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 20:15, 24 March 2023 (→Proposed Solution:: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]
This is a legitimate point of contention to make. However, should WP be giving greater weight to Serano and Moser than to Blanchard and Lawrence? In my mind, all researchers in this field should be given equal weight.
Yet here in Wikipedia land, it seems you give much more credence to a self-proclaimed activist like Serano than a researcher like Blanchard who went into this without any real agenda. Hooky6 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On whether Serano and Moser should be given greater weight, on a theory proposed and defined by Blanchard, yes they absolutely should be given more weight. The No Original Research policy tells us that Wikipedia articles should be primarily based on reliable, secondary sources. Any research produced by Blanchard, or those directly connected to him would be a primary source.
Whether or not all of Lawrence's papers on autogynephilia have been written independently of Blanchard I don't know. Any papers that she has written with Blanchard as another author would be primary source. And for any research she's conducted, she would also be the primary source.
Serano and Moser however are secondary sources, at least for the papers I have cited, as both are summarising the works of others on this topic. While Serano may consider herself to be an activist, she is also a biologist and academic, and so perfectly qualified to author papers on this topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to see a meaningful difference between Serano's review and Lawrence's review - in my assessment, both are "secondary reviews" of Blanchard. Can you help me understand why you're labeling Lawrence's as "primary" (and therefore apparently unusable for ciatation purposes) and Serano's as "secondary?" I don't see a meaningful difference between them. I see them both being "not Blanchard," and therefore both are qualified to offer their own summaries as "secondary" sources.
Being a "comtemporary" or "associate" of another researcher doesn't necessarily mean that one's summary of their research is going to be biased. Even if it is biased, Wikipedia's policies state that a secondary source doesn't have to be "unbiased" to be citable as a secondary source. Hooky6 (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th, your assertion is not technically correct, because Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. Blanchard can never be independent of his own work, but it is possible for anyone to produce a secondary source from a group of prior publications (including prior publications written by themselves). Moser and Serano are independent of Blanchard, but they can also write both primary and secondary sources.
As with any disputed idea in any small field, it can be difficult to find people who are both obviously qualified and also interested enough. Serano is a biologist, but not a psychologist, and a PhD in fruitfly mRNA might actually make you better qualified to comment on COVID-19 vaccines than on psychology. Moser, who does have a background in psychotherapy, worked for years at an unaccredited for-profit school (the same one that his PhD came from), which is not exactly the sort of circumstance that makes one feel like he's accepted by his peers, or even that he'd be recognized as having a PhD.
NB that I don't claim they aren't good sources, or even the best sources; I only say that they're independent rather than secondary, and that finding any source that everyone agrees is ideal may prove to be impossible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right WhatamIdoing! Normally I add a quick link to WP:INDY when stating this, but I completely forgot to earlier! Sideswipe9th (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On Lawrence, all I've said is that I don't know whether or not all of her papers have been written independently of Blanchard, and that any research she's published would be a primary source. I've not made any other commentary about her or her work, and certainly not about any review papers she might have written. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New research studies are primary sources.
  • Reviews of previously published research are secondary sources.
You do not need to know the authors' names to figure out whether papers are primary or secondary. You only need to know whether it's new information or a paper about previously published information.
I believe (but you could ask the folks who hang out at WT:PROF if you want a more certain answer) that academic papers, whether primary or secondary, in this century are generally good about naming all the people who were involved, so if Blanchard's name isn't listed, then Blanchard wasn't involved and that particular paper is WP:Independent of Blanchard.
However, in terms of getting general agreement on wiki, I don't think the facts will matter. Wikipedia editors have a surprisingly Victorian attitude around this, and if you've ever co-authored a paper with someone whose viewpoint we despise, then you are hopelessly ruined forever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with what you've said, I've written and published my own papers in the past and I know how author name attribution works, but none of that's a response to what I've said.
Hooky's comment at 22:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC) is replying to something I've not said, which might be why this conversation tangent is so weird. I've not said that Lawrence's work is primary. What I have said is "I don't know whether or not all of her papers have been written independently of Blanchard". That's because I've not had the opportunity to check if she has collaborated with Blanchard as a named author on any of her own work. That's important because if Lawrence and Blanchard have collaborated together on a research paper on either Blanchard's typology or autogynephilia, then that specific paper that they have worked together on would not be an independent source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blanchard's Google Scholar profile lists a single, undated interaction, which is about multi-authored something about what it calls a "trade group". It didn't list any actual papers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 19 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]
Thank you. Hooky6 (talk) 21:13, 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]
    Unfortunately personal experience, such as your own, is not verifiable in reliable sources. For content to be included in any article, or to form the basis of its own article, it must be verifiable to reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that, thanks. I'm not saying I have it in order to justify splitting the article - I'm merely responding to this particular editor's comment because his claim is merely a personal opinion. Hooky6 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what the other author said is accurate. No evidence that "Autogynephilia IS a real paraphilia" has been provided by yourself. In all of your comments thus far, you've cited some policies and guidelines for what you want to do, but you have not provided any citations to reliable sources that assert that it is a paraphilia in and of its own right. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lawrence: Autogynephilia and the Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism: Concepts and Controversies
    Hsu: The Psychometric Structure of Items Assessing Autogynephilia
    Lawrence: Men Trapped in Men's Bodies
    Cantor: New MRI Studies Support the Blanchard Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism Hooky6 (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hooky6 I removed the google drive link for "Lawrence: Men Trapped in Men's Bodies" per WP:LINKVIO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:36, 19 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]
I have no conflicts of interest besides knowing it's real because I have this paraphilia myself. Hooky6 (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting into the edge of WP:NOTFORUM territory, but: do you realize that the dispute here is not really about whether some trans women experience attraction to their female selves, but whether that should be considered pathological (instead of just a normal part of gender dysphoria or being a woman or both)? Loki (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not clear to me at all that that's what we're debating here. I thought we were merely debating about whether we should split this into its own article, and got a bit derailed by someone claiming Autogynephilia doesn't even exist at all.
Are you trying to move the goalposts? Hooky6 (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This typology doesnt have any traction or notability within academic or professionals circles outside Blanchard and a couple of his orbiters. Its been adopted by people with political motivations and zero expertise. but since its notability is specifically tied to him, it belongs here. Filiforme1312 (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you consider Bailey, Lawrence, Hsu, and Cantor to be Blanchard's "orbiters?" Thus, they are not reliable sources in their own right? Is this your claim? Hooky6 (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im not commenting on if those people's publications are RS. Though there are some concerns with Bailey that would warrant looking into.
But generally I'd hope for a psychological theory like this wed look for notability outside the creator and a small handful of people. Since it originated in academia, if it had merit as an idea in its own right you'd see some level of significant engagement. It appears more niche pseudoscience. Not everything needs an article. Until this theory escapes it's creator and their small circle, I dont feel its warranted. Filiforme1312 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's complicated, because it seems that every time someone agrees with it (or, really, fails to reject it), then they're labeled part of the clique, and disqualified. This is a small field. It's difficult to find people in it who haven't interacted in some way (co-authored papers, cited each others' papers, worked together for conferences or journals, etc.) even if they don't have the same employer. For our purposes, it's probably better to take all the equivalent papers at face value (e.g., one recent peer-reviewed article on this subject in a high-quality journal is equal to any other recent peer-reviewed article on the same subject in similarly high-quality), and not try to decide who has the Right™ viewpoint and whose sources should be ignored.
And, to the extent that we can, if we can source any of this to popular university textbooks, that really would be better. Textbooks tend to have less of the back-and-forth that is characteristic of scientific discourse and more of a "here's what we (mostly) agree on" approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from Sims' Symptoms in the Mind: Textbook of Descriptive Psychopathology, which has only a very brief mention of autogynephila which reads Blanchard in a series of papers (1989, 1991, 1993) proposed that individuals presenting with male-to-female transsexualism and were characterized as having autogynephilia (sexually aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women) were distinct from others who were homosexual in orientation. This classification is controversial and not widely accepted (Moser, 2010), are there any university textbooks that mention either Blanchard's typology, or autogynephilia within them? I'm not able to find any others from a quick Google search, but if you or any other editors are familiar with some linking them would be ideal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the reason I use the term orbiters is its a very limited group of people who support the theory. In academia if this were accepted you'd see talks at conferences about it and wider favorable citation. Its just not there, and not there to a level that raises some red flags. Filiforme1312 (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for at least having a reasonable point of view, unlike most of the others in this discussion. It seems like there's a heavy bias against Blanchard and his typology here in this group, and in favor of the likes of Serrano. Not sure why that's the case, but it certainly implies that these editors aren't interested in following WP:Neutral Point of View. They have an agenda to adhere to, apparently. Hooky6 (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, the most egregious offender is homosexual transsexual (originally created along with the autogynephilia article). The article misgenders trans people by its very title, and has little to no applicability outside Blanchard's typology. The article itself just info-dumps outdated research from the 20th century while giving the reader very little context. Hist9600 (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit shocked to see that we have a stand-alone article there. The one sticking point for a merge is that the term does pre-date Blanchard although it is only really used within his orbit these days. I think a merge here is justified. Whether the pre-Blanchard stuff could remain as its own small article is arguable but I think it is probably best if it doesn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh eww. That really is even worse somehow. I'd absolutely support a merge. Loki (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feminine essence concept of transsexuality is basically just a more formal name for Woman trapped in a man's body, which existed before Blanchard was born. It still persists as a concept in both popular culture and in academia; Talia Mae Bettcher, a trans woman cited in this article,[1] calls it the "wrong body" model.
The HT article could use a better name, because it's rather shocking to modern sensibilities but also because it's confusing: HT in this context was always about a subset of trans women, specifically the particular group of androphilic trans women who were validated and supported by the medical establishment during the 1970s and 1980s, when getting treatment required telling a very specific story to win a label as a "true" trans woman, as opposed to all of the other trans women, who weren't supported and who were even told that they weren't real trans women.
[1] It appears, from what I see in this article, that Bettcher's view of autogynephilia is that it exists and is a perfectly normal, natural, commonplace thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My assertion is that it's not in fact a more formal name for that. That would be a subsection of Causes of gender incongruence (which is also a suboptimal name for that page but that's besides the point).
As you can pretty clearly see on the page, it almost exclusively cites proponents of Blanchard's typology. This is because the term itself comes from Blanchard, as we say in the page. It's not just the "female soul" or "woman trapped in a man's body" tropes (and those are different tropes), it's mashing together a bunch of different ideas trans people have about themselves, of various degrees of seriousness and also of various degrees of scientific plausibility, into a single strawman Blanchard and his supporters can dismiss to assert their theory is the only scientific one. Loki (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a lot of sourced content but it's weird well beyond it's name. I never really got a clear framework until I left the page to go read from different angles. That article as it is now uses a kind of structure like "This is how things are, but everybody says it's wrong." I would imagine it's profoundly confusing to some people with no background. I would support a merge here. If it stays separate, it would benefit from a knowledgeable editor contextualizing the article. Rjjiii (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The HT article is partly weird because it feels like the first half of the article focuses on why the name is wrong instead of what it is. It's all "People like Christine Jorgensen got called an unfair name by cissexist medicine" instead of "Back in the day, people thought that stereotypically effeminate, androphilic trans women were significantly different from gynephilic trans women who had a harder time passing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a merge with the Blanchard article as well as improvements based on your concerns and FRINGE Filiforme1312 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Egregious," eh? This article seems fairly neutral to me and is a good summary of the historical research.
This article is completely separate from Blanchard's typology - wasn't even a term coined by him. Hooky6 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose split. The use of the concept of autogynephilia is limited to Blanchard's typology, and the article for Blanchard's typology gives important context the theory itself. Instead, I would prefer if homosexual transsexual was merged into this article, and the contents were succinctly summarized and connected with the typology in a way that is more comprehensible to the average reader. Hist9600 (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose split per Hist9600--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose split. This article is a poor candidate for splitting. Building on concerns enumerated above, I think we need to particularly note that as a fringe theory making a claim about human medicine, it is vital to avoid isolating the theory from the theory's context in the the scientific literature. To preserve this context while splitting the article we'd have to duplicate a lot of content, which is to be avoided. I would additionally support merging homosexual transsexual into this article for the same reason, though I expect we'll have to have a separate discussion about that. Srey Srostalk 15:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose split for the reasons DanielRigal and SreySros have outlined; as they and others have said, we should in fact be looking at merging some other Blandchardisms back into this article. -sche (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I've started a discussion on the merge proposal here. Loki (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology&oldid=1146425272"