User talk:Smartgirl62/Archive

Welcome!

Hello, Smartgirl62/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! The King of Kings 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou but I am not new to wikipedia. Just new to this name. I have always had this gender identity but I like to keep this aspecte separate from other things that I also edit. In a heated debate it would come up. I hope this is not a huge problem for wikipedia. If you follow the clues you could figure out my other wikiname (and there is only one other). If you do though I would ask. Why? --Smartgirl62 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in progress

Not a good idea to create an article whose content is just "being created in an external editor - please stand by"; a better idea would be to write the text in your external editor first and then paste it in.

I'll give you an hour or so to put some real content in, but another admin might delete it in that time. DS 13:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be done before then. --Smartgirl62

Hi! You might want to consider merging homosexual transsexual into autogynephilia: the supposed distinction between "autogynephilic" and "homosexual" transsexuals only appears to be made in the context of Blanchard's autogynephilia hypothesis, so it might as well be covered there. -- Karada 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But the autogynephillia article has plenty of authors who are bent on not changing it. I reference and make the comparison to autogynephilia enough that this should make sense. If you are familiar with this subject then you know that the one type of transsexual will not want to hear the perspective of the other type. A huge edit war will ensue. The one type of transsexual spends more time on wikipedia than the other and so they would win the edit war. If they did not delete the part dealing with HSTS they would simply add a blub calling such people a nasty name. Mabey my assesment is clouded by my personal interactions with such people. --Smartgirl62

" If you are familiar with this subject then you know that the one type of transsexual will not want to hear the perspective of the other type" - this makes the assumption (a la Bailey/Blanchard) that there *are* only two types and that they're somehow at odds with each other. In reality, this isn't the case - Ali-oops ^✍ 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. This is my personal talk page and on it I can have whatever POV I want. though my view on two types does not come from BBL but from a muslim scholar. Whos's source of knowledge was the my holy prophet Muhammad SAS. Please see Mukhannathun. In this article a muslim scholar who lived a long long time ago notes that there seem to be two types of transsexuals in general. Whatever you decide to call them there seem to be these categories. --Smartgirl62 18:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This is my personal talk page and on it I can have whatever POV I want" - of course! It's your opinion, after all. However, this doesn't make it right, per se. "Whatever you decide to call them there seem to be these categories" - I agree these categories exist. However, I'd venture to suggest that there are more than two categories. Either way, we all need to keep our own POV out of article space. That goes for me, too :) - Ali-oops ^✍ 18:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is about a scientific theory that has the point of view that there are two types. Talking about alleged two types of transsexual here would be like saying "supposedly the speed of light is constant in all intertial frames of reference, at least so says Einstein". In a article on special Relativity. The theory inquestion says certain things. So that's what I write. it is POV to do other wise. --Smartgirl62 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Ali could you please put further objections to the article on the talk page of the article so we can all discuss them. --Smartgirl62 19:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why I feel the way I do on the theory of Autogynephillia and the two types of transsexuals.

The structure of having two types of transsexual who do not get along very well seems to confirm my own experience and the experiences of others who transitioned when young. Let me tell you about the last time I went to a support group...

I want any transsexual reading this to imagine being very young. It's 2000 there is only one support group for transsexuals (not CD's, not TV's) active in all of Chicagoland at that time. At the support group you are verbally attacked by an older transsexual. Why? because, she says, "I hate how this group lights up when a prissy, sissy, little girl shows up." the psychologist running the group defended me and told me "not to take it personally as other young TS's had been attacked in the same way." Just what I need someone else calling me a sissy. Technically correct I suppose but who goes to a support group for that? The psychologist told me of a woman who was in her 30's then who started hormones at 16 and was attacked for being passable with little trouble. They felt she was bragging just for offering passing advice. "Passing isn't that important," someone said.

Then I recalled going to this group a month earlier and seeing this other young now post op TS there who never spoke a word the whole time. It seemed her companion. I tried to talk to her after wards. (The bunch of them used to go out for coffee after wards) She quietly and sheepishly said "Oh I don't hang out with those people, and neither should you." Up to this last meeting I had wondered why.

Based on these and other similar experiences. I had came to the two types conclusion and the oil and water conclusion LONG before hearing of this book. I have personally observed the friction. So do not tell me it does not exist. Since then the Howard Brown center branched off a youth center and most younger transsexuals are directed there where they can get help "with no drama". Why did they see a need for that age segregation if there was no division? They would not. There is a real life division in the transsexual community. Where Bailey went wrong was with the names he chose and with the generalizations he made. About both groups. --Smartgirl62 12:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey went wrong by saying there were only *two* - Alison ^✍ 13:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on BBL article

Thanks for all the work you have been doing on articles related to transsexual taxonomies! Much of the information you have is good, but we need to make sure everything is carefully sourced to avoid POV issues and inaccuracies.

I also believe we should step back for a minute and think about the name of the article. "BBL theory" is inaccurate for a few reasons. First, it is a behavioral model, not a theory. Second, it is in apposition to models of gender identity. It categorizes people by sexual orientation: homosexuality or paraphilia. It also suggests this is their "motivation" for transition. While BBL is a good shorthand for this, there are others who have promulgated this model, including Kurt Freund and Ken Zucker at the Clarke Institute.

I'm happy to comment now and then, but I recommend we take a minute to think about larger issues of organization, to save a little effort revising later.

In addition to behavioral models which classify observed phenomena, we need to organize causation hypotheses to explain observed phenomena. While they interact, some taxonomies make no direct claims regarding causation.

The concepts can broadly be classified in the following categories:

Heredity

Nature/genes

Environment

Prenatal factors

Social factors

Supernatural

Possession

Divine gift/curse

Or in the case of medicalized models, in terms of disability/disease:

Psychosexual pathology (BBL etc)

Psychopathology (GID etc)

Pathology (“birth defect” etc)

Some of the above is first blush thinking on organization, but it might help demonstrate patterns more clearly to contextualize and structure things a bit. Much of the controversy is about differential diagnosis and the ramifications of those. A lot of the “two-type” stuff like homosexual/autogynephile is related to the Benjamin Scale, which should be acknowledged as an influence in the primary/true/classic vs. secondary/pseudo/non-classic debate. Most of the debate is about who is a “real transsexual” (to use Anne Lawrence’s defensive self-description) and who is not. Lawrence’s work can be seen as a power move within an established medicalized hierarchy.

It’s clear to everyone that there are a wide range of identities and expressions currently described as “transsexual,” but the debate centers on how many (if any) subsets exist within that group, and where the threshold for inclusion lies. Some (myself included) are beginning to ask if the term is even worth defending or saving in the long run, since it seems to have been appropriated by many who see it as more socially acceptable than the way the had been labeled previously.

We also need to be clear that these taxonomies have only been applied to MTF trans people, because BBL & co. think FTMs are a monolithic group for some reason, or that "paraphilia" does not occur in "females" (as they seem to see FTMs).

Finally the article needs to lay out some larger issues: does “transsexual” describe a trait? A behavior? A desire? A medical procedure? A political identity? A disease? All have been proposed, but I don’t think there is any consensus on even this most basic issue.

I am going to post this on the transsexualism page, too. Thanks for asking my thoughts; this was helpful for organizing spome things I have been considering for a while. Jokestress 23:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's allot to think about. I believe much of that is covered in other articles such as the one on Gender identity disorder or the one on Transsexualism. Lastly a link to the list of transgender related topics should catch most of that. No need to reinvent the wheel. I will add such links.

Please don't take this the wrong way. Your objection to the use of the word theory in the title of the article displays a conflation of the way scientist use the word and the way lay people use the word. Science students sit through more than one lecture/ discussion of this. The word theory as used here means a hypothesis that has lots of empircal backup. The article on theory goes deep into that. It also explains how scientist theorize in general. Theoretical science is all about finding the simplest explaination for a phenomena. There is much use of Occam's razor. Based on this I see no reason to not call this a theory. It is a theory that is contorversial but still a theory.

As for calling it "BBL theory" I belive that title was practically suggested to me by User:Ali-oops. They are known as the main movers of this theory. Further it is a scientific convention to attribute a theory to the top three researchers who crafted the theory.

You raise many other issues which would all be interesting to discuss. As far as I am concerned there is no debate on who is a real transsexual. Anyone who desires and pursues transition is a real transsexual. We all have tough road. Some get called sissy's or worse prior to transition. Others get called freaks or worse after transtion. There are reasons for that, different experience, which must go beyond "luck" as some put it. I don't believe in luck.

As I have said elsewhere, I would personally not care to much about this site if it weren't for lazy news reporters. I have seen more than one reference to the wikipedia as a source of info in a news story. Not just about TS issue but a wide range of things. --Smartgirl62 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As for calling it "BBL theory" I belive that title was practically suggested to me by User:Ali-oops" - hey, don't go by anything I necessarily say. I'm no expert on pseudoscience - Alison ^✍ 15:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBL article

Thanks for the invite re. the above. I might as well state that I'm no fan of BBL and I tend to view their theory as bogus science at best. For that reason, I'm aware of my own POV and will probably steer clear of the article content. I've just done a copyedit and tidy-up of your work so-far. Hope that's okay. I'm also broadly in agreement with Andrea's commentary above - Alison ^✍ 14:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in progress

Why I feel the way I do on the theory of Autogynephillia and the two types of transsexuals.

Comment on BBL article

BBL article

archives