Talk:Homosexual transsexual/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Information in a WP:RS can have a point of view. From the RS guideline itself: "Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources." I work a lot with fiction articles, so we use reviews often - because they are determined to be a RS, does that mean that they become less glowing or damning? Of course not!  :) The way the History section is set up, it seems like more people than Green believe that these cultural groups are examples of homosexual transsexuality. I believe that the statement "The existence of this type of transsexual is not new or unique to western culture, nor is it a concept invented by only one man." is POV, as it uses gendered language, and it makes Wikipedia look like it agrees with Green's paper rather than just presenting it. --Malkinann (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Hfarmer, You are once again trying to use sources to push a point of view rather than to present the controversy in a neutral manner. That's been the problem for the last two years here. We should present Green's argument without claiming it is "the truth." That is one of the major problems with the people who cling so tenaciously to these taxonomies and models. They are so deeply invested in these concepts that they refuse to believe that ideas like "homosexual" or "transsexual" are social constructions. Their views deserve a fair and balanced treatment here, but your insistence on presenting them as some sort of obvious fact gets to the heart of the problem with all of this. These attempts to colonize other cultures by shoehorning their traditional sex/gender categories into a western medico-juridical model is highly problematic, as critics of these terms point out. The article cannot take sides, and the way you keep trying to present things does exactly that. Jokestress (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malkinann. Indeed I would go further: all sources have a point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia has a point of view, which we call the "neutral point of view". It is one which presents other points of view without endorsing or dismissing them. It lets the reader decide for themselves. Points of view are not a bad thing. Wikipedia's point of view is quite extraordinary. It allows anyone to edit any article and still their joint efforts produce a remarkable encyclopedia. Geometry guy 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

AJ the only deeply invested person here is you. You don't see me creating a littany of webpages or holding huge meetings to deal with this issue. I'm just trying to give a fair representation of facts here on WP. :-/

Maliknann: "The way the History section is set up, it seems like more people than Green believe that these cultural groups are examples of homosexual transsexuality." That's because more people than green do belive that. Green is just the only one I can find who has sought to complie a comprehensive study of a bunch of dispareate groups. Mostly the same ones I have included in the history section. If you read the rest of the citations that are in the paragraphs on each group you will see that other researchers concur. From Sam Winter in what he writes about the Kathoey or Thailand, to what he writes of the transwomen of the Phillipines. To what Desai writes about the Hijra's of South Asia. Or to what Rowson, An-Nawaawi, etc write about the Mukhanath of Arabia. They all describe them in no uncertain terms as being biological males, who dress and act like women out of a sense of identity as a woman, who have sex with and are attracted to men. Even if they don't write the verbatim term "homosexual transsexual" common sense says they are talking about the same phenomena.

As for my opening statement on that section. Feel freee to write a new one. Be bold. But I will feel free to change it if it's a total 180 and contraditcs all the sources I have found.

"I believe that the statement "The existence of this type of transsexual is not new or unique to western culture, nor is it a concept invented by only one man." is POV, as it uses gendered language,"

What gendered language? I have to specify that I am talking about transsexuals don't I? Should we write of people a zim ze and zir?  :-\

GeometryGuy: I actually agree with what you wrote above. WP's POV is neutral. But that neutral POV cannot be done by disregarding reliable and pertinent sources because we don't like what they say. I have found plenty of reliable sources, which spann the globe and about 1500 years of recorded history (i.e. the sources I cite with regard to the effeminates of early Medina.) They all say the same thing. They describe males who are attracted to other males who live as women dress as women etc... What am I to do with statements like those I have cited? Ignore them? Ignore them because they aren't originally in english and of course don't use a word coined in the 20th century? Were their not stars and plantes eon's before we were here to name them?

To say that only sources in english and written by western academics in the last 50 years count for this would be ethnocentric. As if there is some more fundamental truth to a doccument written in english and simple common sense cannot be called upon when confronted with a translation of an anchient text. :-| --Hfarmer (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have given it a go, Hfarmer. :) When I was saying "gendered language", I was referring to the use of the word "man". It's better to use the word "people" instead. I suggest reducing the current "history" section to the first and last paragraphs, and porting the other information to the respective articles on the hijira, kathoey etc. --Malkinann (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh did you think my use of the word "man" in that sentence was a reference to the MTF transsexuals or to the behavioral scientist who have studied them. They are perdominantly men though that is changing. So I suppose the word "person" would be better there. Good call. :-)--Hfarmer (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, by drawing the attention to the sex of the behavioural scientists, it kind of implies to my mind that no female behavioural scientist would agree with their views - which isn't a logical assumption. So I've got rid of that statement entirely, as the next sentence can also serve as a lead-in to the topic. --Malkinann (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd always assumed that the "one man" was Blanchard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd always assumed that the "one man" was WP:OR and WP:SYN. What reliably-sourced statement is this factive POV assertion trying to refute? Jokestress (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement "The existence of this type of transsexual is not new or unique to western culture, nor is it a concept invented by only one man." is gone now from the article, I removed it earlier today. --Malkinann (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Modified Androphilia Scale?

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

The people involved in the "homosexual transsexual" classification scheme (mainly Kurt Freund) developed several scales, such as the Feminine Gender Identity Scale (FGIS) and the Masculine Gender Identity Scale (MGIS), which were these self-report multiple choice things kind of like the Bem Sex Role Inventory discussed on classification of transsexuals. He also created an Androphilia Scale and a Gynephilia Scale. These were later modified specifically for use with "gender disorders." It's kind of like the Kinsey Scale, where your sexuality is situated on an axis between totally gay and totally not gay. The Kinsey test was either a self-assesment or one made by a test-giver after taking a sexual history of a subject. The Freund/Blanchard test is a questionnaire, kind of like a "rate your mate" quiz in Cosmopolitan or a purity test. You tally up the score at the end and learn what you are. Jokestress (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cosmo Quiz commentary aside she is essentially right. I have looked on the net and barring a paper or two that one would have to pay to read I don't see any reference that gives the actual questions on the quiz. However I have taken the kind of test that the Modified Androphilia scale is. They are multiple choice, long, and crucially they ask the same question many different ways. Sometimes they ask a set of quesstions not necessarily one after the other, which are supposed to indirectly point to one answer or the other. Psychological test like this are not just used for sexual orientation but for a number of things. As abusrd as these test may sound think of them as a sort of meter stick. A way of quantifying just how gay or not gay, suicidal or not suicidal, Schizophrenic or not Schizophrenic, etc. et.al ad nausem.

You may be interested in the sample questionaire items on this page.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thank you both! :) Any chance of some of this getting into mainspace somewhere? --Malkinann (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Happily, transmen have been generally ignored by these people. The fixation has always been on trans women in relation to male sexual desire. Back in the day, taxonomic zeal got Blanchard to claim that female-to-male transsexualism was always woman-loving (he's backed off those claims now), and the Chivers/Bailey paper cited in the opening paragraph are about the only citations where the term is used uncritically for trans guys. Transmen who are attracted to women are discussed as examples by critics, though (see Wahng and Bagemihl in the citations). Jokestress (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this from AJ's perpective she is right. The people associated with the clark institute do not seem to think much about FTM's. Dr. Blanchard's main intersest was in explaining non-homosexual transsexualism. He arrived at an answer which says that non-homosexual transsexuals are driven by the sexual desire to be with themselves. Named this desire Autogynephilia. Then took a really harmless sounding quirk and equated it whith peadophillia and zoophilia.  :-/ You can understand why Autogynephilia makes so many so angry.

In my opinion it is not right to see your question and this article only in relation to autogynephilia. What you have noticed is partly because of the relative few FTM's there are in the world. Every prevalence number I have seen from the DSM to Connway has the number of MTF's being much much greater than the number of FTM's. That is a large part of the reason why there is less literature on FTM's in general. Then of course the fact you pointed out that "masculine" behavior in females is generally tolerated, but even slightly feminine behavior in males is not.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

More Hfarmer erroneous POV edits

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

Once again. The first paragraph of the text of the opinion, which I found on the website of the United Nation Human rights Comitte (sp?) says "gay men with female sexual identities". That is in a sense a very short definition of what a MTF homosexual transsexual is.

Last nite I asked on of my adult Nephew's this question. If I had a bastketball in my hands, and called it a flibble flabbel would it make a difference? Would it not be correct to say that flibble flabbel = basket ball? He thought about it for a minute. Then he said no what's in a name? It's just a label. Another thing I am reminded of is a physics professor I had. He would write a symbol on the board, then a student would get all tripped up on just exactly precisely what it was called. He would then say "call this one bob and the other one jill. What matters is knowing the definition of bob and jill." I could go on and on along this line. I don't think the way I interpret this is wrong at all. If the definitions are the same then the exact precise word, or the lantuage used (English, Arabic, Hindi, Thai etc.) does not matter. Those various languages would never use the same exact word even if Blanchard himself wrote a paper on this topic in hindi. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, you're OK with people calling you a transvestite, which is how you'd be classified under several naming schemes. Is that OK with you? If you don't believe precise terminology is important when discussing science (behavioral or otherwise), then why are you so intent on editing this article to fit your beliefs about terminology?

Bottom line is that neither the INS case nor the news article use the term "homosexual transsexual," so adding them in the first sentence makes that sentence incorrect. I again ask you to refrain from making edits to the article space while we sort out the issues here. They only prolong this tedious process. Jokestress (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That depends on the definition of the word transvestite used in that model. I know that in many early models basically any biological male who dressed as a female for any reason whatsoever was defined as a transvestite. If we are discussing one of those models then calling me and every other transsexual or transgender person a transvestite is a precise use of terminology. A term only has the meaning we give it we can redefine them at will. Just so long as we then agree on and stick with that meaning. (Consider the case of the word Planet. When Planet was defined more loosely Pluto was a planet. Now that it is defined differently Pluto is no longer a planet. In science the definition matters more than the word. For without a definition a word is just a collection of letters and a noise.)

The bottom line is that both of the article and the court ruling use the definition of a homosexual transsexual. What you say is like saying that if I write about "a celestial body that (1) is in orbit around the Sun, (2) has sufficient mass so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (3) has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit." but do not use the word planet then what I as a physicist write and publish could not be used in a WP article about planets! --Hfarmer (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The definition of planet article has multiple sub-articles, because scientists understand that precise terminology is important and does matter. That definition is as controversial as this one. For our purposes, though, it's best to use examples from ways humans have been categorized when discussing the problems here. You can claim that quadroon or mulatto or high yellow describe the same phenomenon ("mixed race"), but you will encounter resistance if you try to claim those are synonyms to be used interchangeably with more current terms, and legitimate ways to categorize people legally or scientifically. The INS case specifically stated it is not considering issues related to transsexuals, and your attempts to claim otherwise are WP:OR and WP:SYN. Please revert those changes and refrain from editing the article itself while we discuss these things. Jokestress (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I know I've taken papers which discuss a "beautiful boy" character type in the Japanese context and fitted them into the bishounen article. I'm happy with that because "beautiful boy" is a direct translation, and often it's used as an English supplement to the word bishounen. I feel it would be tougher to do so with this article because of where it is in the lead - at that point, the definition is still unclear to the reader. I'm not convinced with the planet analogy - names are a human thing. It might be better to initially stick with sources which use the proper terminology and think about reintroducing other sources at a later date. Keep them in the further reading section, though. --Malkinann (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The opinions of you and your family regarding usage of terminology are irrelevant here. The reason we have separate articles on quadroon or mulatto or high yellow is because it is Wikipedia practice to separate a phenomenon from various terms about that phenomenon; in this case, Black people, multiracial, etc. Your opinion about what constitutes "the most fundamental definition of a transsexual" does not matter, as it is original research. What matters is explaining the way the term homosexual transsexual is used in a neutral manner. If you wish to write a definition of transsexual article that mirrors the definition of planet article, I believe that can reside under transsexual or classification of transsexuals until it is complete enough to merit it own article. "Homosexual transsexual" is used in a very specific manner and has been criticized for very specific reasons, which is why this article should be about those specifics, with the larger issues, such as who is a transsexual, covered in the general articles. Jokestress (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not just my opinion. That a MTF transsexual is a biological male with a female sexual (or gender as used in common parlance) identity. Is the commonly accepted definition. Google gives these various definitions which all basically say what I just wrote. Read WP:NOR You are not correct according to that interpretive document. As for the term homosexual transsexual WP:NOR enforces my position that the little bit of anlysis that leads one to conclude that a source writing about "gay men with female sexual identies" (which in the context of the case I am refering to are an immutable full time state of being.) are therefore gay=homosexual, MTF transsexuals="men with female sexual identities". You can repeat that this is OR again and again but that will not make it true.

As for your saying that this term comes up in a narrow context. This will surprise you but I agree to that. What I disagree with is that context is just the context of the research of Blanchard and the book of Bailey. In my poit of view that context is the history of research and literature on the phenomena of biological males who live as females and are attracted to males across cultural and linguistic boundaries. That requiers the simple analysis that WP:NOR and WP:NOTOR is ok. Very little analsys really. Richard Green and many other authorities make the connection.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that's what you want this article to be about, as evidenced by your edits, but your description is not inclusive of how this term is used. You are the one who has made this article about Bailey and Blanchard, by adding that misleading infobox and replacing the original criticism section with an WP:UNDUE rehashing of the Bailey nonsense. "Biological males who live as females and are attracted to males" are best described as a subset of transgender, because they are not necessarily transsexual. That article has a whole section about the phenomenon as it has occurred in other times and cultures. This article needs to be restricted to what this term encompasses. We can say that some people have classified this or that group as an equivalent to "homosexual transsexual," but that is not a universally accepted fact. For example, Wikipedia shouldn't say "Demographic group X is a kind of homosexual transsexual," etc. Wikipedia should say "Dr. so-and-so says homosexual transsexuals are analogous to demographic group X, but Dr. So-and-so says that demographic group X actually comprises something else." Jokestress (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To your arguement that the people that use the hernandez Montiel case are not transsexual please see the below. I would add that most of the definitions one looks up for transsexual these days do not make reference to op status or desire as being THE defining factor. The Houston Journal of International Law's article on this case makes it perfectly clear Hernandez-Montiel was not just a transvestite. Nor are the women profiled in the Border Crossers article. See below.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A more appropriate passage from Benjamin

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

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

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

The Hernandez-Monitel case

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

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

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

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

You are wrong. The text appears in the UNHCR version on page 16 of the PDF (page 10483 of the ruling in section IV.C.4 as footnote 7). Moving on, I believe you may be starting to understand the import of the ruling, though. Asylum is based on "immutable" characteristics, and transsexual people, through their mutability (or "soft immutability" as some have argued about this case) confound this definition. That's why this judge's ruling declines to make a determination about the status of transsexual people. This case isn't about transsexual people. They pose the same problems for rigid legal definitions as they do for rigid "scientific" definitions such as the one being discussed here. In law and science, terminology and precise definitions matter. That is why the court did not determine that "a gay man with a female sexual identity" is a transsexual. Jokestress (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you not cite that page when I asked you to point to it in the text. Furthremore jokestress Hernandez-Montiel was and is a transsexual just like the people profiled in the sftimes article. That article is a RS and that RS makes the connection for me. Therefore your OR arguemetn is moot.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I originally directed you to footnote 7, which I assumed would be enough information for anyone to figure it out. I apologize for making that assumption. Jokestress (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Related information under a common heading goes under transsexual sexuality or classification of transsexuals, etc. Jokestress (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That is your and only your opinion. I think you are not used to another transwoman openly challenging you. You stamp your foot and raise your voice and expect others to snap too. I used to defend you to certain other people who said that. Based on your behavior as of late I see why some people say what they say.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I see this is devolving into a USENET-type argument again. Your personal attack above has no place here. I am going to take some time to write a proposed article so disinterested editors can see what I believe this article should encompass per precedent and policy on Wikipedia. Please strike the comment above and consider writing your own proposed version for comparison. Then we can discuss content. Jokestress (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The following is from an actual lawyers analysis of this case as appeared in the Houston Journal of International law. Redefining gender: Hernandez-Montiel v. INS. by Cox, Jason Houston Journal of International Law • Fall, 2001 • asylum granted gay Mexican national with female sexual identity Cox has this to say

"(101) Hernandez-Montiel, 225 F.3d at 1094. By making this distinction, the court specifically overturned the BIA's earlier ruling. See id. The court takes pains to note "this case is about sexual identity, not fashion. Geovanni is not simply a transvestite `who dresses in clothing of the opposite sex for psychological reasons.... Geovanni manifests his sexual orientation by adopting gendered traits characteristically associated with women." Id. at 1096. "

That foot note refers to this point in the text On page 3 of same.

"(98) The court concluded the group Geovanni belonged to was comprised of "gay men with female sexual identities in Mexico," a far less inclusive subgroup of gay men and women. (99) This distinction seemed to square the instant case with the court's previous ruling in Sanchez-Trujillo because such a subgroup is readily cognizable (or "small" and "readily identifiable," in the court's words). (100) Possibly anticipating criticism regarding immutability standards enunciated in Acosta, the court distinguished the social group as those gay men with female sexual identities rather than "homosexual males who dress as females." (101) The court offers little help, however, to immigration officials charged with determining whether an asylum applicant is truly aligned with an opposite sexual identity. Presumably, asylum applicants could attire themselves in clothes of the opposite sex and make plausible claims of `group' membership. The court noted "[g]ay men with female sexual identities outwardly manifest their identities through characteristics traditionally associated with women, such as feminine dress, long hair and fingernails." (102) These characteristics hardly seem immutable. However, the court saw these attributes as part and parcel of a sexual identity that a person either could not or should not be required to change. (103) " (Emphasis mine).

Cox writes "Geovanni is not simply a transvestite `who dresses in clothing of the opposite sex for psychological reasons.... Geovanni manifests his sexual orientation by adopting gendered traits characteristically associated with women." Hernandez-Montiel according to this reliable source is not just a transvestite, not just a gay man. But a person, who has adopted gendered traits of the opposite sex, a person who dresses in the clothin of the opposite sex for psychological reasons, a person who in the very way they describe themselves relates this to their sexual proclivities. A reliable source concurs with my elementary WP:NOTOR analysis of the first two sources. I will incorpoorate this one in to the article. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I had to strike out the above because I realized I was a bit confused. What is said at one point in the courts decision in this case totally alluded me. The court actually wrote at 10485 (bottom of page 17 of the UNHCR's PDF of the text)."This case is about sexual identity, not fashion. Geovanni is not simply a transvestite "who dresses in clothing of the opposite sex for psychological reasons." American Heritage Dictionary 1289 (2d Coll. Ed.) (1985). Rather, Geovanni manifests his sexual orientation by adopting gendered traits characteristically associated with women." To fully Flesh out what the court used as a definition of transvestite one would need that particular dictionary, or at least one that is contemporaneous. If I am not mistaken the court would most likely have been using the old standard whereby a transvestite is 4-0 on the Benjamin scale and non-homosexual <5 on the Kinsey scale. In other words in saying that Hernandez-Montiel was not a transvestite they were saying she met the then current, and dominant definition they would have found for a "true transsexual" (as so much literature called it.) They called her a "gay male who expresses his sexuality and sexual identity which is immutable through clothing" They called a transwoman that and granted that transwoman rights that others have followed on (as the sftimes has told us) This is much more significant. This court in this case has taken the concept of a homosexual transsexual and used it, applied it and came to a conclusion which affirmed rights for at least a segment of the transgender population. (I find puzzling the need to restrict that protection only to androphiles. As if non-androphiles don't get beat on.  :-?) That is the exact OPPOSITE of the effect that every critic of Blanchard and Bailey has said would be the result of the acceptance of Blanchard's theory. Even I belived that at best the theory could do no real harm. I would have never imagined that a judge could write about a transwoman "you are a gay man who dresses up as a woman as an expression of your sexual (gender?) identity. Therefore I find in your favor." :-?

My mind was so far off Blanchard's theory that I did not even see that connection.

Where are the monuments to Hernandez-Montiel? I want to shake her hand.--Hfarmer (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As for your pointing me to the foot note this is what you wrote. It's up above look for it.

"In that case, they stated, "We need not consider in this case whether transsexuals constitute a particular social group," so its relevance on a page about the term homosexual transsexual is questionable. See Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000). Jokestress (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)" (verbatim)

You quoted it out of context and for a very long period of this discussion refused to point it out. Perhaps because you knew that when read in context this statement does not seem to mean what you think it does. Multiple multiple reliable sources can be found that agree with the interpretation that appears in the article right now.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am sorry that you were unable to find the quotation after I directed you to footnote 7. I will certainly provide very precise and detailed instructions for finding a footnote in a paper next time, to help you avoid these kinds of problems and to keep the discussion moving forward. I hope we can move on now. Jokestress (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's cool. It's partly my fault I was distracted by the bleeping current events here in ILL.

I have refereed these questions in as neutral a way as I can to the NOR notice board. I will abide by whatever they say. The people who hang there have a very strict idea of what is OR. (i.e. reading distances off a map. :-?) So I think their is a 8/10 chance they will say that using sources that do not have "homosexual transsexual" in them is OR. So a quote like the one by benjamin which IMO is pretty damming would be out along with many many other things. There are a minority however who don't see the concept of OR that way. We'll see. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

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

There are two essential questions.

Scope:Is this article...

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

Sources:Should we use only sources...

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

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

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

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

I have stricken the sources question due to a discussion at WP:NOR/N by four to two the consensus there is that a source having the verbatim words "homosexual transsexual". Is not necessary for using a source. Nor is the word "transsexual" needed for using a cross cultural source. However we have to be careful about how close the language is. IMO if a source does not say something like ""word) means mtf transsexual(s) who are attracted to men" or "homosexual (gay) males who live as and dress as women as part of their sexual (gender) identity" and any number of permutations. Or for that matter using sources that only refer to Autogynephilia and never mention "homosexual transsexual" to enhance the criticism of Dr. Blanchard's theory well that's ok too then.

I'll wait untill at least 5 or 7 others vote on this survey, or until Barrack is sworn in. After that I think due dilligence for consesensus will have been done.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the former is likely. While waiting for the latter, WP:CONSENSUS may be good reading. Geometry guy 21:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

TfD nomination of Template:BBL sidebar

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

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

Questionable science

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

As I wrote on the template deletion page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a few here who insist that this topic is a mere fringe theory in a small and forgotten science on par whith Phrenology and such. However as I detaield above while the use of language in Dr. Blanchard's work, as well as works by other sexologist who characterized transsexual women who were attracted to men as "Homosexual male transsexuals" is considered scientifically questionable, even by those who have used it (i.e. Harry Benjamin, John Bancroft, and many others)... The fact is that Dr. Blanchard's theory does not meet the defintions of a fringe or crakpot piece of science. On page 17 of this doccument from the APA it shows that researchres who have published extensively on this topic, including Ray Blanchard were selected for the working group that would rewrite the APA's "Diagnotic and Statistical Mannual". This is an indication of the regard those people are held in by their peers. Were the actaul crackpots or fringe scientist this would not happen. However this also does not mean their ideas are widely accepted. That is why I setteld on the language I felt was supportable, "questionable science".

I have written out my reasoning for writing that section on the scientific question ability of this article and thus far no one has objected. However the NPOV dispute tag remains. I am unsure what else can be done to make this less POV in the eyes of those who say that it is. Specifically the user who put that tag there in the first place is invovled in real life drama over this subject. It reminds me of this passage from Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F "Probably the only grounds on which there could be an NPOV dispute over an article that actually conformed to the NPOV is when one or both of the parties to the dispute did not understand either the NPOV policy, or enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing favoring one POV had actually been said. For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough." Could this be an example if there are those who feel that I did not make the article sound like the science in it is fringe or crakcpot enough? In particular if those people are invovled in real life drama over this? Such is why I have requested comments. Depending on those comments I will make whatever changes are suggested by editors who are not James_cantor, ProudAGP, Jokestress, or DickLyon... they are all either known to be or suspected of being principal real life actors in this case all of whom have massive COI on this topic. see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. On this particular matter and in the RfC below I humbly and respectfully request that they refrain from commenting.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review and the cleanup tag

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

Request for comment and the NPOV Dispute tag.

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

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

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

Reasons this is NPOV:

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

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

1. Ok so Phenomenon Vs. Term is not resolved.
2. The case law mentioned in the first sentence is used by transsexuals who seek asylum and more than one cited secondary source says this.
3. The lede is too long. Be specific about the Balance of the lede.
4. Again be specific. What the article does in great detail is review the research that has been done on this topic by various sexologist.
5. the article has one whole section devoted to the sexologist who question the use of this kind of terminology by other sexologist. They are the appropriate ones to be quoting and they are quoted.
6. Didn't you say before that this was "just a term used by Blancahrd in his crank theory" and such? So we should minimize Blanchard now?

Those are my immediate reactions here is what I am going to do about them.

1.) We can do a request for comment on that topic again. However the last time we did I had the distinct impression that the consensus was to write about this as a pehnomena.

2.)As far as the case law thing is concerned. Multiple secondary sources say that case is used by and deals with transsexual and transgender women. In particular This from sfweekly "Gay and lesbian immigrants have been eligible for asylum protection since 1990, when the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld a judge's decision deeming gay men in Cuba a "particular social group." That was later extended as a precedent to sexual orientation claims from any country by then–Attorney General Janet Reno. However, transgender people aren't yet explicitly acknowledged as a distinct social group — at least not in name. But in a landmark ruling in 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals paved the way for transgender claims by recognizing "gay men with female sexual identities" as a group eligible for protection. ... At the center of the case was Geovanni Hernandez-Montiel from Mexico, who started dressing like a girl at age 12. Hernandez-Montiel said he was sexually assaulted twice by the police when he was 14, and soon after was attacked with a knife by a posse of men who mocked his sexual orientation. His sister kicked him out of the house as a teen and he fled to the United States, filing for asylum and withholding of deportation in 1995.":That is the word of a secondary source. For a point of law a judges decision really is a primary source. At wikipedia the OR policy keeps us from interpreting primary soruces in general. Unelss a secondary source backs up that interpretation. The secondary source which I have just quoted backs up the interpretion of that case in this article. This is why I write what I write.

3.)I am shortening the lead. Though I am unsure just what I can do aside from doing a hatchet job on Blanchard and Bailey that woul satisfy Jokestress. As I said i think her real life Drama over this matter makes her an unerliable judge of POV. As the text on NPOV disputes explains an article can be totally neutral and get hit with the NPOV tag because an ideologue feels it does not reflect their POV enough. Which leads me to...

4.) and 5.) Proponents view is explained in great detail. Critics not enough... sigh. Again the only thing explained in great detail here are the research findings of sexologist who have used the term in their research. The views of sexologist who criticise the term are explained in great detail in a section totally devoted to that. Called scientifically questionable use of terminology. I suppose I can make this section a bit longer. Mabey a paragraph longer.

6.) Jokestress's postion in the term vs Phenomena debate an in other palces has been, if memory serves, that this was just a piece of perjorative terminology invented by Ray Blanchard and only used by peopel at the Clarke institute. So I am a bit confused by this last point. So I should cut out reference to Blancahrd's theory. You realize that Blanchard did not coin this term. (Unlike Autogynephilia which he did coin, there is less written about, and it's article reflects that.)

Last but not least could you please list what the other problems you have are. Please be specific so that I may either adress or debate them. I am sure this article is not perfect.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm coming at this from afar, but I think that this is progress. I suggest that you both continue to specify your concerns, and try to edit in ways to address those concerns, or ask for further clarification. I think that if both editors cooperate in this, it will be possible after several iterations to come to a good result. Good luck, everyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I can completely understand how someone reading the current POV-pushed article might come to that conclusion. The term predates both Bailey and Blanchard, but did emerge from plethysmograph "science" conducted by Blanchard's mentor at the Clarke Institute. I believe the first published use of the term in English was in 1974 by Kurt Freund, when Blanchard was still experimenting on rats or prisoners or both. The 1974 citations were the first two footnotes in the consensus-based lede, though that may have changed with all of Hfarmer's unilateral POV insertions. Academics and researchers were commenting on the problems with applying the term "homosexual" to transgender people in the 1960s, though. Jokestress (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

jokestress the fact that Kurt Freund coined this term to describe what he saw has been in the article since at least April 2007 if not longer.

What am I doing you have misunderstood but not because of what Jokestress said. While reading around on the net most websites makee it sound like Bailey invented this word while drunk in a bar full of Latina trannsexuals.... It was actually coined by Magnus Hirschfeld in 1923 and published in German before being translated into english in the late 1940's. it's reference #15 in this iteration of the article and comes at the very top of the section entitled Description by western science. ( Hirschfeld M (1923). Die intersexuelle Konstitution. Jarhbuch fuer sexuelle Zwischenstufen. 1923: 3-27,) Blanchard Writes

"Hirschfeld basically distinguished four main types of “Transvestiten,” according to their erotic interest in men, women, both, or neither. (The last type lacks erotic interest in other people but not necessarily all sexual drive.) Hirschfeld labeled these types the same way that he labeled non-transsexual individuals, that is, according to their biological sex. Thus, in Hirschfeld’s terminology, a male-to-female transsexual who was erotically attracted to men would be labeled a homosexual transsexual. "

Which backs up the claim that Magnus Hirschfeld, someone totally unrelated to the Clarke institute in Canada, described this concept a long time ago. Though again he did not do it in English. The concept, which describes the phenomena has been around for a long time as I have always said, and shown secondary sources for. This is nothing more than Jokestress trying to push her POV which is that this is just a term invented and used only at the Clarke institue (CAMH). Which the source I have cited should prove to anyone of good faith is not true even if we only consider western science and ignore other intellectual traditions which reached a simmilar conclusion.

Now jokestress could you name the remainder of your specific concerns with the article so that I may fix them.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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