with Blanchard but don't(?) say "this is in contrast to what Blanchard / his model would predict", citing them as criticisms of Blanchard would be WP:OR.
If there are RS that discuss Blanchard or his theories, they'd appropriate to look at for inclusion either in this article or the articles on his theories. But as Crossroads says, it's better not to make a "Criticism" section. It simultaneously increases the prominence of "Criticism!" in the TOC in a way that's not great for the BLP, and also isolates criticism into one section that's separated from the places where the article discusses the controversial things, which is not great for the reader. (It's better to present relevant critical responses to things in the same areas of the article as the things are being discussed in.) -sche (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Bettcher, 2008 can also be read here https://www.academia.edu/2593138/Pretenders_to_the_Throne Tomer 070 (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read in on WP:TPG. But anyway I think that is reliable enough.

Although I’m not sure a criticism section on for this guy is appropriate because your sources appear to actually criticize autogynephilia isn’t of Ray himself.CycoMa (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I am against criticism sections in WP:BLPs. Academic criticism of his academic work belongs, but in headings about his research. These shouldn't be presented as criticisms of Ray Blanchard personally, which is unprofessional. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION gives reasons why criticism sections should be avoided. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)