Talk:Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.


Both current as of June 20 2006 C.E. --Smartgirl62 15:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please place any and all new comments on this matter here. Any who object to what is here may feel free to rewrite whatever they please this is the wikipedia after all. Try to remember in all of this the article is not really about wether this theory is righ or wrong but about the theory and nothing more. Leave the judgements for the academic journals. --Hfarmer 03:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Redirect from Autogynephilia NOT proper

Shenme, thank you for your post and request for me to explain a recent edit.

In a prior version of the Autogynephilia article, it was noted that the AGP article makes no sense without a reference to the concept of HSTS. I disagree. An HSTS is a TS person. Autogynephilia is a form of sexual response that may or may not be part of a TS person's experience. While the two topics are sure to come up together in a discussion on BBL theory, juxtaposing them is not required for understanding the separate terms. They are NOT symbiotic terms incapable of being discussed separately.

As others have already pointed out, the article on BBL is confusing, poorly written, and obviously not NPOV. It feels like op-ed written by a handful of people who appear too emotionally close to the topic. The old forest for the trees thing perhaps. The article needs to be rewritten by a medical or mental health professional from a NPOV before it is a reliable and neutral source of information for anyone. So why impose a redirect when someone can simply click on the link to get there? A redirect is an implicit statement that the requested article topic is appropriately covered by what they are about to read on the redirect. I hope we can reach a concensus that this is not the case here.

There remains this simple question -- "What is autogynephilia?" The Blanchard article is not a great answer to that question. A redirect to Transvestic Fetishism might arguably be more appropriate, as I think someone suggested earlier, but it's still not entirely correct.

There are many people who would prefer that autogynephilia not be recognized as an identified type of sexual response in men, but it is something that was observed prior to the Blanchard crowd weighing in with their hypothesis on what it means in the larger framework of transgender experience. I believe even Harry Benjamin noted the presence of this sexual response much earlier.

We may argue over the meaning, causes, degrees, and significance of this sexual response and that's all good. However, its existence is not debatable. It is even a documented form of sexuality that exists in men who have NO real-world desire to be women -- extreme crossdressers, if you will, for whom total transformation, often forced upon them by women, is a sexual fantasy. One need only examine a few random stories at fictionmania to see that gender change fantasies run far beyond Transvestic Fetishism and smack dab into autogynephilia, even for men who do not consider themselves to be TS of any kind and who can openly state they have no desire to transition to female.

Bottom line is that autogynephilia exists and can be accurately described so why not do that? Though I reverted to an earlier version that seemed more correct, I might suggest taking out the term "paraphilia" and just call it a form of sexual excitement derived from..blah blah. As I said, I hope a scientist can rewrite this or the BBL article, but in the meantime, why not start with something simple that helps us and others understand the autogynephilia topic better from ground zero?

Also, I'm sorry if I sounded rude in an earlier comment. I just noticed lots of reverts in both this and the Blanchard article. Revert wars are just not fun for anyone so I won't revert anymore myself. I liked an earlier idea and if there are more people who do,

[edit] Correlation vs Predictor

Correlations are HORRIBLE predictors. Of course, if you have a TS, which one were attempting to classify within this taxonomy, these correlations could potentially serve as a good initial starting point, but "predictor" they would certainly not be! It's like calling Type II Diabetes "Adult-Onset Diabetes". There was never a reason to restrict Type II Diabetes as "Adult-Onset" except that it correlated with an onset at an adult age, but times have changed, and we know that nothing about being a child or non-adult protects one from Type II Diabetes, it was simply a CORRELATION.

Let's look at each "predictor", lower IQ (this correlates very significantly with lower social class), lower social class, immigrant status (typically results in lower social class to non-immigrants), non-intact family (again, correlates very strongly with lower social class), non-Caucasian race (in America also correlated STRONGLY with lower social class), and childhood behavior problems. (the one thing that cannot be easily correlated to social class.)

So, since we have everything correlated to lower social status, and lower opportunity, uh... we end up with the (at minimum) correlation to living on the streets, resorting to prostitution, and shoplifting.

So, essentially, every correlation that they've found, easily (except childhood behavior problem) correlates directly with lower social status. Uh... a very plausible reason for this correlation is that people in a lower social status have a lesser chance to try and deal with their gender identity. All the same correlated factors correlate to generally lower overall health. Should we suggest that these "predictors" are also predictors of poorer health? Maybe even a more comfortable life makes tolerance of GID easier, or heck, let's look at my case. In my case, I was in a well off family, have none of the above "predictors", yet I had severe depression with unknown causes, for which I received very good care and support for.

If you want "predictors", look for things that could actually be caused by transsexuality, or actually could possibly cause transsexuality, and also correlate strongly with transsexuality. Behavioral disorder, social development difficulties, psychological problems, etc. For instance, if a child does not shower often, and it is extremely difficult to get them to change this behavior, then this is a social abnormality. If upon being questioned about it, the child raises issues that they feel uncomfortable being naked, then THAT would be a predictor. Not some pseudo-science that just because you're poor and young you're a HSTS, and if you're well-off and old then you're an AG.

Though many people have pointed out this flaw in their logic, the fact remains that Bailey, citing Zucker, claims these are "predictors," [1] as the term is also used in the Zucker citation. The article should reflect the language they use, since it's about their beliefs. Your points above are all correct, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. We need to report the claims to reflect their "science." Jokestress 07:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, my opinion on this matter is that any such position to present the data as they present is should be made in direct quotes, with an explanation of how their representation of the phenomenae are incorrect. If you truly want to express the notion that these people believe it to be a predictor, it should be mentioned that they themselves are the ones marking it as a predictor, and not the wikipedia audience itself. As an example, using quotes around the word. Or just straight quoting them with a "sic" and then explaining that although they represent them as predictors, that they are in truth simply correlations.
My concern in this matter is that one of three things could happen from someone reading this article. They could come in not knowing the difference between a correlation and a predictor, and not be any wiser from either version, or they could come to the site knowing the difference. As you suggest, they may read the text and say "what idiots, B, B, and L don't know the difference", although in my opinion what would be much more likely is they will say "what idiots, don't the authors of this article know the difference?" The latter makes wikipedia and every contributor to this page look bad, and doesn't help the defense against BBL's theory.
It's said that what is right does not fear the truth. Be so bold as to present your opponent's arguments in the best light possible! It shows that you're not being POV and irrational on the whole issue, and letting your emotions get in the way. And if you can cast it in the best possible light, and STILL show just how much it is pseudo-science, then you've done far more damage to their argument than leaving their falacies intact. --Puellanivis 01:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes "predictors" with the idea being that a person who would be a HSTS will settle for bein HS if there is enough of a payoff. I do have to admit that part of my own final decision process has been the sentiment "I am already black and discriminated against anyway so what's one more thing? If I don't get the job I don't get the job. On the other hand I want to be a scientist who will listen to the physical theories of a transsexual?..." I know many transsexuals who like me took such factors into account on deciding when/where to transition. Such is not evidence but I can affirm those observations.--Hfarmer 17:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
On my personal end, I would say it depends on how drastic one's dysphoria is. I had the relative privilege to go to school, college, and get a nice good job working for a well-known computer company. But I hit the end of my rope and had to switch no matter what the consequences (fortunately, my out look has only become better.) In many cases, those in a less socially disadvantaged situation have more options available to them, and more to lose if the consequences turn out bad. As you go, you dig the hole deeper and deeper, and only rack up more to lose if you transition, until eventually, you break, and it doesn't matter what you have to lose, because you're going to lose it all anyway because you're so dysphoric. Heck, there are children that are so dysphoric, and they know exactly what is wrong before they even get anywhere near puberty, regardless of social class these children will exert their true gender, despite all obstacles. I would hesitate to say that a strong dysphoria results in knowing quickly what is wrong, because there's significant evidence that I had very severe dysphoria (manifesting agressively as depression, and near autistic activities and behavior), just that because I had been raised in a family of three girls, I had no baseline males from which to judge my difference apart from normative masculine development and interests. --Puellanivis 01:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/a/Talk%7EBlanchard%2C_Bailey%2C_and_Lawrence_theory_7afe.html"