Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autogynephilia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.--Chaser T 06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autogynephilia

This article is redundant. The article on Transvestetic Fetismism is in fact about the same exact topic and is more reasoned and rational. Hence I propose this page be deleted and pointers to it redirected to Transvestic fetishism Smartgirl62 17:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As I already said on the talk page: I don't think this is a very good idea, because it confuses this humbug-diagnosis of autogynephilia with one that is indeed in the DSM. Both are completely different things, one dealing with an (admittely nutcase) theory, which encompasses more than just autogynephila, the other dealing with a current diagnosis; hence there is no redundancy whatsoever. The fact that the BBL theory is not exactly rational hardly is a reason to delete the article about it. -- John Smythe 19:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a notable theory however distasteful people may find it. Would border on censorship to delete Ac@osr 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If transvestitic fetishism were indeed the exact same topic, then merge and redirect. But a quick perusal of both articles suggests that they're not, since one's about transvestitism and the other's about transsexuality. Bryan 23:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. They look different to me also, especially as regards motivation and self-perception. Shenme 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. Look at the talk page. Much good discussion and becomes very obvious not the same thing at all being discussed. Keep! Shenme 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete For the reasons I stated above. Plus autogynephillia seems to me to be the exact same thing as transvestetic fethisism. The argument that TV.f is different is not really a good one. I present to you the DSM IV's entry on GID.[1]. Very importantly "The paraphiliac focus of Transvestic Fetishism involves cross-dressing. Usually the male with Transvestic Fetishism keeps a collection of female clothes that he intermittently uses to cross-dress. While cross dressed, he usually masturbates, imagining himself to be both the male and the female object of his sexual fantasy. This disorder has been described only in heterosexual males. Transvestic Fetishism is to be diagnosed when cross-dressing occurs exclusively during the course of Gender Identity Disorder.DSM IV Gender Identity Disorder ]" Diagnostic code 302.3 Transvestetic fetisism is listed as a paraphllia related to GID. What you are seeing in the DSM is that the real theory behind autogynephillia is more complex than was is presented in a book intended for a general audience. --Smartgirl62 02:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is useful to explain the differences between psychiatric and sociological definitions of a phenomenon. (That DOES make sense if you read it carefully. I'm not just blowing smoke up your, OK, I'm out of time.) Danny Lilithborne 05:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Sociological? The theory of Autogynephillia is psyhcological not sociological. Just as the diagnosis of transvestetic fetisism is. As a matter of fact I can settle this with the following link. The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism (2003), page 169, third paragraph. The people who came up with autogynephillia are psychologist. If a transsexual is diagnosed with transvestetic fetishism then they are being diagnosed with autogynephillia. The link I provieded gives it to you straight from the lions mouth (discalimer: I do not by any means agree with all that is said in that book.)--Smartgirl62 09:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I would suggest that "transvestetic fetishism" is less a psychological diagnosis and more a sociological phenomenon, as described in its respective article. It is simply someone who is aroused by wearing clothes of the opposite gender. Autogynephilia would be the diagnosis in this case, and while there's overlap for sure, I'd say the term has a negative connotation, whereas the former is more neutral. Danny Lilithborne 10:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I am a principal critic of this diagnosis, but I feel it merits a separate article. Both tranvestic fetishism and "autogynephilia" are attempts to pathologize socially unacceptable behavior. "Autogynephilia" does not necessarily involve clothing, according to those who promulgate the concept. The concept appeals to a few people who previously would have been rejected via medical gatekeepers as pseudotranssexuals or non-transsexuals. They see this term as a step up socially from "just a crossdresser" to "more than a crossdresser." The people promoting the concept are probably going to push very hard to get their ideas codified in the DSM-V. We have articles on phlogiston and hystero-epilepsy, so we should have something on this pseudoscience as well. Jokestress 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Eloquently said. Those are my reasons for keeping the article, too, but you hit it. Danny Lilithborne 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. "Transvestic Fetishism" deals with a clothing fetish, "autogynephilia" deals with a body fetish. -- Tall Girl 03:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Very well. It seems the people have spoken and they want two different articles. (Thanks to whomever cleaned up my comments. I have little VFD experience.) But I will try to convince you all one more time. I have written up what I think the combined Transvestic fetishism/Autogynephillia article should look like. Here Talk:Transvestic fetishism#Transvestic fetishism. I think the article could do without the picture. Either way I really do not like the way the Autogynephillia article now reads. It's like more of an arguement than an encylopdic article. The argument against this theory will have to be done my other clinical psychology PhD's in peer reiewed journals. Not in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartgirl62 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 9 June 2006
  • As I already said on the talk pages, bad proposal -- you are effectively deleting 99% of the article, which is not exactly an improvement. Oh, and there is absolutely nothing in WP policy that says hypothesis cannot be be refused on article pages, on the contrary. You might want to check out a few, like aether theory and similar outdated and/or nutcase crap. So you might actually stop your vendetta against this article, because, you know, you don't exactly have much in the way of arguments, and already quite a few people (and the WP policy) who disagree with you. Why don't your spend your time with improving other articles, maybe some you don't feel so strongly about? -- John Smythe 19:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree about the diagnosis, but the subject merits its own article, also, per Tall Girl, a transvestite gets aroused by dressing as the opposite gender, an autogynephile gets aroused by the thought of being the opposite gender. The reason for deletion is faulty. 惑乱 分からん 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment For those who might be slightly confused regarding the differences between autogynephilia and transvestic fetishism, see [2] -- John Smythe 15:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - AG and TVF are clearly completely separate topics. Re. to Jokestress comment, I agree that AG, bogus science that it may be, merits its own article - Ali-oops^✍ 20:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.