Jump to content

Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hooky6 (talk | contribs) at 21:03, 18 March 2023 (→Proposed Solution:: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Autogynephilic Gender Dysphoria

In the quote "He proposed that many late-transitioning trans women were driven to do so not by gender dysphoria, but by an extreme paraphilia characterized by an erotic interest in oneself as a woman (autogynephilia)." Implies Blanchard said Autogynephiles can't experience Gender Dysphoria which they can according to him so i suggest we change it too "He proposed that many late-transitioning trans women were driven to do so by a Gender Dysphoria caused by an extreme paraphilia characterized by an erotic interest in oneself as a woman (autogynephilia)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C64:677F:95A0:EC57:1EAD:B50E:10EB (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the claim that he said this? Loki (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The cited text by Sanchez says the following on page 44 Specifically, late transitioners may experience a type of paraphilia termed autogynephilia (or self-woman-love) rather than gender dysphoria, and on page 47 Blanchard (2005) concluded that the motive for many who transitioned later in life was rooted in an extreme paraphilia versus gender dysphoria. Emphasis from the original text.
The 2005 paper from Blanchard, cited by Sanchez in the second quotation, states on page 445 All gender-dysphoric biological males who are not homosexual are instead autogynephilic. citing a 1989 paper from Blanchard, and a 1987 paper from Clemmensen and Steiner.
So unless Blanchard has recanted his 1989 and 2005 statements, the Sanchez citation and our text seem to be correct. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: because the text proposed by both Transhistory [1] and the IP editor [2] does not match the Sanchez source, I have reverted the text to the long standing version as that is supported by the source. [3] It's possible that Sanchez is wrong, and that in the ten years since the source was published Blanchard has published other works to the contrary, however in lack of those citations to replace Sanchez we cannot use the text proposed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this very article it say according to blanchards typology Autogynephilic patients can suffer from Gender Dysphoria so the Sanchez text is a bit misleading Transhistory (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the Sanchez text is misleading, then so was Blanchard's 2005 paper (linked above) where he reiterated his 1989 claim that All gender-dysphoric biological males who are not homosexual are instead autogynephilic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? He's clearly saying there that they are gender dysphoric. Crossroads -talk- 01:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing something. Breaking down the sentence All gender-dysphoric biological males who are not homosexual are instead autogynephilic into chunks; All gender-dysphoric biological males who are not homosexual describes a population, are instead autogynephilic. states that the population described in the first half of the sentence are not gender-dysphoric they are instead autogynephilic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "instead" is only operative on "homosexual", because otherwise he'd be saying they're both gender dysphoric and not gender dysphoric. He doesn't say "ostensibly gender dysphoric" or the like. If I said "all apples that are not red are instead green", I'm not saying the green apples aren't apples. Crossroads -talk- 01:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, however Sanchez clearly did not read it that way. Are there any secondary sources to both Blanchard and Sanchez, that assert that Sanchez is wrong, or indicate that Sanchez' interpretation is not the commonly held one? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the 2005 paper and it's very clear in context that, at least as of 2005, Blanchard does in fact believe that gender dysphoria is a thing. So for instance, here's another time in the paper that it uses the same term: The core of the research consisted of three studies (Blanchard, 1985, 1988, 1989b). The participants were gender-dysphoric, biologically male patients who presented at the then Clarke Institute of Psychiatry.
That all being said, it's also obvious in context that Blanchard does not believe that "gender-dysphoric biological males" are women and consistently refers to them with male pronouns. By "gender dysphoria" here he seems to mean something a bit more literal than it's often used as today. He does not seem to think of "gender dysphoria" as a sufficient motivation for transition all by itself, so I think Sanchez's statement is still technically true, although misleading. Loki (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing and NPOV

FYI, one of the main contributors to this article has a professional conflict of interest with the subject of this article, being one of the primary supporters of the Blanchard typology. In 2021, there was a sockpuppet investigation, and his Wikipedia account as well as two of other sockpuppet accounts were blocked. The sockpuppet accounts were used to evade detection when editing. Establishing NPOV for this article may be a gradual process and require some ongoing effort.

Hist9600 (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is used by some "gender critical" feminists to imply that some trans women are sexually deviant men

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038026120934690?journalCode=sora#:~:text=autogynephilia%20is%20still%20often%20touted%20by%20anti%2Dtransgender%20groups%2C%20including%20trans%2Dexclusionary%20feminists.

source says "autogynephilia is still often touted by anti-transgender groups, including trans-exclusionary feminists."

anti-transgendergroups/TERFS=/='gender critical'

'gender critical' is quotation marks is clearly weaslewords mm

diverse opinions exist, terf is a slur very few people self identify as.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0162243920924783 Mirddes (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to simply "its proponents". It should be clear from the preceding text that those are in fact TERFs. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mirddes, I don't understand this edit, and the edit summary doesn't help at all. Could you explain why you are proposing this change? It doesn't seem to be supported by the source given in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORUM, WP:NPA --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
no one self indentifies as "TERF", its a homophobic and hetrophobic slur used by woke activists to slander people who ideologically disagree with the modern religion. WP:NPOV
i get called a sissy cis all the time for not identifying as a gender, i have a sex. it's blatant hate speech against political and religious opponents.
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/01/20547/ Mirddes (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are among the WP:FRINGE minority of gender-denialists, that may place you in the esteemed company of some banned or blocked former Wikipedia editors, but it isn't a policy-relevant justification for the edits you have made to this article. Also, I am unaware of any versions of this article that used the term TERF in Wikivoice; it certainly isn't there now. Smells like a red herring Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
can you please stop harrassing me, you've already posted on my talk page multiple times.
either admit you have a conflict of interest in editing this article and are not capable of WP:NPOV or find a better source that supports the article as written.
most people, are not WP:FRINGE, and think this nonsense is hilarious. i come here from a place of mutual respect and love for my fellow humans and only desire true nutrality. so long as you slander people who do not 100% agree with your ideology, you desere to be a wikipedia editor just as little as you claim i should be. Mirddes (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
did i deny gender? or did i says "i dont identify as a gender, i have a sex"
identify as whatever you want, thats what's great about reality. but slandering me because i dont identify with what you think i should identify with is absurd. Mirddes (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if you don't want to identify as agender, more power to you. But insisting that "sex" - whatever that is - can and should take the place of social and cultural gender is quite clearly a FRINGE position - in relation to MEDRS scholarship on gender identity, for example. And people embracing that position typically do so with the goal of undermining transgender rights claims. If you weren't implying that "sex" should take the place of gender, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. No "slander" was intended. Newimpartial (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
its silly feinging ignorance of the concept of biological sex, which the vast majority of the population takes for granted, as it is de facto synomoyous with gender.
human rights are human rights, stop fighting a religious war.
believe whatever you want, and everyone else will do the same.
Please retract the WP:ASPERSIONS and stop your WP:EW Mirddes (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been harrassing anyone. Please retract the WP:ASPERSIONS and stop your WP:EW. Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio from The Man Who Would Be Queen

Note for the admin processing the copyvio-revdel, the removed text contained a substantial block of text taken from Bailey, John Michael. The Man Who Would Be Queen. ISBN 9780309084185.. In the copy I have, the relevant text appears on pages 192, 193, and 194. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also to note, this edit summary is misleading. The copied text was not meaningfully paraphrased or altered. There was some word inclusions, for example "ever" in the first question, some removals, for example the word "about" was removed from the second question where it originally appeared between the words "were as", and some substitutions, for example in the third question the word "nearly" was swapped for "almost". The order of the questions is identical to their appearance in the source text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some questions are also broken into multiple questions, but otherwise I cede that my paraphrasing may have been too close. Snokalok (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no I reworded it to paraphrase, so it’s not a copyvio Snokalok (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues aside, TMWWBQ is not a reliable source for anything except Bailey's own opinions, which are WP:UNDUE in this case: (1) Bailey is a primary source for his own findings, (2) the book has not been vetted by the scholarly community, and (3) an imprint of the National Academies Press is not a guarantee of academic rigor. Bailey flat-out states on p. 145: We know little about the causes of either type of transsexualism (though we have some good hunches about one type). But I am certain that when we finally do understand, the causes of the two types will be completely different. "Hunches" and vague prophecies are not science. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with the WP:UNDUE for the reason that, this is a theory that most of the field of psychology has abandoned in its entirety, there are only a handful of proponents left, their opinions I'd consider to be of significant worth in covering. Snokalok (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you or I personally think is of worth is beside the point; due weight means fairly reflecting the predominant views of reliable sources on a topic. If independent scholarly sources don't comment on Bailey's "method", we shouldn't either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, what I'm saying is that given that Bailey was Blanchard's protege and is considered by many to be the main force responsible for the theory's propagation in the first place, his opinions on what actually constitutes an AGP are worth including. Snokalok (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If independent scholarly sources don't comment on Bailey's "method", we shouldn't either. Glad we agree on this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I more meant the first part, "What you or I personally think is of worth is beside the point; due weight means fairly reflecting the predominant views of reliable sources on a topic." Snokalok (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add on, if you have a theory that was come up with and spread by a couple people, those couple of people are the reliable sources on it, are they not? Like personally, I think blanchardianism is absolutely divorced from reality, but, regardless of that divorce from reality, Blanchard and Bailey are the "experts" on it, so aren't they the authorities on said theory? Snokalok (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They may be, but they are still primary sources for said theory. Undue weight, again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if you have a theory that was come up with and spread by a couple people, those couple of people are the reliable sources on it, are they not? Not entirely. If a theorem is the work of one person, or a group of people, they would fail the independent sources test. They have, whether knowingly or unknowingly, a vested interest in ensuring that their theory spreads. Any work produced by them will be inherently primary with regards to the theorem. While they may be experts with regards to what they have written, they may not be experts or considered experts with regards to the field in which they are writing. For example, while Mark Sargent may be considered an expert within the flat Earth movement, he is largely seen as a conspiracy theorist by those outside that movement.
What matters with regards to theories is how they are received by independent reliable sources, typically other experts in the same or a closely related field. If those independent sources believe the theory or a part of the theory is important, then they will generally comment on that. The volume and prominence of independent reliable sources that discuss those parts help us weigh the content to ensure we're not focusing on parts that are considered irrelevant by those independent of the original theory.
Back to the topic at hand, as far as I'm aware, no expert outside of individuals connected to Baily and/or Blanchard actually considers Blanchard's topology to actually be a credible theory. There have been many peer reviewed articles from several authors going into detail about the flaws in the theory, and the shortcomings in the experiments that Blanchard used when proposing it. With regards to the "test" that Bailey wrote of in TMWWBQ, has that or a modified form of it actually been published in a peer reviewed journal? Or have any independent reliable sources discussed it in positive or negative terms? Those are questions we cannot answer from the source book alone, and at minimum need to be answered before we could consider including even a paraphrased version of it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think to some degree the disconnect we have comes from how we're approaching this theory - that is, I'm approaching it as "This is an article about what these five guys in a room somewhere believe. Let's thus document what they believe." Whereas you approach it from, "This is what the psychiatric community believed once. Let's document what the psychiatric community believed." Snokalok (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, Wikipedia's purpose is not to document everything said or written by some guys somewhere. To do so is to introduce undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your earlier question, Bailey and Blanchard are not automatically the most reliable sources on their theory. They are reliable only for what they personally have said and/or written. Why should we care about Bailey's method of differentiating groups of trans women if the academic community has mostly ignored it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the entire article gives far too much credence to the theory in general if we're being honest, realistically it *should* be reported more strongly as a theory the field abandoned but right now it's reported as "The theory is supported by Blanchard, Bailey, and Cantor, but rejected by [Insert every major medical organization on the topic]", if anything we should be writing this article the way the ROGD article was written, even the strongest evidence for Blanchard's theory is weaker than anything Lisa Littmann ever had. But, since we're not, all I'm saying is that if the list of supporters is a couple major names against every major health org, then the opinions of those names are worth documenting.
Regardless, the consensus is against including it, so, not like it's going back in anyway. Snokalok (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a concern that the article already gives too much weight to the views of Bailey and Blanchard, then uncritically copy-pasting even more of their statements seems oddly self-defeating. You are free to cite sources from every major health org saying the theory has been abandoned. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC) edited 05:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" section

The "Criticism" section contains statements like:

[T]he Internal Revenue Service cited Blanchard's typology as justification for denying a transgender woman's tax deductions for medical costs relating to treatment of her gender identity disorder, claiming the procedures were not medically necessary. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, ruling that she should be allowed to deduct the costs of her treatment, including sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy

and:

One early proponent of the autogynephilia theory was radical feminist Sheila Jeffreys. The concept has been used to imply that trans women are sexually deviant men. The autogynephilia theory became popular on "gender critical" websites such as 4thWaveNow, Mumsnet, and the Reddit community r/GenderCritical

and:

According to the SPLC, the autogynephilia theory has been promoted by anti-LGBT hate groups. These include Family Research Council (FRC), United Families International (UFI), and the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds).

Are these "criticism"?

I maintain that statements of support and criticism of the typology should be folded into the general narrative, not segregated into a separate "criticism" section. This will make the article structure more broadly neutral. Statements like the above should go under a heading like "Reception" or "Societal impact". Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off "Autogynephilia" into its own page

I have added a template tag to this article to highlight that this article has a section ("Autogynephilia") that would seem to warrant being split off into its own article. Splitting this section off into its own article would make the article more focused on its primary topic.

Reasons why "Autogynephilia" should be split off:

  • Per WP:Splitting: "In some cases, refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia)."
  • The term "Autogynephilia" is the most commonly-used term to describe this paraphilia, and is regularly used independently (in other words, many who use the term do not necessarily agree with all of Blanchard's findings, but are aware that the paraphilia exists).
  • There is a sufficient volume of reliable secondary sources available (per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline) on this subject from many researchers apart from Blanchard himself (including Bettcher, Nuttbrock, Veale, Hsu, and Lawrence). Blanchard is frequently cited in the literature, regardless of whether the authors citing him agree or disagree with his conclusions.

Proposed Solution:

In this article, we could move the "Autogynephilia" section to be a subheading under the "Terminology" section (as Autogynephilia is one of the main terms arising from Blanchard's typology), and include a summary of the Autogynephilia article that includes the "Main Article: see here" treatment). (Sorry, I'm fairly new here, not sure what this treatment is officially referred to as). Hooky6 (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to update this - according to @Sideswipe9th, it looks like I may have mismeasured the article length based on overall content size, rather than pure text size. My apologies.
But my proposal still otherwise stands - I would like to see "Autogynephilia" split out into a separate article. I have updated my original comment accordingly. Hooky6 (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On resurrecting the autogynephilia article, in the twelve years since the merge discussion, there have been at least four discussions on bringing back that article: February 2015, April 2018, June 2018, September 2020. Also of relevance would be the May 2013 AfD for autoandrophilia. Across all of those discussions there was a pretty strong consensus that there should not be an autogynephilia article. I would suggest in the first instance reading the past discussions for why a separate article for autogynephilia is inappropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I HAVE read most of those discussions. It seems like the outcome of the discussions boils down to some editors' opinions that the term "Autogynephilia" is a neologism (which is a point that is highly debatable) and that Autogynephilia is not sufficiently "notable" to merit its own article (a point which really shouldn't be debatable).
I am in agreement with the former editor James Cantor that this subject merits its own article. It certainly has enough notability to warrant it (Cantor provided plenty of additional citations), and there are many books and articles (both critical and supportive of Blanchard) by other authors that use the term. Clearly it's a notable topic in its body of knowledge.
The reason why people keep resurrecting the proposal to split this into its own article is because the original decision to merge them was a mistake. The (flawed) reasoning is that the weaknesses of Blanchard's theory justify the concept of Autogynephilia not being a real paraphilia. Therefore, "Autogynephilia" ought to be treated as "fringe" per WP:Fringe.
But Autogynephilia IS a real paraphilia. And it is common enough to warrant its own article, separate from the article about Blanchard's theories. Just because Blanchard coined the term for it doesn't mean that it has all the same problems that his other theories may or may not have.
I'm resurrecting this discussion because, at a bare minimum, this bad decision should be revisited at least every few years, to see if a new consensus can be reached. Hooky6 (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very hesitant to take Cantor's support for the recreation of an autogynephilia article with any real weight. As a proponent of the theory he has an obvious conflict of interest with the subject material. Something he admitted to on his user page back in 2013.
The problem as I see it, is that autogynephilia is inherently and almost inextricably linked to Blanchard's typology. Per Moser's 2010 critique, Blanchard first proposed this theory as a way to describe trans women within his typology, based on his interpretation of self-reporting data from trans women who attended his Toronto clinic in the 1980s. Even when Blanchard proposed it for inclusion in the DSM-5 he did so based on patient reporting from his clinic. The questions asked to that patient cohort, and the analysis of that data was preformed solely within the realm of Blanchard's typology.
With regards to WP:FRINGE, as Serano stated in 2020 Blanchard and other proponents of the theory frequently dismiss any and all exceptions to the theory as either due to the individuals giving the self-reports as lying, or otherwise misreporting their own experiences. This renders the theory as unfalsifiable. An unfalsifiable theory is one that cannot be contradicted by empirical evidence, and so inherently unscientific. And that's before you also touch on the other issues that both Serano and Moser raise on the flaws in almost all of Blanchard's study designs and findings. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I've notified WikiProject Psychology, WikiProject Sexology, WikiProject LGBT Studies, and WikiProject Medicine about this discussion, as this proposed split is of relevance to all of those projects. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose split. This proposal has been rejected before for good reasons. Has the status of "autogynephilia" moved on since then in a significant way that would justify re-evaluation? I don't think so. It remains a fringe theory supported by Blanchard and a very few others in academia, mostly people associated with Blanchard. Of course there has been some coverage since we last looked at it but still it has gained very little traction in medicine outside of this small group. We focus on its few proponents and its slightly more detractors, who have debunked it in great detail, but the overall academic response has been to shrug shoulders and walk away from yet another fringe medical theory that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. It has been taken up loudly by many anti-trans campaigners but they do not engage with the idea seriously. They just added the term to their lexicon of abuse. For them it functions as an accusation or a conspiracy theory, not as a proposed medical condition. Building on what Sideswipe9th says above, this is a concept that can only be understood within the framework of Blanchard's non-mainstream typology. As such, I think that this article is the only possible place to cover it. If it were split out then any new reader would only have to come back here to read about the typology as a prerequisite for making head or tail of it so it serves the readers best to keep it all in one place. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per DanielRigal. No indication that "Autogynephilia IS a real paraphilia" as so claimed above, to justify a separate article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It IS a real paraphilia. I experience it myself. You can't simply tell someone who experiences something that what they are experiencing doesn't exist. That's like telling a gay person that homosexuality doesn't exist.
    Do you think all those people that were studied by Blanchard, Lawrence, et al were just making it all up?
    Regardless, your personal opinion on whether it exists or not isn't a valid justification for not splitting out the article. Your comment is purely speculative opinion, and nothing more.
    Care to provide some reasoning that is actually in keeping with Wikipedia's standards, such as WP:Neutral Point of View? Hooky6 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose a split. While I'm not 1000% against it, I agree with Sideswipe that it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about it other than in the context of Blanchard's typology, and the fact that the person who suggested it thinks it's "a real paraphilia" gives me a lot of pause about this particular proposal.
Honestly, I've half a mind to merge in even more Blanchard-and-Bailey-isms that have WP:POVFORK-y articles. Feminine essence theory of transsexuality comes to mind. Loki (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology&oldid=1145377674"