Talk:Homosexual transsexual/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Ongoing issues

Phenomenon vs. term was the first of several issues here. This article still needs a lot of work, starting with the lede. It needs to have wikilinks for gender identity and the four new articles for groups to which this term has been applied. Jokestress (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, as the "good article" criteria make clear a "good article" needs to only be "good" not perfect. As for the wikilinks in the lede. I see no problem with transwomen attracted to men, and transmen attracted to women being worked in there. I don't see how transwomen attracted to women or transmen attracted to men work in the lede... Perhaps a see also for those? --Hfarmer (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What points of view are precisely in dispute now, aside from the issue you brought up just above? As for the world wide view thing.... I thought we agreed the article was about a term used in western modern science, not a phenomena. That would obviate a "world wide view". --Hfarmer (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing the NPOV tag. This article is full of misinformation and NPOV violations. We will address them one at a time. The lede says Harry Benjamin coined the term "transsexual." This is not correct. Jokestress (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? I did not know. Is that really an NPOV violation? That is an error...a common and understandable error. Who did coin the term "transsexual"? Would it have been Hirshfeld?

As for removing the tag this is what I am going to do. Every time you tag it and list a problem I wil fix the problem and remove the tag. You find another problem kindly tag it again. Or you can stop playing games and simply name all of your griviences so that I can fix them in short order. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

An interesting tidbit on that point google "transsexual coined the term" (no quotes) and some pages say Benjamin others say Hirschfeld. Like I said that was an honest mistake. Not a slanting of facts to make one side or the other look more credible, hence NPOV violation.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing the NPOV tag. This article is full of misinformation and NPOV violations. We will address them one at a time. This term is used by some researchers, not all. Jokestress (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Ill change it.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you point out where the article says all reserachers use this term. The article says right now it is used in sexology... which it is, and what it is used for. I don't see any assertion that all researchers use the term anywhere. In fact there are many many places where reserchers are quoted for the various reasons not to like this term. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made a small change in the lead paragraph. From "Sexologist and psychologist who use this term use it to describe..." To "Sexologist ans psychologist who use this term use it to describe..." Better? (Frankly I did not see the assertion ALL or implication ALL there in the first place.)--Hfarmer (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you tried to use to correct this missed a number of errors and introduced new ones. For instance, "self-feminization" and "crossdressing" were correct before. The "correction" mentioned above is still grammatically wrong (both terms take the plural), but that is moot because it's inaccurate, anyway (we should use "proponents" for reasons discussed in the past). So we'll do a sentence at a time till all these problems are resolved. Here's what I propose for the first sentence:

Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some sexologists and psychologists to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation, defined by their sex assignment at birth.

Rather than claiming everything is fixed when it isn't, let's do this methodically, agreeing here before things get put in the article. Jokestress (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I have done. Let me explain why this is better than what you suggested.

Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used in sexology and psychology to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation, defined by their sex assignment at birth.[1] Some sexologist and psychologist use this term to describe transwomen who are attracted to men,[2] though occasionally they use it to describe transmen who are attracted to women.[3] Other sexologist have criticized this type of terminology as being confusing, ignoring the psyche of those it is used to describe, and scientifically questionable.[4][5][6] They to describe such transpersons as heterosexual.[4][5][6] It is also used in a controversial theory due to Ray Blanchard. The term "homosexual transsexual" is controversial because it defines transsexual sexuality based on a person's birth sex.[7]

The first sentence provides a good definition for the term. It is a term used in sexology and psychology to describe transsexuals in reference to sex at birth. That's what it is. Totally neutral. Some sexologist use the term to describe.... Again SOME use it stated there explicitly. In the third sentence other sexologist criticize it. Even though Benjamin and Bagemhil etc do not have "sexologist" in their job title.. Arguably since they worked on sexological problems the word is close enough. This is common when a academic does interdisciplinary studies. I think this first paragraph would tell someone looking for a quick hit all they need to know to understand seeing this word around the net. I am not sure what you want to do with this other than that. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's why that's worse. It's inaccurate to say the term is used in sexology and psychology, which implies it's widely used. It is not widely used and is only used by some (not all) psychologists and sexologists. The second sentence is inaccurate, because it is not just some psychologists and sexologists (again, please note these words have a plural form) use it. That's why proponents is more accurate. It doesn't describe you, but you use "homosexual transsexual." That's why proponents is more accurate. In the next sentence, it's not just other sexologists (again, please note these words have a plural form), which is why critics is more accurate. "Psyche" should say "gender identity" instead, because that's a key element of this debate. After we get consensus on these issues, we can address the other NPOV violations. Jokestress (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the first sentence is acceptable as it stands. It is used, and in those fields. The sentence doesn't say, or necessary even imply, that it is widely used. Reading "widely" into is your personal interpretation. More importantly, we haven't got any reliable sources that say whether it's widely used or not (only that some people use it and some people refuse to use it), so we can't really say that it is either "widely" or "rarely" used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress... The word psyche appears in the quote from Harry Benjamin that I am paraphrasing in that sentence. That's the word he used and I don't see how it's POV to keep that there. As a matter of fact look at the source for that sentence, putting "gender identity" in that instance would violate WP:V. As for reading in that the word is widley used by saying it is used in psychology...If we put in that the word is rarely or widely used either way it would requier a source. If you have a source within sexology that says it is rarely used I will gladly put it in. Everytime you presented a source for a claim have I not done this? Until then what is there now is all we can say that is neutral, and verifiable.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outendenting) This is the actual passage that I paraphrased.

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.

Again the thought clearly emerges that what we call "sex" is of a very dubious nature and has no accurate scientific meaning. Between "male" and "female," "sex" is a continuum with many "in betweens."[16]

To bring the discussion regarding the three deviations of the title of this chapter to a close, a nutshell characterization would be this:

The transvestite has a social problem. The transsexual has a gender problem. The homosexual has a sex problem.

As you can see it is not all that progressive. The word I have as pedantic comes from "pedantry" and "psyche" comes from "no" if his psych is given preference." The only place where gender appears is in that last little hit "the transsexual has a gender problem". That is the closest the passage comes to gender identity. On balance given the use of words here it would not be a faithful paraphrase to insert our contemporary PC terms into this very un PC by our standards composition. Dare I say if he wrote this now he would catch more hell than Bailey...what with using the word "his" and "him" in reference to transexual females.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot has been written in 40 years, so Benjamin isn't really the be-all and end-all on this topic. It's more accurate to say this terminology conflict is whether to describe trans people based on sex assignment vs. gender identity. The article should reflect that. Jokestress (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

True but it's a matter of sourcing an verifiability. Furthermore I think that the very conflict is made perfectly clear further down in the article where we quote Benjamin and Bagemihl at length and paraphrase three or four other verifiably sources making the point you want made. My problem with what you are saying is that the term "Gender Identity" VS sex assignment as you just put it don't appear in any source I know of. If you know of one that put's it quite that way please point me to it. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The sourced Bagemihl quotation says, "These labels thereby ignore the individual's personal sense of gender identity taking precedence over biological sex, rather than the other way around." We should include the term gender identity in the lede, as an overview of the controversy. This debate centers on whether sex assignment or gender identity should prevail in a naming scheme, and the summary at the top should explain that clearly. This isn't about psyche, it's about gender identity. Is that unclear? Jokestress (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We have to go with what the sources say. One source uses psyche the other uses gender identity. It's not a matter of what is clear to us. So to represent the known sources faithfully I'll have to combine these two sentiments. I'm trying to keep the direct verbatim quotations out of the lede, it's kind of hard to have them in the lede and make it a summary of the whole article.

IMHO in websters dictionary the word psyche is defined in this sense as soul, personality, or mind. Arguably those are three places where gender identity has been said to reside. So to be precise I will use gender identity in the lede. This is for the benefit of anyone who may object to this change in the future.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm, you are committed to keeping the term gender identity out of the introductory paragraphs, even though it's more relevant and specific than psyche? Jokestress (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(outendenting)Uhh no. Look at the last edit I made to the article before you wrote the above comment. What I have done is re arrange the last paragraph of the lede in to sort of chronological order. Which places what Bagemihl wrote into some context and by being the last impression in the lede gives it added emphasis. The Benjamin paraphrase is still there, I feel it makes the issue very plain. I hope this is good enough now. Suppose I had been comitted to that then what? :-| Look like I said it's all about sources and verifiability. I don't have what this person or that person wrote on top of my mind right now. I did not recall all of what Bagemihl wrote. Had I remembered it I would have added it when you first brought up this issue.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I am going to request that you not make changes to the article until consensus is reached. It's unproductive, and you often create new problems each time you edit. Jokestress (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again I am going to ask that you not give me vaguge guidance and be specific about what problems you have so I can fix them. I massaged that Bageihl quote into place. The lede now ways gender identity. Only you and I are editing and one you showed me a source I agreed' with you. That is consensus. (Shesh it's like I can't even agree with this person when I agree with this person.)--Hfarmer (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

About the POV tag

Jokestress, can you tell us why you want the POV tag at the top of the article until every issue is resolved to your satisfaction? Is it to warn readers that the article is imperfect? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

She hasn't done that lately. I think she realized that many of her problems are grammar and stylistic and not POV. The article is as neutral as Switzerland. The wrong word one way or the other and it will not be anymore. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I would say the things she has come up with in the last couple of days have been totally good faith and valid. I just wish she would list them all so that I can just sit down and work on them all in short order. I do have other things to do, contrary to some peoples beliefe.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is to warn readers that the article is not neutral. Jokestress (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And you're aware that such a purpose is not an acceptable use of the template? (That's exactly what the documentation is talking about when it says not to use it as a badge of shame.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just repeating your phrasing. This article has significant NPOV issues, especially WP:UNDUE. Now, we can have a long discussion about misuse of tags, and you can run over there to try to change policy to help win your argument here, but that standard m.o. of yours is really not improving the neutrality of this article. Jokestress (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress plese do not take this the wrong way, you are a fine wikipedia editor. However as it also says in the NPOV dispute doccumentation it is possible for a article or passage to be totally neutral, yet look non neutral to someone with a strong entrenched opinion (the word used in the doccumentation is "ideologue"). Take a deep breath and think about why the sentence "Homosexual transsexual is a word used in sexology and psychology..." Sounds like it says "all sexologist" or "widely" to you. Is it the same reason you have quite responsibly abstained from any actual editing (aside from the taging).

Let me make it perfectly clear your cooperation has been invaluable in making this article as good as it is. Thankyou. :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since I wrote most of the existing docs on that template (after several unrelated discussions in different contexts) on their application and other editors' frustrations (usually with drive-by tagging), I'm confident that I know how the larger community wants it used. It appears that your purpose is not consistent with the community's goals. I think that it could therefore be removed as violating the larger consensus for the use of such tags.

I'm also unconvinced that the article is actually biased. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outendenting) Now you say it has WP undue issues. Just what part has undue weight in your opinion? Is is Blanchard's theory? Is it... just what is the problem. Instead of WP:JUSTA tell me what the freaking problems are so I can fix them. Or do you just want the article to appear to have problems to prevent it's promotion as a good article because in your words that would somehow "legitimate" that term? I suppose then that Hitler has been "legitimated" by the fact his Bio waas a featured article... oh wait OF COURSE NOT! :-| --Hfarmer (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article now meets the good article criteria. This article has undergone massive and agonizing work and improvement. Passionately disagreeing editors have clashed and finally come to a solution for this former good article which is now much better than it was when it was a good article before. The article is comprehensive, yet concise, every claim has a RS reference, the language is as simple as it can be for such a complex topic. A person who has no idea about the subject who reads this article will come away with a good summary understanding of the topic. I feel that aside from minor tweeks no major work is needed on this article in terms of adding any information that is missing, and not covered in some linked article or the other. I am sure this article is not perfect, I am sure it is at least a "Good Article" once more.

The nomination of this article was failed yesterday. The reasons given were fact tags, a NPOV dispute, and a cleanup tag. The fact tags cited as one reason were placed there by a confused person. They were inside a block of text quoted verbatim which has a proper citation at the end of it for the whole quote. The [diff] clearly shows that to be the case [1]. As for the NPOV discussions the NPOV dispute you have to consider that Jokestress is not a neutral person on this. She is a person who in real life campaigns publically against the use of the very term this article is about. As it says on her talk page she is Andrea James. We have had long discussions about COI and all that. The reason she does not edit the article is because she has recused herself. She basically raises issues on the talk page, and as soon as she details just what her problems with the article are, I try my best to fix them. As for the cleanup tag, that's the reason the nomination was on hold when it was failed. There were some small spelling and grammar issues detected at the last minute. Some issues of style, (i.e. weather to use the word psyche or gender identity or both or neither). These are things that would be resolved by wednesday next week at this rate of work. Give us time. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This nomination is on hold for reasons cited in the second paragraph of the above. Until the small style issues that prompted the cleanup tag are resolved do not asses this article.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note - As a note to the reviewer, whoever they may be: Please see the discussion at Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA2 regarding the ongoing content dispute. This article has been immediately renominated against my suggestions, which is completely within the nominator's right to do. However, IMO, the content dispute (COI parties or not) should be resolved before this article can become of GA status. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page for additional input. Dana boomer (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article has never been a good article and needs considerable work before it is neutral, let alone good. As discussed here, I believe the best way to organize this article is an introduction that describes the term and controversy, a section on use by proponents of the term, and a section on criticism of the term. The lede should reflect this organization: description, proponents, critics. If we can get back to working on the article rather than all of these distractions, we can keep making progress. There is no deadline here, and I don't think this article will be quickly fixed based on the pace at which improvements have been made over time. Controversial topics tend to take time before consensus is reached. This article needs much more than simple copy editing (though it obviously needs that, too). I have made many suggestions on how to improve the article which were recently archived. Please check the talk page archives for other issues that have been raised about the quality of this article. Jokestress (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is a former good article so yes it has been a good article before. It's history shows that. As for jokestress's wanting to totally rewrite the article to conform to her world view, that is not neutral, and not reasonable. The article as it stands now does every thing she says. The term and it's use by sexologist is described, at the end there is a section wich gets into criticism of this term from within sexology. Most of the other editors of this page agree as it is now is more than adequate, it is good. When Jokestress makes suggestions we all try to implement what is reasonable, neutran and verifiable, then shoot down the rest.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind other people voicing their opinions, but this is a GA review and you have to do it properly. This means, sign up as a reviewer if you want to voice any valid concerns. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments:

• The article's structure still has a number of problems that prevent this from being a good article. The lede and article should outline the topic: description, proponents, critics. The current version implies that this is a scientific controversy, when it is in fact a controversy about misuse of science (bias of various kinds, pseudoscience, etc.).

• The structure should also note that much of the "science" using this term is fixated on one "type" of "homosexual transsexual" (transwomen attracted to men). The headings are not clear about this.

• The headings also downplay the controversy surrounding this term by legitimizing its use as a "description by science." The point of the criticism is that this is not science. In addition, it's not just "science" that has used this term, which is why I have repeatedly suggested "proponents."

• The article is completely overfocused on Ray Blanchard. While Blanchard has used incendiary language like "shemale," "homosexual transsexual," and "man without a penis," this term has been controversial since before Blanchard was publishing.

• Further issues will follow. Jokestress (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your first bullet point is simply your opinion that this is pseudo science. As for the structure noting... first of all note is a word to avoid. all structure can do is organize ideas. I beleive that I have written that fact into the new lead by the way. The heading does not say "description by science" it says "scientific description". That is how sexologist and psychologist have described this group in their work. As for being over focused on Ray Blanchard he is hardly mentioned in the body of the article, his taxonomy has only one section which consist of one paragraph devoted to it. That's all.

So far as I can see your input in this is just a buch of WP:IDL dressed in a tux but still that's all it is.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Those changes you made have worsened the article. The single paragraph was at least accurate, if not complete. You have reintroduced a bunch of errors again. Once again, I request that you stop editing the article until consensus is reached on the talk page. Jokestress (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is transcluded onto the talk page. Wandalstouring and I think some changes are warranted. I said in the edit summary it's not perfect. Improvements will be made. As for waiting for you to decide what you want. I am not sure what that is anymore. Real talk it seems all you want is to disrupt this process by taking your opinion and presenting it as if it were neutral fact.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Through your unilateral changes, you have once again introduced a raft of spelling and grammar errors into the lede, in addition to a lot of old POV problems. Once again, I am asking you to propose changes on the talk page so we can discuss them. If you are not willing to do so, I can propose a complete lede for discussion. You are making this process more difficult than it has to be by being so impatient. I know you are very keen to have this article be declared "good," but it needs a lot of work before it is anything resembling good. Jokestress (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outendinting) Spelling errors and typo's are easily corrected and I have already corrected many of them. As for the lead I wrote summarizes the content of the article. The content of the article dictated what was in it. That article content is all verifiably sourced. Every assertion is stated as so and so states blah blah blah. They state it. Nothing is said to make so and so sound more or less credible (i.e. unlike in the article here on TMWWBQ which list off a mini CV for every named source.) The reviwered proposed that a whole new lead be written. So WP:BOLD discuss and revise. State what your problems are and I will address them if they are reasonable and actually neutral. Not just neutral to Jokestress. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Content disputes

Please voice here any concerns with the article's content providing sources for each claim. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Lede issues

• The main problem here is how the organization of the content is not neutral. Per Wandalstouring's comments on the lede, here is what I recommend. Wandalstouring stated that the lede should not include citations, but I can provide them for any content below.

Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some sexologists and psychologists to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation, defined by their sex assignment at birth.

Proponents of the term primarily use it to describe transwomen attracted to men, though they sometimes use it to describe transmen attracted to women. According to proponents' published demographic observations, the male-to-female group tends to exhibit gender identity disorder in children, to have lower IQs, to come from non-white races, to come from broken homes, to have mothers who exhibit maternal psychopathology, and to get involved in sex work as adults. Proponents also use the term as part of a two-type classification of transsexuals in which "non-homosexual" transsexual women have a differential diagnosis called autogynephilia. Proponents define this category based on testing or self-report, noting that self-report is not always reliable. They state that some transsexuals systematically distort their life stories because they see "homosexual transsexual" as a more socially desirable diagnosis.

Critics consider the term "homosexual transsexual" confusing, heterosexist, archaic, and demeaning because it labels people by sex assigned at birth instead of gender identity. Transsexual people as a group vehemently oppose the label and its pejorative baggage. Some experts have proposed gynephilia and androphilia as more accurate and sensitive terminology and have urged peers to stop using the term "homosexual transsexual."

• If that lede looks OK, we can address some of the other biased presentation that prevent this from being a good article, such as the way the use by proponents is presented here as the "scientific" point of view. Jokestress (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Lots of claims, no sources. Sorry, but that's no valid argument. Try again. Say what is missing in the article and where it can be sourced. After the article is in order, the final lead can be written. It doesn't work the other way round, because that means we accept a predetermined opinion and not the outcome of research. This in turn is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. While I appreciate your knowledge on the matter, please check for WP:COI(conflict of interest) that might influence your position. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That criticsm of the term "homosexual transsexual" exists, isn't denied. A question arising from this fact is: Are there alternative names for this phenomena and are there studies using alternative names? If this is the case we have a clear dispute if not it's the only way to describe these people albeit some people feel uncomfortable about it. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't use sources for the lede because you claim a lede is not supposed to have them. I'll add sources for the above tomorrow. If you change your mind again about what you want, let me know today. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's lead, not lede and I can read very well, so there's no reason to use bold letters. Please try again. The lead is a summary of the article content. This means everything that appears in the lead is written and referenced in the article. Currently you pick out certain aspects of the article mixed with unreferenced new material and present that as a "lead". Sorry, it doesn't work this way and while a few of your formulations are genuine, you have to work on the article with sources first. And if you read the header of this section you'll realize it's about content disputes and not about the lead. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Lede is perfectly acceptable and is used for this kind of writing. See Wikipedia:Lede if you need to be educated about this term and our guidelines here. You're welcome to use "lead" if you want, but I don't intend to start doing so. Contrary to your assertion, the lede is in fact content and thus covered under any content dispute. I'll add sourcing for the lede tomorrow unless you'd prefer to work on content in other sections first. If so, I propose we do them one at a time, perhaps starting with criticism (the shortest). Jokestress (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My fault, I'm not familiar with every US variant. I don't work on the article, I'm a reviewer. Sorry, but that can't be the lead simply because it's no summary of the article's content. You seem to have difficulties understanding the scope of the lead. However, you're new material can be used to enhace the article. I admit, that's an odd way of cooperation and you don't help making it easier. Wandalstouring (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section issues

To summarize:

• Critics argue that the term "homosexual transsexual" is "heterosexist", "archaic", and demeaning because it labels people by sex assigned at birth instead of their gender identity.

• Transsexual people as a group vehemently oppose the label and its pejorative baggage.

• Some experts have proposed gynephilia and androphilia as more accurate and sensitive terminology and have urged peers to stop using the term "homosexual transsexual."

• The title of the section is inaccurate and biased. The criticism is wide-ranging and not just limited to scientists. The attempt to frame this as a purely scientific debate is a key reason this is not a good article.

Below are some of the published points of view that should be included in the article (more soon):

Anthropologist Joy Bilharz of SUNY Fredonia:

From a purely linguistic standpoint, the confusion over what constitutes a "homosexual" and a "heterosexual" transsexual demands this. Furthermore it reinforces another binary system. The use of new terms to describe a person's sexual orientation seems long overdue.

She goes on to mention Milton Diamond, one of the most respected experts in this field, whose views have been excluded from this article. Beginning in 1997, Diamond began advocating for alternatives: “When discussing intersexual or transsexual persons I prefer to use the terms gynecophilic, ambiphilic and androphilic,”

The terms currently used by mainstream academics are gynephilia and androphilia. As an example of the experts who have become more sophisticated and accurate in their terminology, here is noted sexologist Milton Diamond:

Years ago Karlen and I (Diamond & Karlen, 1980) suggested that terms such as heterosexual or homosexual be used as adjectives instead of nouns identifying people. I have since recommended that the terms androphilic (male loving), gynecophilic (female loving) and ambiphilic (both loving) be used as descriptors (Diamond, 2002a). The first mentioned terms are often confusing when Intersexed or transsexual persons are described and it is not always clear if one is referring to the individual's original or final state. Also, the suggested terms can be used as adjectives without consideration of the original sex or gender of the person spoken of. The suggested terms also are not saddled with the taboo or political features of the hetero/homo/bi-sexual nomenclature and, again unlike the former terms, are not assumed to be a total description of anyone.

Other notable experts such as Heino F.L. Meyer-Bahlburg have used these terms as well.

Sexologist Jim Weinrich said in an interview:

Ray Blanchard and his associates at the Clarke Institute of Psychology in Toronto have continued to nail down their position that m-f transsexualism comes in basically two flavors (“androphilic” and “gynephilic” or man-loving and woman-loving). This has been done in a series of clever questionnaires and plethysmogaphic studies. Along the way, taxonomic zeal got Blanchard to claim that female-to-male transseualism was always woman-loving. ..

Here's a few passages from a book by Ron Langevin (who used to publish with Kurt Freund at the Clarke Institute and is at University of Toronto) using the term and mentioning the confusing terminology:

Transsexualism and androphilia. Freund and his associates compared transsexual and nontranssexual androphilic men. […] In the Freund et al., study little to no reaction to females as evident in the transsexuals indicating the were not “bisexual” in erotic object choice nor were they gynephilic. However, this may simply reflect the subject selection procedure. Nine percent of the individuals who were gynephilic were excluded from the results. Thus, this study presents a biased picture that there are no transsexuals who erotically prefer women over men .

Barr, McConaghy and their associates examined penile reactions to males and females in three further studies . One report is an elaboration of another illustrating two cases of “apparent heterosexuality” in applicants for sex reassignment. Overall, the results support those of Freund et al that transsexual applicants for sex reassignment are generally androphilic preferring mature male partners. Nevertheless, they found some gynephilic transsexuals too.

Bentler (13) assumes without question that transsexuals may be gynephilic, androphilic, or asexual and devised a typology of transsexualism based on that distinctions. To highlight the terminological confusion that can result in this area, I will just note that almost all Bentler’s patients said that after surgery, they were “heterosexual”. This represents a complete reversal in self concept for the androphiles according to Bentler. What we do not know is whether they are judging their preference for men or women as women or as men. One can appreciate that meetings at gender dysphoria clinics must be quite confusing at times for the staff!

Other demographic information suggests that the transsexual can be either gynephilic or androphilic but is predominantly androphilic. [...] The best one can conclude from this available information is that androphilic transsexuals seem to be more numerous than gynephilic ones. However, it would be false to conclude that gynephilic transsexuals do not exist. Their small but persistent numbers suggests that something is amiss in the parallel of transsexualism to androphilia.

Preference for gynephilic male partners. Freund et al found that androphilic transsexuals reported less gynephilic experience than nontranssexual androphilic controls. Early androphilic development was associated with less subsequent gynephilic experience. This agrees with the claim of transsexuals that they have always felt like women and thus would have little desire for sex relations with women, even from an early age.

Langevin then summarizes the extensive uses of standardized testing around femininity and feminine gender identity with transsexual and nontranssexual people, which I mentioned to User:WhatamIdoing earlier. Psychologist Sandra L. Johnson writes about the relationship of "male transsexual" typology to psychosocial adjustment:

Valid and reliable scales measuring the typological variables of erotic partner preference (androphilia and gynephilia), cross-gender fantasy in association with sexual arousal (cross-gender fetishism), and degree of feminine gender identity in childhood were used. Results indicate a significant relationship between social gender reorientation and the feature of androphilia and between work adjustment and gynephilia.

Psychologist Uwe Wolfradt of Martin-Luther-University describes the typological variables of male-to-female transsexuals, including androphilia and gynephilia:

Johnson and Hunt (1990) examined 25 male-to-female transsexuals to determine whether introversion, depression, adjustment to work, and gender reorientation were associated with the typological variables androphilia, gynephilia, feminine gender identity in childhood, and age at onset of transsexualism. […]According to Devor, transsexualism may be an adaptive extreme dissociative survival response to severe child abuse. Similar to dissociation, depersonalization can also be considered as a defense mechanism to reduce negative affectivity (Wolfradt and Engelmann, 1999).

Uhhh "extreme dissociative survival response to severe child abuse" would you really want that kind of thing in the article? :-? I mean...come on "--Hfarmer (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wolfradt then summarizes Hartmann et al. (1997), describing their subjects as "persons with gender dysphoria disorders (androphilic and gynephilic males)". Dutch psychologist Ditte Slabbbekoorn uses "androphilic MFs" (for which the counterpart would be "gynephilic FMs"):

In line with these findings, we were interested to investigate whether male-to- female transsexuals (MFs), androphilic MFs in particular, would show more... (etc.)

This is going to be a hard one to work in because of it's length and complexity. It is an overview of research literature I take it. In which case some of it's information could work in the section that provides such an overview in this article. OTOH I think we write about enough of the research to give someone a good idea of how sexologist use this term, more would be overkill. The critical comments being summed in the section which we have made for them.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have limited my references to behavioral scientists who use "androphilia" and "gynephilia," specifically as a better alternative to "homosexual transsexual." People who are biologists, linguists, anthropologists, etc. have also weighed in on this problematic and largely deprecated terminology. I'll end with a passage from the Archives of Sexual Behavior that includes a quotation from sexologist Aaron Devor:

supporters of the Blanchard typology could: stop insisting that every trans person who doesn’t fit their schema is a liar; provide better evidence; stop using terminology that people find offensive (e.g., ‘‘homosexual transsexual,’’ which is also very confusing). As Devor (personal communication, September 9, 2007) said, ‘‘if what we really mean to say is attracted to males, then say ‘attracted to males’ or androphilic... I see absolutely no reason to continue with language that people find offensive when there is perfectly serviceable, in fact better, language that is not offensive.’’

The Harry Benjamin and Bruce Bagemihl citations should remain, though the removal of their wikilinks should be corrected. The effect has been to downplay the extensive criticism of this term, and the notability of its critics. That kind of bias is unacceptable in a good article. Jokestress (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What I have done with Winerich is.....Sexologist Jim Weinrich stated that Ray Blanchard looked for information to support his theory instead of letting the evidence guide his theorizing, by using "a series of clever questionnaires and plethysmogaphic studies." Weinrich stated that Blanchard asserted all female to male transsexuals were "woman loving" .... Which i think picks out the point of the quote w/o simply turning this section into a list of quotes. When i say paraphrasing this is the type of thing I mean. Distilling these quotes into just their points as faithfully as possible.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you specify where you found it? There is no ref attached. It looks like it could have been in Dreger's paper or one of the commentaries. As you know and many long disucssions have shown it matters which one it is from. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section draft

Since this is in imminent danger of being declared "stable" by a reviewer, here is a draft of the controversy section for discussion. Many more critical views to include, but this is a start for discussion. As I said here, it's important that this be framed not as a debate of science vs. activism, because it is really a clash of worldviews between essentialists and non-essentialists.

Use of the term “homosexual transsexual” is a decades-old controversy in the debate among sex researchers between essentialism and social constructionism. Proponents of the term are generally essentialists, while critics of the term are generally social constructionsists.

Proponents of the term define transsexual people by their sexual behavior and consider transwomen attracted to men to be an extreme type of male homosexual. Schrock and Reid wrote “working within an essentialist paradigm, Blanchard (1991, 1993a), Bailey (2003), and [Anne] Lawrence (1998) use clinical vignettes or narratives of intimate life to categorize male-to-female transsexuals.”

Critics of the term point out the terminological confusion that can result. Critics argue that the term "homosexual transsexual" is "heterosexist", "archaic", and demeaning because it labels people by sex assigned at birth instead of their gender identity. Many critics prefer to define transsexual people by their gender identity. Critics include leaders in the field of sexology, such as Eli Coleman and Milton Diamond. Beginning in 1997, Diamond began advocating for alternatives: “When discussing intersexual or transsexual persons I prefer to use the terms gynecophilic, ambiphilic and androphilic,” John Bancroft also recently expressed regret for having used this terminology, which was standard when he used it, to refer to transsexual women. Other notable experts such as Heino F.L. Meyer-Bahlburg have followed suit.Anthropologist Joy Bilharz of SUNY Fredonia wrote that “it reinforces another binary system. The use of new terms to describe a person's sexual orientation seems long overdue.” Transsexual people as a group vehemently oppose the term, calling it “inaccurate and offensive.”

More soon. Jokestress (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What's going on in your mind? Do you really think this can be implemented by copy&paste or do you want someone to research the whole issues? What about opinions contradicting this POV? You were only able to point out two scientific works using alternatives. Besides this is no edit to the article, so it's still stable. Do work on the article if you have something to say. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to be any clearer with you. As has been explained to you more than once by more than one editor, the article is "stable" because I and others choose to work on the article via the talk page and refrain from editing the article itself. If you can get the other editors to agree to drop these voluntary measures, I am happy to edit the article content. As has also been explained to you more than once, this is not an issue on which only "scientists" have weighed in. Part of the problem with this article is that these attempts to limit it to the proponents' view by excluding all the people who have criticized the term. Why do you think "scientists" are the only people whose opinion matters on this? Like other debates over terminology, this has ramifications beyond science, and in fact is criticized for being unscientific and clinically biased terminology. As I said above, this is not a science debate, but a debate between two ways of looking at the world. The article as it stands IS the alternative point of view. That is why the article is not neutral. Is any of this unclear to you? If so, please let me know so I can try to explain it more clearly. Jokestress (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Although Jokestress attributes to DeLameter the view that this is about essentialism/constructionism, it is actually her own view. The article Jokestress cites as the source never mentions transsexuality at all, never mind its subtyping. I serve on the editorial board of that journal and am happy to supply anyone with a copy of the original article.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DeLamater wrote: "Among sex researchers today, few debates are more intense than the one between essentialism on the one hand and social constructionism on the other." Do you disagree with that? I have a Bailey quotation and a Bockting quotation we can add, too. Jokestress (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DeLamater's article addressed the essentialism/constructionism debate with regard to sexual orientation and sexual attraction. Applying his comments to topics that he did not do himself is OR. I do not pretend to be able to convince Jokestress of this, but I am happy to supply the article to anyone who would like to decide for themselves.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's build this from general to specific.

• We have many sources (DeLamater, etc.) that say there is an essentialism/constructionism debate in sexology. Are you aware that this is an intense controversy in sexology? If your answer is no, please provide a source that says it is not an intense controversy.
• We also have many sources that this term and related concepts are controversial. If you disagree, please provide a source that says "homosexual transsexual" and related concepts are not controversial.
• The controversy regarding taxonomy that includes "homosexual transsexual" has been called "biological reductionism meets gender diversity." If you disagree, please provide a source that says "homosexual transsexual" is not related to the essentialist viewpoint.

Once we get the general parameters of framing the debate settled, we can get into specifics. Jokestress (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I said neither whether there is such a debate nor such a controversy. I pointed out only that the source you cited does not contain what you attributed to it, and my offer stands regarding supplying that article to anyone else who would like to decide for themselves. — James Cantor (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is one big glaring problem with the passage Jokestress has written. She writes "Use of the term “homosexual transsexual” is a decades-old controversy in the debate among sex researchers between essentialism and social constructionism. Proponents of the term are generally essentialists, while critics of the term are generally social constructionsists." Even if her source backed that up perfectly she then goes on to implicity attribute either biological essentialism, or social constructionist POV to various "proponents" or "critics". By way of a sweeping generalizeation. This violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, she is doing more than just translating a word from one language to another there, she is reading other peoples work and interpreting it. Something for which WP needs a specifc secondary source for each person she cast as an social constructionist , or a essentialist . This could also be construed as violating WP:BLP because many of the people she writes of still walk this earth and may not appreciate her interpretation of their POV's, no matter what "side" they fall on. She has done this with at least one source for the people said to be essentialist, but not for those she would have us believe to be social constructionist. I would even argue that if one of those persons advocates for the notion of "brain sex" which is what so many critics have done then they are in fact also biological essentialist. They just disagree about what biological component is most essential.

There is also nothing neutral about that passage. Here is a list of specific problem sentences, and why they are problems. The kind of list I have asked Jokestress to provide many times.

• "Proponents of the term are generally essentialists, while critics of the term are generally social constructionsists." See above.
• "Critics include leaders in the field of sexology, such as Eli Colemanand Milton Diamond."

No disrespect to either of them as they are certainly accomplished. However calling them "leaders in the field of sexology is clearly intended to introduce bias in the reader.

• Coleman's name is just sort of dropped in. What does coleman say?
• ",John Bancroft also recently expressed regret for having used this terminology, which was standard when he used it, to refer to transsexual women."

It is not 100% clear just what Bancroft is expressing regret for in this sentence. Especially stuck together with the Diamond quote. This should be broken into two sentences.

• "Anthropologist Joy Bilharz of SUNY Fredonia wrote that “it reinforces another binary system. The use of new terms to describe a person's sexual orientation seems long overdue.”"

This is inconsistent. There is no historical or anthropological data in this article. As you would say, there is nothing in the article which deals with the phenomena of homosexual transsexualism. So Why should we now towards the end drop in the words of an anthropologist. Is it simply because in this instance their POV backs up your own? Since as we agreed such data should not be in this article neither IMHO should this anthropological opinion.

• "Transsexual people as a group vehemently oppose the term,calling it “inaccurate and offensive.”"

There are a couple of big problems with this one. First you cite leavitt and Berger's statement about how some of the people they spoke to found the terms offensive, terms which leavitt and berger used in their own work. They used the term in the same work where the quote you are relying on for that appears. Then you smooth transition into a quote form yourself, as if you speak for the whole transgendered/transsexual community. Bull! There are plenty of people in the transgender/transsexual community who have no problem with the terminology. My problem is I cannot point to a source which would be reliable by WP standards. However between the two of us, there is this page Internet fakes: "transkids.us" The cast of characters on there is a list of people who do not find the words offensive. Those on the cast of characters are only the ones who did not fear you or your supposed vectoring and exposition. (Which honestly has done me no harm what so ever. Whereas the opinions I have heard of you, Hinkle and Connway since then have taken a hit.) They are real people, as you personally vouch for. To then come on here as write as if they, myself included, did not exist is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

• Last there is the fact that much of the information you have here has been after discussion amongst the editors other than yourself been incorporated into the body of the article. As part of the section developement of the term. Thus making the criticism more prominent not lest prominent. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Transsexual community response to term

Let's start with the transsexual community response to the term, since it will be the shortest part of the controversy description. We have a source that says "Transsexuals, as a group, vehemently oppose the label and its pejorative baggage." I would say that is accurate. In fact, I don't know any reliable source anywhere that includes a transsexual person endorsing or self-identifying with this term. If you have one, please provide it. The "inaccurate and offensive" comment has appeared in two separate reliable sources and is the only place in the article where transsexual people themselves are allowed to weigh in on this matter. It's not surprising that it's being challenged. I also recommend we add this comment from Aaron Devor, which summarizes a key objection: "If what we really mean to say is attracted to males, then say 'attracted to males' or androphilic... I see absolutely no reason to continue with language that people find offensive when there is perfectly serviceable, in fact better, language that is not offensive." Jokestress (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to Leavitt and Bergers statement. In put it in the article myself long ago remember. What I object to is the self aggrandizing way you use it to set up your own quote as the last word in the article. Then there is another fact. A opinion, even if it appears in an RS, is still just opinion. Yet you use leavitt and berger's quote to set yourself up as the sole voice of the community. You could at least have the class to find someone else to quote. You write of your quote as transexual people speaking about themselves using the royal we way of speaking. :-/ I could say something snippy here but WP:NPA. :-\ Among the critics you characterize your precise POV, not just general offence taken, as the POV of the whole community. That is a lie. Many in the community object to the terms based on the brain sex paradigm which is hardly social constructionist. Why are such critiques not included? Because you don't like them?

Then there is the whole tone of the passage. Instead of what I wrote, which was a neutral report of how other people objected. What you wrote is a long statement intended to support why YOU object. Not the whole community as you would like to think, or those within sexology for that matter.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of comments above but no sources to back them up. My comment and Devor's comment are representative of community POV (MTF and FTM respectively), and both point out the term is offensive and inferior. I am fine with providing a reliable source that includes differing community points of view, but I am not aware of anyone who has published anything reliable about this as a self-identity. We also have to be mindful of WP:UNDUE. I can count on one hand the number of actual people in a community of millions who embrace/endorse this term as a self-identity, and I don't believe any of them have been formally diagnosed as "homosexual transsexual." In fact, I have written elsewhere that declaring oneself a "homosexual transsexual" is a good indicator that someone would not be classified as such. If you have any reliable sources to discuss, please provide them. Jokestress (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A community POV is missing in the article. If such a thing exists feel free to add a sourced contribution. However, you should also point out how one becomes a member of this community because it's not an automatism for everybody with this sexual orientation. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting point: people become a member of this community through self-declaration, so there is a debate about who is and who isn't a transsexual. I have written that those who embrace this term and taxonomy as a self-identity are what used to be called "pseudotranssexuals" or "transvestic applicants for sex reassigment." The informal term in the community for them is "wannabes." The problem with all of this from an academic standpoint is operational definitions, and how these definitions reflect varying worldviews. Is "transsexual" an identity? A sexual orientation? Does one become a transsexual or is one always a transsexual? Definitions range widely. Some define transsexualism as having "serious thoughts" about transition. Others claim a transsexual is someone who has genital surgery and that anyone else is non-transsexual. There are a number of other definitions as well. The bottom line is that within the community, the term "homosexual transsexual" is considered a term of abuse and has been reviled since earliest use. No one in the community has ever published anything reliable endorsing this term. The article should reflect the overwhelmingly negative view of the community toward the term "homosexual transsexual" and the essentialist taxonomies associated with the term. Jokestress (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You say I don't have references in my comments. You don't see the difference between what I write and what you write. I don't claim my opinions are facts, and I don't make extraordinary claims without a reference. You on the other hand do that often. You demand that I find a reference where someone writes of homosexual transsexuality as a self identity. Yet the very demographics that would describe one as a homosexual transsexual make them very unlikely to ever publish anything in an academic journal. Which should surprise me that you would take advantage of the socioeconomic disadvantage of a group of people to make your points. Furthermore it is not my job to provide sources, you make the claim that your and one other comment represent the whole community, I am sure you could find others, but no number of sourced comments alone could be generalized to a whole group of people. You just happen to be the people in that group who have the socioeconomic status and influence dare I say residual white male privillage in order to be able to assert your point of view and try to silence opposition. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So in conclusion, we have three reliable sources showing trans community opposition to the term and zero reliable sources showing trans community endorsement of the term. The section on trans community response should reflect the fact that transsexual people as a group vehemently oppose the term. If you find a reliable source stating otherwise, we can discuss how we might incorporate that. Next, let's plan on discussing how we will cover the controversy within sexology, and then how we will cover the controversy within academia overall. Jokestress (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You have three sources given three separate opinions. None of which justify generalizing your opinions to an entire community. I did not want to raise this source but here it is.

What many transgender activists don't want you to know: and why you should know it anyway.

Bailey JM, Triea K.

Currently the predominant cultural understanding of male-to-female transsexualism is that all male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals are, essentially, women trapped in men's bodies. This understanding has little scientific basis, however, and is inconsistent with clinical observations. Ray Blanchard has shown that there are two distinct subtypes of MtF transsexuals. Members of one subtype, homosexual transsexuals, are best understood as a type of homosexual male. The other subtype, autogynephilic transsexuals, are motivated by the erotic desire to become women. The persistence of the predominant cultural understanding, while explicable, is damaging to science and to many transsexuals.

The article then goes on to express that NOT all transsexuals object to the term homosexual transsexual. Which should be enough evidence to make my demand for some kind of scientific random and anonymous poll conducted to find out just what a crosssection of the community thinks of this idea. Something like that would tell us precisely what percentage of the TG/TS community thinks of this. Any claim of Jokestress's opinion being universally held requiers that. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice how she want's to run things. "In conclusion" as if it's her unique perogative to stamp her foot and end a discussion. Talking about herself in the Royal third person. What's next shouting I am a golden god and diving into a swimming pool from the roof of a house?

Until Bailey or Denise Tree aka Kiira Triea come out as trans, they are not part of the community. They can be certainly listed as proponents of the term, and one of the citations I suggested above mentioned Bailey and his essentialism specifically. In fact, he'd be the first to admit to his essentialism. Do you have the passage where they claim "NOT all transsexuals object to the term homosexual transsexual"? Jokestress (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. Neither Bailey nor Triea need to be trans. A publication in a peer-reviewed RS says what it says, and it should be summarized (if relevant) here. The following is from page 529 of the aforementioned article (annotations appearing in square brackets are my own):

"The second author [Kiira Triea] was also attacked by some of the same transsexuals after she helped create the Website transkids.us. This website was created by a group of homosexual transsexuals, or "transkids," their nonclinical name for themselves, to educate the clinical and research communities in the wake of the controversy regarding The Man Who Would Be Queen. The writings on the site both endorsed Blanchard's distinction between homosexual and autogynephilic MtF transsexuals and criticized the standard feminine essence narrative as being both flase and harmful to homosexual MtF transsexuals. Subsequently, Andrea James [aka user:Jokestress] (2007) conducted highly personal attacks on individual transkids (including the second author), urging that these transkids be exposed and asserting that they were "fakes" because they would not reveal their idenities publicly."

The transkids page itself makes obvious exactly what Hfarmer has said. The above quote also indicates user:Jokestress' level of involvement in the issues being discussed here. (Jokestress openly acknowledges her real-world identity as Andrea James on her userpage.) I will leave to the rest of you to come to your own conclusions regarding whether WP:COI is being properly applied here.
— James Cantor (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, Bailey and Triea/Tree can and should be listed as proponents of the term. However, the term "transkids" confuses matters for a general reader, as it is used for gender-variant minors regardless of sexuality. It's also a term used by real transkids and their families, not just wannabes in their 20s to their 80s engaged in systematic distortion. I'm not sure how Triea/Tree, a 57-year-old detransitioner and self-proclaimed intersex person, qualifies as part of a group of "individual transkids."

It should also be noted that User:Hfarmer is the most prolific contributor in the history of the transkids.us forum, while we are discussing WP:COI. The Triea/Tree article is certainly a source we can use, but the transkids.us site is not a reliable source, and its author Triea/Tree is... well, let's just say she's typical of the people Bailey dredges up. Verifiability, sure, but truth? That has been a matter of debate.

All this discussion about unresolved issues and sources to add certainly makes it seem as if this article is not very stable. Jokestress (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You mention that but not why I contributed. I only started contributing here after I started writing here. I wanted to know what they thought of all this mess in their own words not the words you would put into their mouth's. Another thing. You write of contributing to a forum as if that is a bad thing in and of itself. Or is that only when the patrons of the forum don't recognize your so called authority. If you insist that I am fake come here to Chicago and find out first hand. My address is listed.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disregard your comment about stability. Kvetching is not working on articles. There's for example an editor who from time to time pops up in the Hannibal article with the claim that Hannibal was a black man. This does by no means make the article unstable. Same here, all the criticism issues have been adressed and you added nothing new with a reliable source. Last but not least, you didn't edit the article, so it's basically kvetching what you're doing. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I must correct myself in one issue, you made one useable statement about a community opinion in a scientific paper. However, could you please point to the exact page where this statement is written and what the authors perceived as "community". Still, one sentence isn't really an issue about instability. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I remain baffled by your comment "you didn't edit the article." I believe another editor and I have now explained to you four times that I do not edit the article because I am an expert who researches and writes on these topics, and I do not want to be accused of WP:COI. Per Wikipedia guidelines, I propose changes here on the talk page, then rely on other editors to make any agreed-upon changes to the article itself. I believe that is the best way to lend my expertise on this subject without an appearance of impropriety. All three regular contributors on this article are stakeholders in this debate and have varying levels of personal/professional COI. This has been going on for years. When you say I'm not "working on articles," it doesn't reflect facts: I have proposed a number of changes to the article for discussion, and each time your response has been to dismiss the sources and changes out of hand. Please let me know how I can work on the article in a manner that is acceptable to you. I am providing references and explaining how I believe this article should be framed so it will be neutral and will make sense to a lay reader. I know you wish to declare this "stable" and neutral, but I can assure you it is neither. In fact, you still seem to misunderstand the key issue here. This is not a debate about science. It is a debate about pseudoscience and scientific bias. A good analogy of another article which has this kind of extensive ongoing instability is race and intelligence. There are many "scientific" papers on the topic, but many scientists believe that those "scientific" papers are in fact pseudoscience. As an example, if we only allowed the article on phrenology to include "scientific" articles written by phrenology "experts" which appeared in academic publications, the article would be inaccurate and biased. That's what's happening here. There is this little group of "experts" busily publishing what many scientists and other academics consider to be unscientific garbage. Right now this article represents only one side of the controversy. An opposing point of view that sex, gender, and sexual orientation are social constructs, is missing from the article. It has been consistently and relentlessly downplayed here for years.

To answer your question, the Leavitt/Berger quotation appears on page 491. They cite the 1978 Arthur Morgan paper cited in the article as their source. Please let me know in what way I can "work on the article" in a manner that will both satisfy you and move this toward neutrality. I want this article to describe this controversy so everyone can understand why transsexual people oppose this term and why scientists and academics consider it problematic. I don't believe this is going to be resolved in the next day or two after years discussion. A lot of notable people have criticized this term, and the article should reflect that. Jokestress (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress' claim that she does not edit the article is not what one would call the whole truth: Although she has not altered the text of the page, she nonetheless has tagged[2], re-tagged[3], and multi-tagged[4] (tag-bombed?) it.

The page would appear stable only to the extent that Jokestress is a person of her word: Either the page is stable, or Jokestress intends to edit/tag the page. The logic is simple; Jokestress has argued herself into a corner.

— James Cantor (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything to contribute to improving the article, or are you just going to continue wikilawyering? Speaking of not what one would call the whole truth: I am not the only editor who has raised issues about the neutrality, stability, and quality of the article. See the Banjeboi comments on the talk page. See also comments by other GA Reviewers. Jokestress (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The pages contain multiple examples of my providing specific sources, providing extensive quotes from sources, and offers to provide copies of still other sources to anyone who wanted them.

Pointing out errors or the inappropriate conduct of other editors is not wikilawyering. Moreover, your use of that accusation is incivil. From WP:Wikilawyering:

"While there is a blurred gray zone between offense and insult, the major distinction is that an offense in a debate is argumentative, while an insult is ... an insult, i.e., an act of demeaning an opponent. An offense is always specific, i.e., addresses a particular argument or reasoning, while an insult is generalizing and dismissive. For example the phrase "You are wikilawyering" is an insult. On the other hand, the message "Therefore I conclude that you are stretching the WP:NOT policy here beyond common sense, i.e., you are wikilawyering", while aggressive, is not an insult, but rather a pointer to an identifiable wikibehavioral pattern."

Thus, your comment above is of the incivil type and continues your pattern of incivil comments. I ask you to correct your comment so as to abide by WP's expectations for appropriate user conduct.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's common in case of COI to present small(!) solutions for defined problems on the talk page, ask for consensus and then implement them yourself. Your suggestions are too big and hard to verify or implement directly. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I am trying to do (except allowing others to add agreed-upon changes so James Cantor won't start in with his typical wikilawyering to shut down opposing views). As I stated above, I suggested we start with the criticism section, which has three components: trans community response, academic response, and sexology response. There are some overlap within these. The simplest part is the trans community response to the term (overwhelmingly negative for decades, with a handful of anonymous/pseudonymous people who recently disagree with the vast majority of the community). That is why I suggested we start there. As you have seen, that sentence took a couple of days and thousands of words to resolve. I am not sure transkids.us is a reliable source when materials published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior are not, so I guess this is unresolved. Next, I suggest we focus on the sexology community criticism, then move on to the general criticism of the term within all of academia. Once that is done, we can look at the section formerly labeled "use by proponents," which has a lot of biased presentation in it. Jokestress (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would hardly say your concerns have been dismissed out of hand. Your concerns have driven most of the review. I implement only the things you suggest that find actual consensus. As for COI whatamIdoing and I have no such concern. I myself am just a transsexual from Chicago, I have met some people by happen stance. Nothing more. Many hearings have been held about this on WP and never have any third parties agreed that I had a COI.

As for transkids.us being a WP:RS I would say no. However the paper that Bailey and Triea wrote meets all of WP usual standards for a source and so should be accepted. Information from the commentairies as you keep mentioning is already included. i.e. the source for John bancronft's statement in the article is from his peer commentary. Every thing that has been done has followed both the letter and the spirit of WP policies. What more do you want.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters, we should remove the citation that has transkids.us as a source and replace it with the Bailey/Tree article. Then I'd like to discuss the WP:OR claim that sources "contradict" Leavitt and Berger's statement that "transsexuals as a group, vehemently oppose the label and its pejorative baggage." The Bailey/Tree article doesn't "contradict" that. It's still true that transsexual people as a group vehemently oppose the term, despite the fringe views of Denise Tree and a couple of like-minded souls. Then maybe we can start dealing with all the spelling and grammar errors, like "developement." But that's like putting Band-Aids on a comatose patient. The real issues of NPOV have yet to be addressed. Jokestress (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What? Oh I see (diff) Wandalstouring did that. I will definitely check that. As for what is written by Bailey and Triea contradicting leavitt and berger... let's examine this lotgically.

If it is said that a group of people think X without any numerical qualification what does that mean? (When I say numerical qualification that means z number or y% of the people in the group think X. for example.) Does this mean most of the people in the group or all of the people in the group? If it means most of the people in the group then that means that not all of the members of the group think X. If this means all of the people in the group then the claim is that every single member of the group thinks X.

If the claim is that every transsexual is offended by the term homosexual transsexual; then showing one example of a transsexual who is not offended will make the claim false.

On the other hand IF the claim is that most transsexuals are offended by the term homosexual transsexual;then the claim cannot be proven false by showing just one example.

So which is it jokestress. Either the claim is all transsexuals are offended which is false by way of the counterexample already provided, (Bailey and Triea's paper) or the claim is that most are offended, which means that there is room for having at least a sentence from the POV of thos who are not offended. Take your pick.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine if transkids.us gets replaced by another source. WP:RS of it is on the very fringe. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the website link to transkids.us not because it is fringe or anything. I replaced it with a link to a paper published in a journal because that is a more reliable source. At least according to WP:RS. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I find one of the hardest things about discussing this controversy with those who have an either/or worldview is that they assume everything is an either/or. It's quite clear the latter is true in Hfarmer's convoluted equation. My concern is the term "contradict." The existence of outliers does not contradict Leavitt and Berger's comment. "As a group" is a qualifier that allows for fringe views to exist without contradicting their statement. It's similar to saying "generally" or some other term that suggests "almost all." That's why it is inaccurate to say the Bailey and Tree claim contradicts Leavitt and Berger. They claim they know people who represent the exception to the rule built into Leavitt and Berger. Once we remove "contradict," we can start looking at other issues (unless we are going to have a long discussion about excluding the responses of transsexuals as a group as proposed below). Jokestress (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Leavitt and Berger "transsexuals, as a group, vehemently oppose the label and its pejorative baggage".[20] Bailey and Kira Triea wrote that the transsexuals at transkids.us endorse this concept, and criticize the feminine essence narrative.[21]

Where is the word "contradict" used? I suggest to move on. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was commenting on something that was added by you a few hours ago and is now gone. This article is quite unstable, so that happens a lot here. Jokestress (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't play games. Just read the article before you complain. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

When I "complained," your word "contradict" was in there. Are we all ready to move on to the response to the term by sexologists, or do we need to address Hfarmer's comment below? I said "so in conclusion" 3000 words ago, but I guess that was a little premature. Jokestress (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What's your problem? Reply without a massive flood of text. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What segment of the community's response should we use here?

I have been thinking about all of this for a while. Here is a question for the room. Since it is clear that the way these terms are used is to apply to specific groups of transwomen and transmen should we not limit our "community response" section just to the effected group. In other words perhaps we should limit our community response information in the article only to those reports which give the response of people who would be labled by the term homosexual transsexual? Or would that be too restrictive?

A reason why it should be done this way is because transwomen attracted to men would be the particular group most directly effected by this. They would be the group which is least often heard from or about in all of this. Perhaps their voices should be the ones heard most loud and clear.

A reason why we should not do this sort of thing is that in a way we would be labeling someone as a homosexual transsexual who does not want to be so labeld. Or in the case of people reported on by Bailey and Triea we would have jokestress's constantly going on that those people (myself included I suppose) are not in fact real, or lying etc, ad nausem.

What do the rest of you think?--Hfarmer (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This suggestion to limit the criticism is part of the multi-year pattern of trying to exclude viewpoints that are critical of the term. Jokestress (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to term within sexology

This is a basic overview of what I believe should be covered, to which we can add sources as we come to agreement. Sexologists have slowly evolved in sophistication regarding their terminology since the 1960s. This has happened on two axes, both of which should be addressed here. To keep it simpler, I will use the group with whom researchers are most obsessed: transsexual women. The first axis is sex: what used to be called "transsexual males" are now generally referred to as transsexual women, transwomen, male-to-female transsexuals, MTFs, etc. The second axis is sexuality: what used to be called "homosexual transsexual males" are now called androphilic transwomen, transwomen attracted to men, etc. Researchers have variously been more sophisticated about one, both, or neither. As an example, Harry Benjamin had concerns about the use of "homosexual" in the 1960s, but he didn't seem to have any problems with using "transsexual males." Some researchers were well aware of the transsexual community response to their labels but used them anyway in clinical papers. Some essentialists would basically humor transgender people to their faces, but assert they were "really" this or that among their peers, to the press, etc. The general shift on the sex axis started in the 1980s, and toward the end of last century, the general shift on the sexuality axis started. There is a fringe element of holdouts in sexology who believe gender identity is a load of nonsense and resist the generally-held assertion that sexual orientation and gender identity are two separate issues. Gender identity is closely associated with John Money, an unethical sexologist who held a social constructionist point of view. The essentialists take the nature side of the nature/nurture debate and divide transwomen accordingly: one group is naturally feminine and is a kind of homosexual, because they wish to assert that homosexuality is a genetic/congenital trait. The other group of transwomen is not naturally feminine and is a kind of paraphilic, because they wish to assert that paraphilia is an acquired compulsion manifested under certain conditions (nurture) that can be treated with this or that. Complicating matters is that they believe reparative therapy can stop the homosexual type from becoming transsexual if it's caught in childhood. In other words, "homosexual transsexuals" are naturally homosexual but unnaturally transsexual. Early intervention can keep them on a path to being happy gay men instead of slipping so deep into pathological behaviors that the best option is to allow them to transition. To summarize, the term "homosexual transsexual" reflects the view that:

• Homosexual transsexuals are mentally ill homosexuals.
• Homosexuals cannot be "cured" with reparative therapy.
• Homosexuals can be "cured" from becoming homosexual transsexuals with childhood reparative therapy.
• Homosexuals not "cured" from becoming homosexual transsexuals with childhood reparative therapy should transition.
• Transsexuals are essentially their sex assigned at birth, no matter what they do.

Critics within sexology have raised issues about these assumptions, which should be covered in the article. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

None of this is written in the article and none of this is sourced here. The content in the article doesn't imply such a POV and I have doubts all cited research on this field using the term homosexual transsexual supports this POV. You failed to present more scientific works using a differing term. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Then let's start with Benjamin. The article misrepresents Harry Benjamin's summary of the terminology controversy. Here's the full quotation:

Some investigators believe that the two conditions, TVism and TSism, should be sharply separated, principally on the basis of their "sex feel" and their chosen sex partners (object choices). The transvestite - they say - is a man, feels himself to be one, is heterosexual, and merely wants to dress as a woman. The transsexual feels himself to be a woman ("trapped in a man’s body") and is attracted to men. This makes him a homosexual provided his sex is diagnosed from the state of his body. But he, diagnosing himself in accordance with his female psychological sex, considers his sexual desire for a man to be heterosexual, that is, normal.

Benjamin himself did not believe in a sharply separated binary: "The term 'homosexuality' has never impressed me as very fortunate." He added, "Transsexualism is a sex and gender problem, the transsexual being primarily concerned with his (or her) self only, a sex partner being of secondary although occasionally vital importance." That's why he did not use this term and summarizes thus:

• The transvestite has a social problem.
• The transsexual has a gender problem.
• The homosexual has a sex problem.

As I said above, Benjamin was out front on the sexuality/gender part, but not on the sex part. The article should reflect that. Jokestress (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Here's the full quotation".  :-? Really. Look a bit farther down the page. This is the quotation where Benjamin directly addresses this question.

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.

It is clear that Dr. Benjamin's position on this was much more ambiguous than Jokestress would have us believe. I had this block of text quoted in. You can take issue with how I have paraphrased it, but do not say I misrepresented him. Now stop fudging things so as to make yourself look good.

How about addressing my well intentioned question. I am not trying to "limit criticism". I am trying to make sure that criticism is as much as possible from relevant sources. i.e. Quoting you... your a lesbian your not androphilic. Your telling us there are so few transwomen attracted to men willing to speak out in a reliable source on this that focusing our article on their reactions would severely limit the criticism? Come on where is the ground swell of universal outrage from transsexual women attracted to men? Surely there is a news paper clipping, a quote somewhere from a transwoman attracted to men which says this. Right?--Hfarmer (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is why the article is so unstable. Please keep trans community response separate from sexology response so we can address each issue and not rehash things in multiple places. Jokestress (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much about the community response, so it's totally acceptable to integrate it into the discussion of sexologists(that doesn't mean the current integration can't beimproved). If you have a real suggestion how the community response could be expanded, reflecting all differing POV, you're welcome to do so. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's rehash the transsexual community response here, then get back to Benjamin at some later date. Where is the groundswell of community support for the term "homosexual transsexual?" In the past half century, there has not been one single person who has ever been diagnosed as a "homosexual transsexual" who has stated in public anything to the effect of "I endorse this term as a self-identity." That's because they do not exist. The three or four people who claim this as a self-identity:

1. have not done so in a reliable source and
2. have not been formally diagnosed as "homosexual transsexual"

All we have is Bailey and Triea/Tree (neither of whom identify publicly as transgender and both of whom have credibility issues) saying Triea/Tree created a site chock full of "homosexual transsexuals," but providing no examples. That site has a total of eight forum members, three of whom are Triea/Tree's sockpuppets, two of whom have gone on to disavow their involvement, and three of whom turned out to be like User:Hfarmer. In fact, User:Hfarmer was the top transkids.us forum contributor of the eight. I have urged User:Hfarmer to appear in reliable sources as the voice and face of "homosexual transsexuals," so the proponents of the term can officially weigh in on which "type" they think User:Hfarmer is. I don't think User:Hfarmer will be happy with the official diagnosis, because it won't match up with User:Hfarmer's self-diagnosis. When Hfarmer tried to get a-self-portrait used as the example of a "homosexual transsexual" on this article, editors objected because of the clear WP:COI. I objected because it's simply not accurate. User:Hfarmer meets neither of the necessary conditions for inclusion:

1. has not claimed this self-identity in a reliable source and
2. has not been formally diagnosed as "homosexual transsexual"

Now, we can have yet another endless discussion where User:Hfarmer gets a lot of attention (which is why this has been going on for years), or we can discuss the published content which has appeared in reliable sources. We have a reliable source stating the community as a group vehemently opposes the term. True. We have reliable sources where trans people (both FTM and MTF) have criticized the term. True. We have a reliable source from two people who describe a website one of them created for "homosexual transsexuals." Neither of them claim to be "homosexual transsexuals." Despite their assertion that people exist who endorse this term as a self-identity, there has not been anyone in the last 40 years who has come forward to state "I am a homosexual transsexual." This is out of the millions of trans people and the many thousands of notable trans people. The article should use the reliable sources we have. I propose:

According to Leavitt and Berger "transsexuals, as a group, vehemently oppose the label and its pejorative baggage." Transwoman Andrea James has called the term "inaccurate and offensive," and transman Aaron Devor wrote, "If what we really mean to say is attracted to males, then say 'attracted to males' or androphilic... I see absolutely no reason to continue with language that people find offensive when there is perfectly serviceable, in fact better, language that is not offensive." J. Michael Bailey and Kiira Triea, prominent critics of transsexual activists, state that Triea's transkids.us website is written by and about people who anonymously endorse "homosexual transsexual" as a self-identity but fear reprisals for going public.

Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(outendenting)Jokestress. TLDR However I did read enough to catch you trying to turn things around. I am not one here has claimed that there is a groundswell of support for the term homosexual transsexual. You have claimed that there is a groundswell of objection to that term by people to whom it would be applied. You have to prove that claim. All anyone else has said is that not all transsexuals object, which we provided one source which backs up that more modest claim. You on the other hand made and extraordinary claim, but have not presented any proof. You have cited works by correct me if I am wrong a transman (Aaron Devor), and yourself. You really can't point to one just one such work by a transwoman attracted to men? Someone who would concievably be a person this term was applied to? Your telling us...or trying to burry under a mountain of words that there are no such references?

As for calling Kirra Triea fake, calling me fake, demanding that an RS procalim me to be a homosexual transsexual (Which if one did I am sure you would find some reason to want to dismiss that.) Well we do have such RS's about someone don't we? I will not say who but why don't we talk about a person we both know who appeard in an article in the Daily Nortwestern in which she was ID'd as a homosexual transsexual and must have known that.... or how about the video she shot where she refers to herself as having been a shemale and how she prostituted herslef.... I don't want to be a bitch, but those are RS's. They could be used here and I have had the discretion to not go there. Do you want to make us go there?--Hfarmer (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe student newspapers are considered reliable sources, and Juanita has not stated that she endorses the term for herself or anyone else. If you have an addition or revision to propose, please add it to my proposed paragraph above with the source for discussion. Jokestress (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You have claimed that this term is so automatically and intrinsically offensive that any real transwoman would have a stroke as soon as they saw it next to or in relation to their name. Yet JSM appeared in that news paper article in 1999 was used likley whith her knowledge as a example of a homosexual transsexual.... then she was...as is reported in the news papper article entitled Dr. Sex. Quote...[5]

Mr. Bailey, who bites his cuticles and shifts in his seat during a dinner one evening with his children and a reporter, seems more comfortable later on at the Circuit. He mixes easily among the transsexual women he knows, and buys a round of drinks. Most of the women are what Mr. Bailey would call "homosexual transsexuals," and unlike their academic counterparts, they count Mr. Bailey as their savior.

It is known from reliable sources which I can find that he did write "homosexual transsexual" or "non-homosexual transsexual" on the SRS letters he wrote for these ladies they must have known. Now I have stayed away from this, but for you to represent that this term it self is automatically offensive to all that hear it... is not intellectually honest.

I would be dishonest of me if I did not mention that those same ladies were offended, but I get the disticnt impression that it was not so much by the term "homosexual transsexual". It was the way they were portrayed in the book. In particular the way Bailey wrote of Juanita's marriage in a dismissive, and disrespectful manner. That is IMHO what really got to them. All the rest of the people who took that book personally really had no business. They had no business.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no new information in that citation and nothing that contradicts what I proposed above. If you wish to add it, please summarize it as a statement in a sentence that we can discuss for possible inclusion. Jokestress (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

New structure

OK, possibly an archaic term, but it was used to conduct investigations. The new structure highligths how the term was introduced, what results investigations with this term achieved and what criticism there is. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We should also make it clear for readers that the research reflects a bias/fixation involving transwomen. Everything in the "results" section is about transwomen. There should probably be a subsection about research on transmen where this term was used. Interestingly, many people who have insisted on using it for transwomen have asserted in the past that there are no "heterosexual transsexual women," by which they mean transmen attracted to men.

In addition, "science" has frequently employed problematic terminology throughout history, so we need to be careful not to legitimize this deprecated term. For instance, a lot of "science" has been published about nymphomania, but we wouldn't have an article that says "nymphomaniacs exhibit this or that behavior" and "nymphomaniacs are typically from this or that demographic group." That would reify "nymphomania" and would violate NPOV policies. We need to frame this "science" in the same way. Jokestress (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why I put such a strong emphasis on dates. You're perfectly free to structure the criticism section. As I pointed out above, this can perfectly well present an ongoing or archaic concept like social darwinism. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes I see. The relative lack of research matterial on the transmen should make the bias clear. If we can find a RS V quote or two, in which someone, points out this disparity. IMHO it would not have to be specific to the term "homosexual transsexual". Since as I am sure Jokestress knows, much more popular attention and research interest have focused on MTF's in general. One reference which I know used this terminolog in re transmen attracted to women was Smith et al 2005.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the references we have above that information needs to be summarized. i.e. a long block of quoted text would not be a good thing to have in an article. However the key information in those quotes needs to be included. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Gamerules

I don't mind people having opinions, but to achieve GA the article must follow wikipedia guidelines, not personal whims.

Nobody hijacks my review to make his personal points. You can comment my issues, work with me or let it be and fail GA. Understood? Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand. However you must understand that is Jokestress's purprose here, to make this fail GA by any means. Read the history of this article. Many more times than I can name she has asserted that this article having anything from GA status, to a sidebar for the related topics, gives a stamp of approval to the ideas the article covers, and legitimates the terms, theories, or observations stated herein. In short she does not want this article to be actually neutral and good. She want's it to reflect her position, which she thinks is the only position any reasonable person can have, which to her would be good. She has said as much many many times. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume good faith. OK, she's an odd editor, but she works on the article and seems to be willing to source her claims. Wandalstouring (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review

• Comments:

• WP:Lead says the lead is a summary of the article content. Currently, the lead is more or less a background section cluttered with lots of citations that make it difficult to correct simple typos. Make the current lead part of the article and write a completely new lead summarizing the article content. In this new lead, the length of specific issues has to reflect the length of discussion in the article. It's strongly discouraged to have footnotes in the lead. The footnotes are for a well referenced article, not its summary.

• Article structure is the next issue. Currently, prostitution is part of the scientific defintion. Does this mean scientists define homosexual transsexuals as prostitutes? I suggest a new structure that mentions the scientific definition section plus the current lead and its criticism in one chapter. Afterwards you discuss the phenomena in detail, but not in subchapters of the definition because these aren't part of the scientific defintion, but rather results of works on the subject.

• Further issues will follow. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I can understand about removing the citations from the lead. I mean, when the lead of a featured article is on the front page there are no citations. Just text. So long as the citation appears further down in the article, right? That's not part of the definition per se. That's just an observation of one of the occupations common to this group. Not all do that, nor is it all they do. If the current wording gives that impression it needs a change.

As for writing about this as a phenomena Jokestress and I had a long knock down drag out battle over this and I gave in. So now we just write about this as a term. Whatever that means. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll get the work on this.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see what you meant about the prostitution. That detail is part of the "scientific description" not the definition. Like any such description of a group of people that is something which is true just a part of the time. The sources are fuzzy about just how common that is.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The article structure isn't what I expected, but it's fine. Maybe minor adjustments are necessary because as Jokestress pointed out, there may be content disputes.

The lead is still problematic. Compare it with lesbian and transgender and you'll see that these leads are much shorter, perhaps a bit too short(twice the length would still be OK). Because the lead summarizes the article content, this article's lead should have a compareable length to the much longer article on lesbians. A main problem for the inflation of the lead is the detailed mention of lots of authors and their opinions. That should be part of the article and only very significant contributions part of the lead, like the person who coined the term and made it popular. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok I will get right on this tomorrow at the latest. I need to rest from a long hard day. But I take your meaning. It's just so hrd to be brief and really neutral in wording, yet brief. I'll try. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly better

I thought the article was good before, now it is even better. The question I have is has enough been done that I can now work on the final lead? IMHO it has what say the rest of you?--Hfarmer (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have written a new lead for the article as it is right now... Is this lead ok. I ask so that I can get a idea of weather or not my idea of a good lead is actually good.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't in a state to achieve GA. I left you a message about what to do. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Dates in the text: necessary or a personal preference

I have a question. Is transcribing a date into the text next to each reference to research needed. I mean is it a wikipedia style guideline for an article like this one or isn't it? :-\ Do we really need to use both parenthetical referencing and footnotes? :-/ Most <ref> tagged references in this article have the dates within those references. The research dates are findable by scrolling down or clicking. (The dates of the research found and used range from 1923 to 2005.)All one needs to do to see this is scroll down or click. I mean do we think our readers are so lazy that they would never do that? I am going to do this just to get along, but I really think this needs to be justified. This needs more than the current reviewer likes it justification. :-| --Hfarmer (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's simply to point out that there's ongoing research with this term, countering the elaborate criticism section Jokestress is writing. This seems to pose some stylistic problems for you I'll try to take care of. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Remaining problems

• The lead must be a short summary of the article. For this reason it needs to be rewritten.
• The article has stylistic flaws of repeated similar sentence structure that needs to be improved.
• The excessive quotes in the criticism section need to be reduced and summarized. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress likes long volumious block quotes. When she is alleging that by paraphrasing these statements that I am burrying them will you stand by me?

Repeated simmilar sentence structure like "researchers/(name) states/said/wrote that homosexual transsexuals blah blah blha." I do that in order to avoid "words to avoid". WP:WTA. That is a sentence structure which cannot be construed as endorsing or biasing for or against what anyone said. i.e. in the past I have been accused of bias for writing "Researchers have found that homosexual transsexuals blah blah blah.

The lead is a hard thing to write. I try to include only the most salient points from the article so as to minimize redundancy between the lead and the body of the article. I will write it again after I make the body changes you want (or as near as I can figure what you want.)--Hfarmer (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As for sentence structure, syntax, is that not pretty standard in english. Subject, predicate noun, verb, So and so (subject) said such and such(predicate). If I put anything other than said, wrote, says, writes, stated, states I would be prejudicing the words. Consider the following.

1. J. Michael Bailey says that homosexual transsexuals are especially suited to prostitution.
2. J. Michael Bailey reports that homosexual transsexuals are especially suited to prostution.
3. J. Micael Bailey slurs transwomen by saying that some of them are homosexual and especially suited to prostitution.

The first one is really and truly neutral... and due to that inevitably bland. The second one is a bit more spicy and not actually biased, but to a non-scientist/non-critical mind everything reported in print is true so that's a word form to avoid. The third I imagine is what Jokestress would think was neutral balanced and good writing.... but no non-trans person would think that was neutral. Get my predicament?--Hfarmer (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Try to summarize the content in the lead. Don't pick out examples to highlight the article.

I'll hopefully have someone working on your style. It's not about grammar, it's about presentation. Just take a look at FA.

I don't care who likes quotes. These aren't significant enough statements to merit full quotes. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference 5 is odd. Please use one reference style for all sources. I suggest to restructure this reference to be like the others because I don't like this style where you have to switch back and forth.

I'll ask everybody involved whether article stability has been achieved. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is still a mess. Magnus Hirschfeld did not coin this term. The whole description section makes a lot of factive assertions. It is also set up to make assertions about "homosexual transsexual" prostitution, because Hfarmer self-identifies as a "homosexual transsexual prostitute." The best way to think about this article is as a way for Hfarmer to assert an unsubstantiated self-identity. I believe a "good" label affixed to this will be used to keep further changes from being made, part of a long-running WP:OWN strategy by Hfarmer. The description section is best when it outlines how researchers who use this term do so because they think these people are "really" or a "type" of homosexual males. We are still getting a lot of conflation of the term and the phenomenon, as in the last sentence of the lede's first paragraph. I also think the use of names in the intro suggests lots of people use the term and only three people object to it, all of whom happen to be scientists. I know I owe a criticism section. This article remain unstable and non-neutral. I am on jury duty right now, but I'll have additional thoughts soon. Jokestress (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about your thoughts. I care about your sourced contributions(I give you one week to make at least part of these contributions. If you fail I'll disregard your concerns to stability.). And I know that it's difficult for a group with such vast COI to work together. You make claims that there are more than three scientists having a problem with this classification and the article shows that there are lots of recent works using this classification. You never sourced that with a reliable source, thus it's not yet a valid statement. I agree that too much emphasis is given to the prostitution issue, but as long as there's only one editor doing the work, the article will most certainly reflect her/his perception. The names in the introduction are actually balanced between supporters and opponents of this term. That's a great honour for the clearly outnumbered opponents when counting the research papers cited. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to Jokestress. The sources which back up Hirschfeld coining this term (or it's German Equivalent) are being shored up. As for being set up to make assertions. The section does not make factual assertions, it just says what the sources say. As for a "good" label keeping changes from being made, it cannot. What it does mean is that the article is reasonably complete and stable. As for a WP OWN strategy. I don't "own" the article nor do I act like I do. I am just a editor who has been judged by the community on several occsations to have no COI. I edit the article and usually take your sugestions and sources and incorporate them into the article. Someone with ownership issues would not ever do that. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

cleanup tag

Wandalstouring can we at least remove the cleanup tag at this point?--Hfarmer (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Six unresolved issues

I outlined six key unresolved issues on the talk page today. Jokestress (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress is no reviewer and has WP:COI. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • References needed:

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

So far. I'll ask for a second opinion on the open issues. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Phenomenon vs. term once again conflated

Unresolved

The article has once again shifted to conflating the term (which is the subject of this article) and the concept/phenomenon (which is the subject of this, this, and this). Jokestress (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress that is just your fancy way of saying that the article cannot be good, clean or neutral because it does not conform to your english lit way of thinking. While there is a difference between knowing the name of something and knowing what it is, in order to talk about it to other people one must use the terms. Wikipedia is all about that process. I suppose you would want this kind of information in the transsexual sexuality article, including Blanchard's theory, the conlcusion's about homosexual transsexuality, the talk of prositution from the great Benjamin, etc etc... Or would you like to burry that as well?--Hfarmer (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone agreeing to your persistent request to limit this article to the original choice of words used by sexologists to describe the phenomenon. In fact, I remember plainly telling you that creating Transwomen attracted to men would require significant duplication, because I refuse to have this article be about just the words instead of what they mean.

You seemed to content with putting all the scientific information in this article and all of the other information in a separate article; I still think that will prove to be an impermissible content fork. We are not going to remove the information in this article about what the sexologists are talking about when they apply this term (or its more diplomatic alternatives). The reader deserves the whole story, not just complaints about "it's mean to call transwomen men". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Unresolved

Criticism is not limited to sexologists. It has been well-known for decades that transsexual people as a group vehemently oppose the label and its pejorative baggage. I am still working on gathering all the criticism, but this is a glaring omission that has been consistently removed from this article. Jokestress (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That is true. What has kept so much of the criticism out is that it has come in non-scholarly or self published sources. i.e. the fight over the peer commentaries. (Which since you and certain other person are so fond of forgetting I argued forcefully for the inclusion of most of them.) As before you have to find WP:V WP:RS WP:SPS compliant sources and I will include them and fight for their inclusion. But how long should we wait for you? --Hfarmer (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please review Criticism section issues above for a partial list of criticism that should be in the article. I am not aware of any transsexual person who has endorsed this term as a self-identity. If there is, please provide the source. Jokestress (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I did and I incorporated all of what I thought was appropriate i.e. look at the history I at first quoted weinrich, and I made a subsection devoted to Milton Diamond's "androphillic" alternative. What more did you want? That section was more than 1/3 of the article not counting the mention of the criticisms in the lead. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Lede

Unresolved

The recent changes that reorganized the critical commentary were done without discussion and has made the lede no longer reflect the structure and content of the article. The lede will remain unstable until the other controversies are resolved. Jokestress (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That will be resolved after this latest round of 11th hour delaying tactics.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Explaining the controversy

Unresolved

There are two key reasons this term is a flashpoint for controversy:

1. It is a conflict about the relationship between gender identity and sexual orientation. One camp considers gender identity the organizing principle. The other camp considers sexuality the organizing principle.
2. It is a conflict between essentialism (or biological reductionism) and social constructivism.

The article needs to outline these issues for unfamiliar readers, and explain why this term is such a hot button for both of these controversies. Jokestress (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the criticism section we had did that just fine. It just did not belabor the points with long long block quotes from whoever is your favorite author on a given day. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the term?

Unresolved

user:Jokestress has no authority to assert (quite repeatedly, without consensus, and arguably disruptively) that this article is about the term and not the construct.

The RS's that use the term quite clearly address the construct, and criticism appearing in RS's is quite clearly disputing only the term. To my eye, asserting that this page is only about the term is POV-pushing to restrict the page to contain ónly the comments that match Jokestress' long-standing off-wiki attacks against the idea, and nothing else.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that criticism about the term should not appear on the page; I am saying that sweeping under the rug all the other information is in Jokestress' interests, not WP's.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because the debate is about using this term to describe the phenomenon. Nobody debates the phenomenon. The three articles I linked above which discuss the phenomenon (four if you include Sexual orientation and gender identity) are available for discussing the phenomenon. The controversy here is not the phenomenon, but the term and the underlying philosophies of the term's proponents and critics. Conflating the phenomenon and term makes the article more confusing. I have given a number of examples over the years regarding controversial terminology to describe various phenomena as covered on Wikipedia. Our goal here should be to explain why this term is controversial, because that is the only reason the term is notable. Jokestress (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no meaningful way to discuss just a term. Terms without concepts, phenomena, or at least a definition which relates them to some concrete concept of pehnomena have no meaning. Suppose we were talking about birds. We were talking through a forest and we see a bird and I say you know what that's called? It's called a brown throated thrush, and I tell you it's name in 10 languages. Does that mean you know anything about the bird? If you don't understand watch this, he explains it better. Cue to 3:57. Terms themselves mean nothing without pehnomena their only value is in talking about pehnomena. Phenomena, concepts, are what is real, terms are just symbols on paper.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is. Look at our coverage of quadroon vs. multiracial as an example. Jokestress (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not the same. A quadroon is a specific type of multiracial someone who is 1/4 black I do believe. That being 1/4 black, 3/4 white is the phenomnea for which the term is quadroon. Now being multiracial is just a less specific term for the phenomena of beinng all differnt kinds of racial mixtures. Click on the video I asked you to watch. Or do you really think you are more wise than Richard Feynman about these kinds of things? Terms are just symbols on paper, they mean nothing without phenomena. As much as you would seem to like to think that words define the world, it is in fact the world that defines the words.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Self feminizeation "citation needed"

I have removed that tag but not disregarded that tag. What I did is add a hat note, invisible to the reader, which gives the needed reference. The reference is to "Heterosexual and homosexual gender dysphoria " Blanchard, Clemmensen, Steiner, 1987. In the reference tags in the article it is named classicblanchard. In the abstract Blanchard writes...

This study investigated why more males than females complain of dissatisfaction with their anatomical sex (gender dysphoria). New referrals to a university gender identity clinic were dichotomously classified as heterosexual or homosexual. There were 73 heterosexual and 52 homosexual males; 1 heterosexual and 71 homosexual females. The average heterosexual male was 8 years older at inception than the homosexual groups. The heterosexual males reported that their first cross-gender wishes occurred around the time they first cross-dressed, whereas the homosexual groups reported that cross-gender wishes preceded cross-dressing by 3–4 years. Some history of fetishistic arousal was acknowledged by over 80% of the heterosexual males, compared to fewer than 10% of homosexual males and no homosexual females. The results suggest that males are not differentially susceptible to gender dysphoria per se, but rather that they are differentially susceptible to one of the predisposing conditions, namely, fetishistic transvestism.

Blanchard would a couple of years latter "lump" heterosexual, bissexual, and analloerotic transsexuals and give that group the name autogynephillic transsexuals. Calling their condition autogynephilia. I hope this is sufficient. As Wandalstouring pointed out in the good article review citations don't generally appear in the lead.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I put the fact tag there because it wasn't supported by the article of which the lead should be a summary. Feel free to add content to the article and then insert a summary in the lead. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

as I was looking for where to put information to support that statement I found that there is a place in the article where this is supported. In the last sentences of the paragraph on Blanchard's theory. "A lower percentage of the homosexual transsexuals reported being (or having been) married and sexually aroused while cross-dressing.^[27] Studies have variously found that between 10% and 36% of homosexual transsexuals report a history of sexual arousal to cross dressing. Bentler (1976) found 23%, while Freund (1982) reported 31%;^{[8][10][34][35]}"--Hfarmer (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Lower than what? Please source me that more than 36% of heterosexual males are crossdressers or make it otherwise clear. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Please source me that more than 36% of heterosexual males are crossdressers or make it otherwise clear." :-/ You mean heterosexual transsexuals, not all heterosexual males. Because that is what is meant. I thought that the context of the whole entire article being about transsexuals that would be clear. I guess not. I'll make the revisions.

The source is Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance Yolanda L.S. Smith Page 6 paragraph 3. It says

Between 12 and 18 years(of age), the homosexual transsexuals had experienced sexual arousal while crossdressing significantly less often (Z =&3.4, P=0.0007) than the nonhomosexual transsexuals (Table 2). When comparisons were made within the sexes, the homosexual MFs were significantly less often sexually aroused while cross-dressing between 12 and 18 years than the nonhomosexual MFs (Z =&3.0, P=0.0026), whereas no such differences were found between homosexual and nonhomosexual FMs (Z =&0.04,P=0.69).

The full scholarly reference for this tidbit is in the article already, there are also three other references but they are not online and as accessible as that one. Is that clear enough?--Hfarmer (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion.

The article currently summarizes several of the characteristics that have been shown to differ between homosexual and non-homosexual transsexuals. There is a comparatively important such characteristic that is missing: age. Homosexual transsexuals come to clinics much earlier in their lives, by nearly 20 years on average, than do non-homosexual transsexuals.

• Blanchard, R. (1994). A structural equation model for age at clinical presentation in nonhomosexual male gender dysphorics. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 311-320.
• Smith, Y. L. S., van Goozen, S., Kupier, A. J., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2005). Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance. Psychiatry Research, 137, 151–160.

— James Cantor (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I will add that to the article. Probably the part on Blanchard's theory. I will also add something on Autogynephilia. In the process of making Blanchard less prominent in this article somehow reference to Autogynephilia was lost. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec... A structural equation model? He actually put this into mathematical form?  :-/ That makes it a bit harder for one to claim this is not science. Testing such a mathematical model's predictions would make a huge impact. I just had to say that. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to consider whether the sentence about penis usage belongs in the lede. ("It has been suggest to subdivide them into three groups based on how they use their penis during sexual activity before sex reassignment surgery.") Although there was indeed a researcher who made such a proposal, the usefulness of such a criterion has not been replicated nor has the idea caught on among clinicians or other researchers. A one-off comment by a single paper, IMO, receives undue weight by being the lede.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

On another note, I think it's inaccurate (as well as OR) to say "Far less research has been done on female-to-male homosexual transsexuals, partly because the existence of transmen attracted to men was historically denied by researchers." It is certainly true that less research has been done on that group, but I don't see how one can say that there is less research because researchers didn't think it existed. Little research was done and some researchers questioned whether such a phenomenon existed only simply because such folks are so rare; it took longer to document their existance.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as the penis use thing goes, I will take your word for how it has/has not caught on or been replicated in sexology. You would know better than anyone here about that. As far as the female to male transsexual sentences. You caught me. Truth be told I do recall reading writings by Blanchard and others which made the assertion that all female to male transsexuals were homosexual. In other words they were all basically lesbians. I am not the only one who has read that sort of thing in many places. Consider the following interesting quote:

Transsexualism in genetic females has previously been thought to occur predominantly in homosexual women. Clinical presentation by nonhomosexual female transsexuals (i.e., gender dysphoric genetic females who are sexually attracted to males) is extremely rare. Blanchard et al. (1987) reported that only 1 of 72 transsexual women seen at a Canadian gender identity clinic was primarily attracted to males. Because these individuals have been so infrequently seen by gender clinics, some researchers have thought that this form of female transsexualism was nonexistent or was incorrectly diagnosed homosexual transsexualism (Blanchard et al., 1987).

Sexual Orientation of Female-to-Male Transsexuals: A Comparison of Homosexual and Nonhomosexual Types. J.M. Bailey

That quote is given to back up the statements in that section. I will refactor them so as to comply with WP:OR V etc. Probbly by paraphrasing the above quote. Those cannot be removed. (I find this twist mildly commical. I wonder when jokestress will swoop in to automatically call Bailey a pseudo scientist...only to see that in this instance his findings conincide with her political feelings.)--Hfarmer (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hirschfeld

Hirschfeld writes in "Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen 23.", in 1923(page 1-27) in the introducing article "Die intersexuelle Konstitution. erweiterung eines am 16.März 1923 im hygienischen Institut der Universität Berlin gehaltenen Vortrags von Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld"(That can be translated as "The intersexual constitution. Epansion of a lecture from March 16, 1923 in the hygienic institute of the University of Berlin.", nothing about pathology, he presents things as facts of how mankind is and not about how they can be cured. He even goes so far to claim that all men or women have some part of the opposite sex.) about different forms of sexual orientation including hetreosexuality. He perceives the sexual orientation as part of each persons individuality and apart from fetishism he presents his subjects in a neutral or favourable light. For transvestites(p. 11-14) he takes as an example the famous and then adored German Richard Wagner(in contemporary American context this could be Elvis Presley). According to him transvestites exist with different sexual orientations, such as heterosexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality. Under this last category falls homosexual transsexual in his scheme. I have problems quoting directly from the source because it's on microfiche and the reader is in a different section of the library. However, if there are any open questions dare to ask. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Two problems. Hirschfeld characterized seelischen Transsexualismus as a form of "inversion." David O. Cauldwell says he was the first to use the word transsexual in direct reference to those who desired to change sex. Also, most books are available on the internet, so your trip to read microfiche may have been unnecessary. Here's the Jahrbuch.] You can read it directly there. The article should note this dispute about terminology. Jokestress (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You should check sources properly. I'm refering to a later and totally different work (it says "Jahrbuch"=yearbook, so this is published annualy). He doesn't use the term transsexual in 1923, so Cauldwell must be refering to a later work. Which work is it exactly? I can't find any work published after 1923 and there he doesn't include transsexual into his rather complete overview of sexuality. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. ISBN 9783886551880 is also available, and Cauldwell says he himself (Cauldwell) was the first to use the word "transsexual" in direct reference to those who desired to change sex. Not Hirschfeld. Jokestress (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is all very interesting. May I suggest we are getting caught in a terminological trap. It seems that has Hirchfeld released his various yearbooks, his understanding of "transvestiten" evolved from that of what we think of as transvestites, to recognizing that some wish to be women completely. That Cauldwell then built on that, and coined the english word transsexual. The key question for our purpose is did Cauldwell also divide his transsexuals up by sexual orientation? Or did cauldwell like so many others of his day assume a transsexual must be attracted to men inorder to qualify as a transsexual? These are just questions that would come to my mind, i do not know German so I cannot answer them myself.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a terminological trap. This term stands as a key example of the failings of these essentialist attempts to categorize people. Hirschfeld used the terms transvestiten and intersexuelle differently than the meanings they have today. They do not match up with modern notions of "homosexual." It's all tied in with the concept of "inversion" which was in vogue among his peers. See Sullivan's A critical introduction to queer theory or Terry's An American obsession: science, medicine, and homosexuality in modern society. Jokestress (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As much as you would like to define it that way. It is now clear that no one else agree's this article is all about terminology. The people who have used the terms homosexual, and transsexual in say the last 20 years have the same understanding of those terms that we do now....

When we look back over almost 100 years to Hirschfeld and cauldwell we could be interpreting thier words through the lense of our understanding, instead of trying to under stand what they mean. A contemporary example.

Many websites written in the USA which tackel the issue of the Travesti equate them with transvestites, simply because the word sounds the same as our word. When in Brazil they have another word that matches transvestite namely "transformistas".

This is what you seem to be doing jokestress. In hirschfeld's language in his time there may have been no distinction between transvestitien and what we call transsexual. In fact I think it likely considering how language and attitudes have evolved that he just threw all transgender people together under one word, the differentiated based on sexual orientation. To accept that Cauldwell coined the word transsexual...it may be more correct to say that he first coined an english word for what hirschfeld was talking about. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to avoid the term "coined" because it confuses things. Hirschfeld used the term "transsexualismus" but not to describe "transsexualism" as we know it today. Cauldwell says he was the first to use the word "transsexual" in direct reference to those who desired to change sex. The article should reflect that. Also, is the proposed wording for the transsexual community response ready to place in the article, or is that aspect still unstable, too? Jokestress (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(outendenting) Ahh so you see what I was driving at there. God knows what Hirschfeld was talking about unless we can find a dictionary from back then. I agree totally that we should not use the word coined. As for the transsexual community response that is still unsettled. I can stipulate to the following things,

1. The negative responses and positive responses both can come from anyone transgendered or not who is part of the greater transgender community (i.e. DQ,CD,TS,DK, GQ, or someone who knows people who are).
2. The negative responses which were reliably published outnumber the positive responses which were reliably published.
3. No claim will be made that most of the community thinks this or that, we will let the numbers of citations paraphrased do any such talking on that part.
4. Therefore in the article their should be for each positive reference, at least two negative references.
5. The transsexual identity, reality, etc of anyone involved may not be questioned in article space.

Though this could look like I am laying out some WP OWN violating guidelines, think about them they are all to ensure a fair and balanced doccument. Number 1 is a great compromise from me because I would really like it if more of those community responses would come from transwomen attracted to men, but it seems that many of us either haven't tried, or haven't been able to find a publisher for such literature. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No reliable sources exist where people who might be described as such endorse this term. The proposed text has representative views from the community, including someone who might be described as such condemning the term. If you have a positive comment about the term published in a reliable source, let's see it. If you don't, let's get that in the article and move on. Jokestress (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about them having to endorse the term? I just said it would be better if more of the community criticism came from transwomen attracted to men, or transmen attracted to women. As for there being no such sources, just to widen the scope a third party reporting that this or that group of such transwomen or transmen feels this way or that way is good enough for me. There has to be some voice for the straight transcommunity, which is so often silent and blended in. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress, you misinterpret the source. Hirschfeld talks about transvestites and for him there are heterosexual transvestites, homosexual transvestites and transvestites with various other sexual orientations. He doesn't use the term transsexual("Transsexuelle/r") that also exists in German and he provides a complete overview about all forms of sexuality. Whoever introduced transsexual in German wrote after 1923 and I express some doubts that it was Hirschfeld. You can search German texts for "Transsexualität", "Transsexueller", "Transsexuelle" or "transsexuell".

The German wikipedia is again a problematic source, but they point out that the term transsexual may derive from Benjamin and Cauldwell, not Hirschfeld. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hirschfeld used the term seelischen Transsexualismus, or spiritual transsexualism, which he associated with a form of "inversion," but he did not use the word transsexual as we use it today." He used the word "transvestite" for that, which also has a different meaning today. I believe this complicates matters here for a general reader. Jokestress (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't call other people stupid. If Hirschfeld uses something different, then we have to point this out. Where does he use "seelischer Transsexualismus" (better translated as psychic transsexualism) and point out any correlation with homosexual transsexualism? Please source these claims. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't claim other editors are calling people stupid. I am pointing out one of the many examples of misinformation in the article added since you got involved. "First proposed by Magnus Hirschfeld in 1923, the term was used..." is wrong. Source for "seelischer Transsexualismus" is above (you went to the library to read it). That's why this article was marked with cleanup tag. There are dozens of these problems, but it takes several weeks to work through each one. In the meantime, this article is a muddled, instable, NPOV mess. Jokestress (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wandalstrouing, I would think that the way to approach this is to say that "in 1923 Magnush Hirschfeld first use the term "whatever term he used" and that these were assumed to be attracted to men." Why assumed to be attracted to men. I'll bet $10 that somewhere in his book as his understanding of transsexuals is evolving the notion that transsexuals are different from transvestites because they are attracted to men...homosexually is emerging. Ideas like that don't just emerge from the mind of a scientist fully formed. (Nor are they usually in the same languages hundreds of years latter. i.e. in Mathematics, Newton invented differential calculus and called his derivatives "fluxions" even denoted them differently. If one did not know better they could sit here and argue till the cows come home about weather or not those were just derivatives by some other name. That is kind of what we are doing here now.)--Hfarmer (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

@Hfarmer: Hirschfeld doesn't use transsexual. For him there are only different kinds of transvestites. You have to state that. I don't want to have to check every source.

@Jokestress: You should start being useful. Your contributions are almost unuseable because of POV issues leading to UNDUE weight presentations or incomplete citations. I specifically asked you to provide more sources about the actual use of alternative terms in scientific research. You haven't yet been able to yet accomplish such a simple task that would actually help. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

United nations definition as illness

I wonder whether we should briefly mention that according to ICD-10, issue F64.0 transsexuality is considered an illness. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders nosology are already discussed in detail at transsexualism. ICD-10 makes no mention of homosexuality or sexual orientation, so it's not relevant to this term. Jokestress (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Alternative" terms

Many readers coming into this controversy cold ask "What is the alternative term?" That's not the main issue, though. This controversy has two facets. Besides those who advocate for more precise and less confusing language, there are also people who argue that the entire concept of conflating gender identity and sexual orientation in this manner is scientifically problematic. Correlation does not imply causation. It's very similar to race and intelligence. Until there are agreed-upon precise scientific working definitions for the two factors being correlated, any "science" is going to be pretty soft and will easily succumb to confirmation bias, etc. Prefixes homo-, bi-, ambi- and terms like "the opposite" implicitly assume a binary of sex and sexuality. Trans- means across, and Hetero- means more than one, but both have come to be part of this assumed binary. "Most alternative models of sexuality... define sexual orientation in terms of dichotomous biological sex or gender.... Most theorists would not eliminate the reference to sex or gender, but instead advocate incorporating more complex nonbinary concepts of sex or gender, more complex relationships between sex, gender, and sexuality, and/or additional nongendered dimensions into models of sexuality." Several editors here have expressed a strong belief in things like IQ and other problematic measurements or taxonomies of humanity that emerged from the eugenics movement, including homosexuality. These concepts are so pervasive as a social reality that many people assume they are "natural" or "real." Asking the question "what is the alternative term" operates under the assumption that these are "real" categories. "Homosexual transsexual" assumes two binaries, when the move among more progressive scientists is to incorporate more complex non-binary concepts. Jokestress (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So what? The mainstay of published scientific work is based on this concept and there are hardly alternatives in use(current presentation because you haven't been able to prove the opposite). That some people don't like the term is of little importance and sufficiently covered. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not that people "don't like the term." They don't consider it scientific. For instance, there is a lot of "science" on race and intelligence that is also considered problematic for the same reasons. This is a debate about science, not a debate within science. The "alternative term" question assumes this is a debate within science. This article does not sufficiently explain why this term is controversial for a general reader. We need to contextualize the controversy so people don't make simplistic assumptions that this is "political correctness" or some other term used by unsophisticated people who resist scientific and social advances. Jokestress (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

False, If these words and this concept were not considered science then they would not appear in so many peer reviewed published sources. Not only ASB, but many other psychological journals from around the globe. As a concept the idea is used by another name by some, but that really changes nothing (Try this on for size, "There is no nice way to say this so I'll just say it Androphillic transsexuals are way better looking than gynephilic transsexuals" "Androphillic transsexuals have masculine sex drives and are especially suited to prostitution"  :-\ Is it now the word Androphillic which is offensive or the context in which it is used?)

Yes this is a debate within the scientific field of sexology, that is why there are two competing terms for the same concept. Yes there is some debate outside of sexology. That debate mostly has to do with "The Man Who Would Be Queen", and Autogynephilia. That debate hardly if ever mentions transwomen attracted to men, androphillic/homosexual MTF transsexuals. That is why Blanchard's theory has been popularly known as "the theory of autogynephilia".--Hfarmer (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Most theorists would not eliminate the reference to sex or gender, but instead advocate incorporating more complex nonbinary concepts of sex or gender, more complex relationships between sex, gender, and sexuality, and/or additional nongendered dimensions into models of sexuality." Do you have a source for your claims above about most theorists? Jokestress (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did I said most. I say they appear in many psychological journals and are used by a number of psychologist. The word "most" is once again your incorrect reading between the lines of what I say. As it stands there are two words used, homosexual transsexual and androphillic transsexual, which mean almost precisely the same thing, homosexual still has currency, though androphillic is starting to replace it the article we have reflects that.

Your standing claim is that homosexual transsexual is depracated, and only used by a small clique is ASB. Long ago I cited papers from other psychologist, sexologist etc from as far afield as the netherlands and New Zeeland who used the term, used it currently. Just look at the sources that are already there.--Hfarmer (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not the least interested in what you say or think. It's not really relevant here, because I am not debating you or your beliefs. I am working on making this article neutral, stable, and well-sourced by reaching consensus. "Most theorists" is from the quotation I cited. Do you have a reliable source that counters the citation about what most theorists advocate? While you're at it, can you propose that sentence you'd like to discuss about the trans community response? Jokestress (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion and references

The GA3 transclusion is causing some sort of problem with the collected references. We should either discuss content in the GA3 section or here, not both. Jokestress (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have moved everything that was below the "Yikes" section here. Since it seems to me the intent was for all of that to be part of the GAa review process.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Another outside opinion

As this article is clearly still the subject of edit warring and dispute the current GAN should be failed. When the contributiong editors can agree on a stable article, it can be renominated. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll provide a third opinion and agree with Jezhotwells. The article is very unstable as it is, and seems to have a lot of edit warring. I would wait until all all parties have come to a compromise and then re-nominate the article. In general, the article looks good in the source department, and is very well written, but the disputes need to be resolved before th article can pass a Good Article Review. Just my opinion, though. :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 00:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I respect your opinions, but you have to take into account that the one person who disagrees on everyting is COI'd and will only ever agree if the article is totally rewritten to reflect her POV. Can the disagreement of one tenditious editor torpedo a GAN?--Hfarmer (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh and how does discussion on the talk page = instability of the actual article, which aside from a word or two here or there, changed almost not at all for two weeks? No one has reverted anyone (but I reverting someone removing the word psychology who did so with no real justification). --Hfarmer (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see some edit warring going between Matisse and Hfarmer only yesterday. It's only a GA review. No one will die if the article fails at the moment, which it should do, in my opinion. When the reverting stops, then it can be brought forward again as CarpetCrawler says. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress's idea or Minor tweaks.

Is there anyone else who thinks this article needs to be totally reorganized as User:Jokestress says?

As discussed here, I believe the best way to organize this article is an introduction that describes the term and controversy, a section on use by proponents of the term, and a section on criticism of the term. The lede should reflect this organization: description, proponents, critics. If we can get back to working on the article rather than all of these distractions, we can keep making progress.

Anyone at all.

Or does the article need at most minor tweaks. Which is all I could see being wrong with the article. i.e. if there is some bad syntax somewhere, fix it. If there is a word mispelled somewhere fix it. But not a total rewrite (more or less simply to make it reflect Jokestress's way of thinking of this topic.)--Hfarmer (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I ask because Jokestress's personal idea that this article needs a total rewrite is her only justification for the cleanup tag, and hodling up the good article nomination. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article needs only minor tweaks.— James Cantor (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I frankly don't understand how Jokestress's proposal is materially different from what's already here. It already leads with a description, followed by a section on how it is used, and ends with criticism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The key words to her is that she want's it broke up into a sections which would focus on "proponents" and "opponents", then sum up the controversey. She has written that the way it is now makes this look like a scientific dispute and thereby legitimates it etc. etc. Basically she want's this written about like it's pure politics. Which it is not.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm GA reviewing it and will judge on NPOV. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction of the term

The section heading "Introduction of the term" is kind of weird. For one thing, the section isn't primarily about the introduction of the term itself: it's about sexologists deciding that transwomen could usefully be classified according to their sexual orientation. About all we can say about the "introduction of the term" is that it was first mentioned in print in a given year, that the words chosen were socially acceptable back then, and they aren't any longer.

In the bigger picture, this seems to be symptomatic of an ongoing effort to make this be about "we hate the two words he chose" instead of the idea. This article really needs to be about more than just the name of this idea; it needs to be about the idea that there are two types of transwomen (which idea, in turn, is apparently just one small part of a much larger "unified field theory" of human sexuality). Even if the two types were labeled "Perfectly normal women" and "Amazing ideal women", we'd still need to have articles about the ideas instead of about the words.

Perhaps this section should be recast as "Concept in modern sexology". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "Origin of the Concept" or "History of the term"?

Yes there is an ongoing effort to make the entire article about how much the terms are hated. Which I would oppose. However I would also oppose removal of all criticism. There is a robust section on the criticism of the term. In the context of the GA review Jokestress provided actual ref's to quotes she wanted in and I either put them in or paraphrased them in. I don't know what more they want? It is as if some part of the article neutrally describing the term as it has been used by sexologist therefore legitimates it? This is just WP it can't legitimate anything.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This strikes me as unnecessarily beating around the bush about Jokestress' POV on this article. If there existed much high quality research showing that Blanchard was wrong in his taxonometric ideas about transsexuality, then those findings would be the subject of this discussion. The reason folks are discussing opinions of the term is that there is no actual research showing that Blanchard was wrong about the idea, leaving the anti-science activists no strategy other than to distract editors (and readers) with the political correctness of the terminology and to declare the science as irrelevant or subservient to that.

Moreover, it is an error to say that "we hate the two words." There are transsexual folks who hate the term (as Jokestress details on her off-wiki sites), and there are groups of transsexuals who are perfectly fine with the term (e.g., www.transkids.us), making even these other transsexual folks the target of Jokestress' and Lynn Conway's off-wiki attacks. I believe discussion of the term is getting undue weight only because an off-wiki opponent of the term is pushing for it on this talk page to distract from the evidence for the actual idea. There is a reason that the better regarded the RS, the more frequent the acceptance of the term; it's the term's opponents who have to keep asking "Is this one good enough to be an RS?" The sources that use the term are rarely in question.

I think the whole page should be about the idea, and there need be only a section about language to indicate that some people have an issue with the political correctness of the term, whereas other transsexual folks do not.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "Description" or "Overview" or "History" or something boring like that? "Development" is fine, but then I expect it to say something about how one notion led to another.

Also, I'm not sure that the 'history' is well-explained: It appears that transwomen that weren't attracted to men were classified back then as not being transwomen at all, which means that there weren't 'two types' at that stage (unless you count "transsexuals that are told they're transvestites" as the second type). It might be worth making that somewhat clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

@JamesCantor. I understand where you are coming from. Not to worry to my experience the only people that give a damm about what the anti-sexology group writes is other members of that group. They read their own press so to speak. As for the nature of the criticism on this article can you see that it is fair to mention that various scientist who have studied transsexuals have pointed out the deficiencies of the term "homosexual transsexual". I know the argument for it... to stress the etiological similarity of that brand of transsexualism and homosexual maleness. That said, it gives the wrong impression to many that homosexual transsexuals are men, male identified, and perhaps even ashamed of being gay. i.e. think of anything you have seen in the pink media about transsexualism in Iran. The theme is that those ladies, are all in fact homosexual males, who are merely changing to escape stigma and persecution. This terminology could reasonably be said to reinforce such thinking. That criticism of the term by sexologist is valid IMHO. I say that as a supposed member of the "Clark-Northwestern Clique"  :-? LOL.

@WhatamIdoing. I agree, I always thought Description, was the best word. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to add... Yes back in those days non-androphillic transsexuals were classed as transvestites, and denied transtition medical care. That hetero normative thinking was on both sides, caregivers, and transwomen for a long time. The information that you want stated explicitly is as far as I know not sourceable to anywhere, and if it is may be better placed in Autogynephilia.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've no beef if someone wants to restructure and rename this section. However, it should remain seperate from the criticism section. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposing the taxonomy

About this statement:

This term and the concept of a taxonomy based on transsexual sexuality was first proposed by Magnus Hirschfeld in 1923,[4]

The ref is a 1923 paper in German. Did any editor here actually read the ref? Because you must WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, not read someone else's work and copy their footnotes.

Can we confirm that Hirschfeld actually proposed "a taxonomy based on transsexual sexuality" instead of a simple definition of transsexuality that demanded a specific sexual orientation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Blanchard's 1985 article, Typology of male-to-female transsexualism provides a history of taxonometric thinking. In it, he writes:

"Other investigators have distinguished more or fewer than three types. Hirschfeld (1922, p. 144) distinguished four types of gender disturbance in males: heterosexual, homosexual, automonosexual (or narcissistic), and bisexual. As opposed to asexuality, which demonstrates a lack of sexual drive, automonosexualism refers to a strong sexual interest in one's own person, with a concomitant lack of interest in others" (italics in original).

The reference is: Blanchard, R. (1985). Typology of male-to-female transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 247-261. I'm happy to email you a copy, if you like.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I've ordered the book and can check it in a few days. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I admit I never read the german book. I think it would be acceptable To place both the reference to the book, and to blanchards staement there. Waldalstouring tahnks for that. I cant wait to see what it actually says. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Hfarmer's approach is a good one. I point out, however, that Blanchard's article cited Hirschfeld's 1922 book (Sexualpathologie), not Hirschfeld's 1923 book, as the mainpage currently contains.— James Cantor (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make the change. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually we all screwed up a bit. According to Google books Sexualpathologie is from 1918. Unless there were two books with the same exact name? --Hfarmer (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's always possible, of course, but books published in those days weren't as "fixed" as we are now accustomed to. For example, changes would sometimes be made between editions or printings even though the book itself remained indexed to the original year; and, sometimes, a verbatim reprint was indexed to the year of the printing instead of to the year of original publication. The Hirschfeld books are a particular problem, since he himself published in German but his students re-published exerpts and summaries in English under Hirschfeld's name. The 1922 and 1923 books, however, were different books entirely, which is why I thought it worth pointing out.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Really... :-, that will make finding an online reference for it that much harder. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'm afraid so. It's the same problem with Havelock Ellis and Krafft-Ebing.

A detail about the lede: Freund and Bancroft are missing wikilinks.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yikes

Resolved

 – The main concern stated was the "Controversy" section which has been migrated, the other issues regarding further migrating content from this to other articles and further clean-up can be addressed by those more familiar, invested and able to work through the content issues. -- Banjeboi 09:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I'm really not sure what to say at this point. I'm really opposed to adding voluminous fact tags but if I didn't know better I sure would. This is relatively uncharted territory and quite unique for the vast majority of our readers. Unfortunately it remains convoluted still. I've added a tag to the "Controversy and Criticism" section. These sections are inherently POV and generally a sign of bad writing. I'm pretty sure the article would do better if the content was integrated appropriately. -- Banjeboi 12:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of sweeping statements and random tags, could you please point out what POV problem there exists with the criticism section. It presents a few scientists critical of this term compared to a lot of scientists using it. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the article, IMHO, has sweeping problems but the tag itself is hardly random. As I understand it the term and concept themselves are controversial and being promoted to further a few scientist's agendas - whatever those might be - with many other scientists, activists and others finding the term misleading and offensive. Putting all that aside, labeling any section "Controversy and Criticism" in an article on this subject is simply inviting conflict rather than simply outlining the history of it's usages including events and, perhaps, redefinitions and simply explaining if there are notable controversies. I think having "Controversy and Criticism" causes two main problems; it decontextualizes the controversies in regards to the development of the subject and it throws the article out of balance, depending on ones personal view either adding too much "controversy and criticism" or not enough. Better to do away with the heading altogether and integrate material into the larger text. In an article about a film, for example, we avoid "Criticism" and instead present a more NPOV overview under "Public reception" with both positive and negative feedback as well as volume of box office sales. To me this section is just more problems waiting to happen so reworking the delivery would seem more appropriate. -- Banjeboi 14:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article has sweeping problems that have been going on for years, but User:Wandalstouring is threatening to declare it "good" unless these ongoing issues are all resolved next week. The article still has typos and a raft of unsubstantiated statements, but User:Wandalstouring has removed the cleanup tag, thus declaring it cleaned up. It's a most interesting editorial policy: if this article is still this bad in seven days, it will be officially declared good. Jokestress (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress, you should try harder at reading. If you don't do sourced contributions within one week I'll declare it stable. Please point out several unsubstantiated statements before making such unsubstantiated claims. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

@Banjeboi: I accept that you have a differing opinion, but that's IDL. However, you're cordially invited to write a sandbox version how it could be implemented without undue weight issues. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wandalstouring, you should try harder at reading. As others have pointed out on your talk page, "The only reason the article itself isn't the subject of an edit war is that one of the editors has decided to refrain from editing the article itself at all. I still don't feel that this article qualifies as stable." Your low standards for what constitutes "stable" and "cleaned up" and "good" appear to differ from other editors. Those of us who have higher standards still have concerns despite your rush to close this out and declare your work done here. Jokestress (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, two editors said they would refrain from editing this article, but only one is following through on the promise. — James Cantor (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Benjiboi: about your statement (As I understand it the term and concept themselves are controversial and being promoted to further a few scientist's agendas - whatever those might be - with many other scientists, activists and others finding the term misleading and offensive.)

I don't think that's a reasonable description of the actual state of opinion about the concept in academia. The concept has been (sometimes quietly) embraced by nearly all experts. It's clearly loathed by certain vocal TS activists, including our own Jokestress, but the idea that (for example) a transwoman who is attracted to men is less likely to 'de-transition' than other transwomen is pretty well established. The concept (but not the term) is also embraced by some TS people that fall into this category. (What TS person wouldn't appreciate being voted "most likely to have a successful transition"?)

I also don't think that it's appropriate to attribute the goal of "further[ing] a few scientist's agendas" to this idea. It really is widely accepted among sexologists. So unless "a few" means "nearly all" in your books, then this is incorrect.

That the term is offensive to clients is widely acknowledged, but (1) the term isn't the idea and (2) terms can change. You may recall that Down syndrome used to have an offensively racist name. In a few years, we'll probably be moving the page to androphilic transsexual or some such label, with a section describing the "historical" name. We shouldn't do that now, but this page is really about the idea, not about the two words chosen decades ago as a convenient handle for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes exactly. The idea the notion of transsexuals who are attracted to men, being different in non-trivial ways from those who are not. The concept that there is a progression from feminine boy who may or may not turn out gay or trans, to either a gay man or a transwoman. Not a new idea or one that is likely to leave us no matter what sexologist write in the future.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I notice there is no bisexual transsexual, heterosexual transsexual and asexual transsexual articles. I guess I share Jokestress' concerns that a clean-up tag was removed before cleaning up finished. And I shared my POV upfront but my main concern is this is a convoluted article about a controversial subject which adds to the confusion rather than providing good information to clarify what this term is and its history. IMHO, it's mucked up with POV material. My initial concern is that this is a complicated subject that has seen much controversy and having a "Controversy and Criticism" section engenders more problems than solutions. I shouldn't have to rewrite and reorganize the whole article to try and fix that. In most cases when this is pointed out the lead editors see the editing issue for what it is and fix it. Here it seems a different response was employed. I would hope to see a clear and clean lede followed by origin and usages with the rest of the present content moved, as appropriate, to transsexual sexuality. Ultimately I think that will serve our readers best. If this article is to remain with so much, IMHO, unneeded (for this article) content, then pushing it towards NPOV would help. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently what you and I would assume are three separate groups (bi-/het-/a-) all have highly similar psychological issues, behaviors, outcomes, etc., according to sexologists -- and that article certainly does exist: it's autogynephilia.

The information about HT people should not be moved to the main TS sexuality article because it simply does not apply to all, or even most, TS people. (The fact that HT people are different from other TS people is exactly why the HT concept exists.) There should certainly be a {{Main}} summary style synopsis with a link to this article, but we can't move everything there and pretend that it's really relevant to transsexuality in general.

Jokestress pushed very hard to split this subject into two articles; what used to be here is now divided between HT and Transwomen attracted to men. There was some talk about making Transwomen attracted to women (etc.), but I don't know how much progress has/hasn't been made. (It will be more difficult, as there are no good scientific sources to support it, but then I believe a major goal in splitting the articles was to have less "scientific POV" in them, so perhaps that's a feature instead of a bug.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Continued after thread closed?

Unresolved

@ Benjiboi: If you critize something you must have an actual idea how it can be done better and show it to your less brilliant surroundings on a plan or in a sandbox. That's called constructive criticism. If you're not able to do that you can easily be dismissed as a bellyacher. However, you're lucky, this morning I invented an all-wheel bicycle(I still have to work on the differential) and a concept for merging the criticism section.

@Jokestress: You're running out of time. Kvetching doesn't improve articles, sourced contributions do. Once again, show with new referenced content that you have something to add to the article or I'll declare it stable (stable≠GA). Wandalstouring (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

@Banjeboi, I agree with you perhaps there should be articles on the way those other taxonomic terms and the concepts the represent have been used as well. There is nothing stopping you from hunting down the few sources which do not lump them together in some fashion and creating such articles. As you can see I have had my hands full of fire with this one hot potato. Whatamidoing is right about the way these are treated in the literature. In research from Hirschfeld 1922,to Benjamin1966, to Johnson 2005, the main thrust seems to be that there is a difference between homosexual/androphilic transsexuals and non-androphilic transsexuals. During that span it's been more than a few sexologist/psychologist who have noted or researched the differences.

@WhatamIdoing, the transwoman/transman attracted to men/women articles were created. Then Banjeboi suggested that they all be merged/redirected to somewhere else. That merger has not occured because there is not a real hard consensus on where to merge that information to.

I missed where did all the controversy go? Is there just not going to be a controversy section? I am not sure how I feel about that, it's like the articles legs have been choped off. (Are we waiting for Jokestress to post her version of a controversy section? I am sure it would be prosaically good, but neutral........ :-? )--Hfarmer (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Perhaps I missed something but ... no. It's not my job to fix problems although I certainly do also often do that. Characterizing me, or anyone as a bellyacher seems completely unhelpful. As the editor who added the tag I immediately posted my concern here and was met by trenched opposition. This is not terribly surprising but perhaps a bit disappointing. I expanded my comments and the tag itself has handy links that explain the issues better than but I still offered constructive criticism. Not one iota of my concerns were about WP:I DON'T LIKE IT, they were, and continue to be, about making this subject clear to our readers. I think we are falling way short on this point but WP:TLDR is likely part of the problem. This thread is evidence of the voluminous ability to write yet the skill of communicating is still not translating effectively enough to the article content. To Hfarmer, I was pointing out - admittedly rather poorly - that this article doesn't cover a compare and contrast. It sounds like we really shouldn't have those articles but instead summarize relevant content in this and the transsexual sexuality article. I will note that less than 24 hours after tagging the section it has been completely migrated. I hope this helps the article improve but I may have to avoid this for another few months and return then to see the progress. -- Banjeboi 13:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Migrated but to where? I did not moveit. IMHO some criticism section is better than none and it is warranted. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your(The article's) GA reviewer, who also removed the clean-up tag, merged all the content. -- Banjeboi 03:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My GA reviewer? I don't own them, they do as they please.--Hfarmer (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I even wrote that I did it. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not notice. Sorry. This thing just exploded into such a big big mess of multiple independant conversations... I lost track. :oops: --Hfarmer (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, if the amount of talkpage activity was equivalent to article content contributions it would be the best of wikipedia. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)