Jump to content

Talk:Ray Blanchard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JumboSizedFish (talk | contribs) at 00:39, 26 December 2023 (→Sentence suggestion for a small sentence in Work, Typology of Transsexualism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ray Blanchard. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

"gender dysphoria sub-working group for the DSM-IV"

"Blanchard served on the gender dysphoria sub-working group for the DSM-IV and served as Chair of the paraphilia sub-working group for the DSM-5."

Can someone clarify what this is supposed to mean? Gender dysphoria was not a diagnosis in the DSM-IV, "Gender Identity Disorder" was. Gender dysphoria did not exist until DSM-V, and Blanchard was not involved (at least not directly) in the sub-group that worked on revising "Gender Identity Disorder" (he was working on the paraphilia subgroup, and only working on revising transvestic fetishism). (Source: Julia Serano's article "Trans people are still disordered in the DSM-V". (From her book Outspoken. And old version can be found here.)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redzin (talk • contribs) 19:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't this page have a "criticism" section?

The articles on many known researchers and thinkers have a section dedicated to criticisms of their ideas, as are many other articles on things with a certain stance. And even this article says WPATH reject Blanchard's work and trans people criticise it, so there is some mention of this here, this doesn't even create an image that his position is well beloved and accepted. The "criticism", section is standard, why isn't it here? Tomer 070 (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that criticize him?CycoMa (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bettcher, T. M. (2008). Pretenders to the Throne. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(3), 430–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9326-0

And all the research Serano cites here http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-real-autogynephilia-deniers.html Tomer 070 (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe the first source may be useful but I doubt that the second one is reliable. Blogs in general aren’t reliable.CycoMa (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, although Julia Serano is an expert in some areas, I think Tomer wasn't saying to cite her site (SELFPUB shouldn't be cited for criticisms of another BLP), but rather to cite the references her page lists. (I'm reminded of Timothy Messer-Kruse pointing to a list of RS on his site and being similarly, understandably, misunderstood.) However (@Tomer), reading the excerpts, I want to note that if the papers "merely" found results inconsistent with Blanchard but don't(?) say "this is in contrast to what Blanchard / his model would predict", citing them as criticisms of Blanchard would be WP:OR.
If there are RS that discuss Blanchard or his theories, they'd appropriate to look at for inclusion either in this article or the articles on his theories. But as Crossroads says, it's better not to make a "Criticism" section. It simultaneously increases the prominence of "Criticism!" in the TOC in a way that's not great for the BLP, and also isolates criticism into one section that's separated from the places where the article discusses the controversial things, which is not great for the reader. (It's better to present relevant critical responses to things in the same areas of the article as the things are being discussed in.) -sche (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bettcher, 2008 can also be read here https://www.academia.edu/2593138/Pretenders_to_the_Throne Tomer 070 (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read in on WP:TPG. But anyway I think that is reliable enough.
Although I’m not sure a criticism section on for this guy is appropriate because your sources appear to actually criticize autogynephilia isn’t of Ray himself.CycoMa (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am against criticism sections in WP:BLPs. Academic criticism of his academic work belongs, but in headings about his research. These shouldn't be presented as criticisms of Ray Blanchard personally, which is unprofessional. Crossroads -talk- 03:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSECTION gives reasons why criticism sections should be avoided. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this stuff is written as though its completely true

Especially the Fraternal birth order effect section, WP:NPOV 2407:7000:9C6A:DB00:AC1E:EAA0:DF19:5435 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence suggestion for a small sentence in Work, Typology of Transsexualism

Hello, there's a sentence, "Within the transgender community the idea has been criticized," is missing a comma, as in "Within the transgender community, the idea has been criticized;" however, I fell changing to "The idea has been criticized by the transgender community." feels more direct and slightly more clear.

Should this edit (A) just correct the missing comma, or (B) should it be changed?

  • A. "Within the transgender community, the idea has been criticized."
  • B. "The idea has been criticized by the transgender community."
===Typology of transsexualism===
{{main|Blanchard's transsexualism typology}}
Blanchard coined the term "autogynephilia" to describe [[Trans woman|trans women]] with an erotic desire "to be women," and hypothesized that all gender dysphoria experienced by this group is of two types: "homosexual" gender dysphoria and "non-homosexual" gender dysphoria. Blanchard defined the former as being present in [[transsexuals]] attracted to men, while he defined the latter as being present in transsexuals attracted to the idea of themselves as women.<ref>{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Blanchard | first1 = R. 
| title = The classification and labeling of nonhomosexual gender dysphorias 
| journal = Archives of Sexual Behavior 
| volume = 18 
| issue = 4 
| pages = 315–334 
| year = 1989 
| pmid = 2673136
 | doi=10.1007/BF01541951
| s2cid = 43151898 
}}</ref> Within the [[transgender]] community, the idea has been criticized.<ref>{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Dreger | first1 = A. D. 
| title = The Controversy Surrounding ''The Man Who Would Be Queen'': A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age 
| doi = 10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1 
| journal = Archives of Sexual Behavior 
| volume = 37 
| issue = 3 
| pages = 366–421 
| year = 2008 
| pmid = 18431641 
| pmc =3170124 
}}</ref>

===Typology of transsexualism===
{{main|Blanchard's transsexualism typology}}
Blanchard coined the term "autogynephilia" to describe [[Trans woman|trans women]] with an erotic desire "to be women," and hypothesized that all gender dysphoria experienced by this group is of two types: "homosexual" gender dysphoria and "non-homosexual" gender dysphoria. Blanchard defined the former as being present in [[transsexuals]] attracted to men, while he defined the latter as being present in transsexuals attracted to the idea of themselves as women.<ref>{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Blanchard | first1 = R. 
| title = The classification and labeling of nonhomosexual gender dysphorias 
| journal = Archives of Sexual Behavior 
| volume = 18 
| issue = 4 
| pages = 315–334 
| year = 1989 
| pmid = 2673136
 | doi=10.1007/BF01541951
| s2cid = 43151898 
}}</ref> The idea has been criticized by the [[transgender]] community.<ref>{{Cite journal 
| last1 = Dreger | first1 = A. D. 
| title = The Controversy Surrounding ''The Man Who Would Be Queen'': A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age 
| doi = 10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1 
| journal = Archives of Sexual Behavior 
| volume = 37 
| issue = 3 
| pages = 366–421 
| year = 2008 
| pmid = 18431641 
| pmc =3170124 
}}</ref>

Also, both edits removed an extra space in two sentences, as shown below. 

"non-homosexual" gender dysphoria.  Blanchard defined the former as being present
}}</ref>  Within the [[transgender]] community the idea has been criticized.

"non-homosexual" gender dysphoria. Blanchard defined the former as being present
}}</ref> Within the [[transgender]] community the idea has been criticized.

Danny, JumboSizedFish (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ray_Blanchard&oldid=1191817938"