Talk:Autogynephilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] My weak defense of this theory

I am one who would be described by this simplistic theory as a "Homosexual Transsexual" a label I reject because it fundamentally rejects my gender self identification. I also reject the whole prehomosexual agenda it espouses. Nothing in my opinion is more transphobic than the idea that transsexuals are all just really deranged gay people.

However, I will say some things in favor of this theory and the book "The Man Who Would Be Queen". For one thing it is correct that there are two broad categories that transsexuals can be and people in those categories do not get along with the other. I noticed that issue myself years ago, in a support group I attended. Consider the following: Up untill five years ago transsexual / transgender people attended the same support groups. Those groups were dominated by people who tended to be older, established in their careers, passing would be a tough challenge for them. Every once in a while a younger transsexual would come in and get shouted at if she metioned some of her problems. Issues such as passing without effort and the beatings, abuse, and difficulties that can cause. Problems getting through school without getting in trouble with the administrators, avoiding the traps they set for you.... Raiseing simmilar issues got me shouted at for "falunting my passing privialge." Consequently transgender/transsexual youths attend their own groups which may even be held in alternaitve locations. Thus transsexuals of one type need never come in contact with the other. If there were no differences why would caregivers take such a step?

Furthermore B.B.&L were not the first to notice such a two tiered categorization. A muslim scholar who studied these issues from a different perspective and a very long time ago noticed such a division (seeMukhannathun). Note that in the link the difference is not age or look but behavior. One type seems to inately, effortlessley, present as a female. The other has to "put on" femininity. Moral ideas aside this seems accurate.

Such is also true in Bailey's book. For example there is a little test for telling which category a transsexual falls into The Man Who Would be Queen "Autogynephilic and Homosexual Transsexuals: How To Tell Them Apart". People focus on the age and sexual orientational aspets of this. In fact those are just two factors considered. One can have a couple of features of both types of transsexual wihout contradiction to this theory.

The fact that two very different people researching the same thing and under different circumstances can logically reach the same conclusion is the best type of verification a scientific theory can have when ethical experiments are either unavilable or impractical. In many sciences this is the level of proof we are forced to settle for. While far from perfect it is the best we can do.

However the generalizations he makes are beyond all reason or scientific support. Saying that all Autogynophiles must mastrubate to the idea of being female. Saying that all Homosexual Transsexuals must be whores or petty thieves is beyond scientific supportability. Basically describing all transsexuals in perjorative terms while makeing homosexual males look relativly steady and sane is not supportable. Leaving those out of this article and leaving in only the supportable science will make this article shorter and better. 66.92.130.180 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC) edited by 66.92.130.180 15:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What you described has been well known within the transsexual universe for about as long as their has been one and goes back to one of the oldest transsexual jokes I know: What's the difference between a transsexual and a transvestite? A transsexual can't wait to get home and take off her bra, a transvestite can't wait to get home and put on his. I think, however, that the majority of the controversy isn't over the observation that transsexual women come in two general categories: naturally feminine and artificially feminine. Rather, the controversy seems to be over who falls into which category and why. One of the best refutations of the theory is the theory itself. If overly feminine males transition for socially and sexually advantageous reasons, why is that limited to homosexual males? Every study I've read of male femininity has found feminine males who are gynephilic (attracted to females). And if the criteria is being socially and sexually advantageous, why is that limited to a specific age range? The claim that masculinization is permanently irreversible beyond puberty is disproven by adult males with feminine facial structures, slender builds, and a wide range of other features that fall between male and female norms. The theory contains no support for the theories own conclusions, namely that the things required to transition advantageously are the exclusive providence of a specific sexual orientation within a specific age range. -- 24.28.91.123 04:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


I know. I have seen the division myself. the Muslim scholar who I refered to who lived about 1000 years ago saw it. The two broad categories thing seems loosely valid. BB&L using sexuality as the only adjustable parameter is an over simplification done for public consumption. Concepts people already understand to explain new things is a tried and true method of imparting knowledge.

As for the age range issue. This is a matter of training. Young women are expect to just know certain ruels of ettiqute and comportment that they are taught from the say they are born. A younger transsexual apart from having a body that will respond much more to hormones and heal much better after surgial procedures has this advantage. They have the advantage of being able to catch up to only 11-25 or 30 years of lost female learning. Some of those more feminine looking males you may have noticed could look the way they do because they are intersexed (XXY) or they attempted transiton earlier and backed off for whatever reason. Who knows. On average assuming a medically healthy male he will masculinize and being to grow facial hair rapidly at the age of about 15 or 16. He will be big tall and broad by about 18-25. It is trivially plain to see that if you are not tall broad and bearded you will make a more passable woman. Who can hide if she needs to. it's rotten but that's the way things are.

Have you ever read a book called "A Brief History of Time" By Stephen W. Hawking (This matters to my point)? In it Dr. Hawking bemoans the fact that his publisher told him only to use E = Mc2 or he would confuse people. "The Man who would be Queen" read like that to me. Physics is much more complex than one equation. GID is much more complex than age and sexual oreitation. I am certain that Bailey knows that as well as we do. But to write a book full of all the complexities and expect normal, casual readers to get it would be unrealistic.

Like I said My defense of the theory of Autogynephillia is only weak. I dont agree with TVf being called a paraphillia along with beastiality and all that. I don't agree with how it denies the true femaleness of us all. I don't agree with any of the suppositions and assumptions made. However there is no denying the basic observations. Untill a more comprehensive and current theory is advanced this is waht we have to settle for. Psychologist and others will categorize by this theory. :-( --Smartgirl62 14:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The biggest foible that I find in his categorizeation of "homosexual transsexuals" is who he chooses to use as a publicly know example. Caroline Cossey who is known now to in fact have been intersexed by XXXY chromosomes. I guess a psychologist can write that one off because most peopel with that disorder have no way of knowing that they do. But it is funny that he would choose some one who technically would not stricly fit into the transsexual box as an example in a theory on transsexuality. --Smartgirl62

[edit] Deletion

It occurst to me that this article should be deleted and all pointers redirected to the article on Transvestic fetishism. These seem to me to be two words for the same idea with no real differences. One who is diagnosed as a "autogynephillie" would in fact be diagnosed with "transvestetic fetishism". Such a diagnosis exist int the DSM IV and autogynephillia does not. So it can be said that this word is not worthy of an article of it's own. What do the rest of you think of this idea. Without objection I will execute this plan in 24 hours. As a matter of fact I will initate a vote for deletion. 66.92.130.180 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Let it be known that Smartgirl62 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) and --Smartgirl62 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) are the same person.

I really don't think you understand what this article is about. As a self-identified "homosexual transsexual" you ought to realize that this article about the BBL theory is hardly even remotely the same as Transvestitic fetishism.
You also copied too much from the page which explains how articles are put up for deletion. Maybe you could remove that? -- John Smythe 19:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As to the fact that transvestetic fetishism is the same as Autogynephillia I present the following evidence. The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism (2003), page 169, third paragraph. Where one of the psychologist who originated this theory makes the connection betwwen these two things. (Which I do not agee with 100% but that's neither here nor there.). As for how much I copied from the wikipedia manual. The only thing I copied was the tag to be used for a page that is being listed for deletion for the first time. I guess the tag you want is the one for a page that has been listed for deletion before. It seems to me that this page has not been listed before. So the tag I used is appropriate.--Smartgirl62 10:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I know I am repeating myself, but you might take notice of the fact that this article here is about the whole BBL theory, while TVF is about - well, TVF. Only TVF. With no references to this particular nutcase and unscientific theory. The TVF belongs to the field of current diagnosises, together with Gender Identity Disorder and so on. This article belongs to a seperate set. The difference being that TVF is not about transsexual and trangender people (well, in theory), while BBL claim that it is; hence BBL is different from the currently accepted set, hence it belongs into its own article.
You may identify as one half of the BBL theory, but that hardly excuses your attempts to file the other half with people who according to current standards are not transsexual or even transgender. I might add that the link you give goes to a work that is not by the person who originated this theory, that dubious honour belongs to Blanchard, not Baily. Not to mention that I would be somewhat carefull to cite out of a work whose author lost his job because it was so bad.
The deletion tag is correct (well, technically), but you seem to have copied more than the tag. The bit
To list an article for deletion after adding {{subst:afd}} at the top, you have to do the following:
and following does not usually belong onto the template. Of course, that might have been a template problem instead, but it looks odd. -- John Smythe 13:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not trying to file anybody as anything. I mention the way I am categorized as a way of stating where I stand in relation to this theory. There seems to be an assumption that people who would meet the defnition of a "homosexual transsexual" would be in favor of this theory. Because in his book Bailey says we're pretty? He also calls us boy crazy, low IQ, thieving, whore's who whore for kicks. Would you like being called that? At least the autogynephille has a nice family and a nice legit career in his book. A much moe normal and well adjusted person compared to the homosexual transsexual in many ways.

Oh and if we say we have never done any of that we are also liars no doubt.

If anything my proposal would diminish the prominence of this theory in wikipedia terms. From a subject mertorious of it's own article to a mere hyperlink redirect. In any case I think this article needs revision. As it stands it is not more than an arguement on why this theory sucks. Like an article on any other scientific theory the article itself should be a dry presentation of facts. Any debate should be directed to the talk page. For the sake of having a good wikipedia article we have to do something about this. --Smartgirl62 14:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone does not get me I am actually not in favor of this theory. I am just infavor of the best possible article about it. Which people will see when they google this topic. --Smartgirl62 14:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleting this article, which is what you effectively propose, is not exactly a good way to make this "the best possible article". Also, regarding your "argument" that the article mainly refutes the theory, well, we already had that a while ago. Read the archives to see why it is not an argument for deletion or even revison. -- John Smythe 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

you need to have read my plan. The first step is delete this article. The second step is redirect autogynephillia to Transvestic Fetishism. The third step is edit the article on transvestic fetishism to included the autogynephillia aspect of that diagnosis. I believe that will make both the article on autogynephillia and transvestic fetishism better articels.

From what little I know of the subject it seems that transvestic fetishism is the DSM word for autogyephillia. Get a copy of the DSM IV and you will see transvestic fetishism listed as a paraphillia related to GID. Such is how BBL would describe Autogynephillia (AGP). As I have admitted on the VFD page it seems nobody who cares wants to delete this page.

I still feel it is in need of a heavy revision perhaps even a total rewrite. As I have no job right now I would have the time for that. The article needs to sound like less of an argumeent and read more like... an article. --Smartgirl62 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your plan is clear, but I doubt you can get through with it. And as you so correctly say: "From what little I know ..." -- TVF and autogynophilia are not the same thing, and the DSM TVF is distinctively different from the concept of autogynophilia. I already mentioned it, but the difference is that the former is explicitly not a case of transsexualism, while the latter explicitly is. (Not to mention that one is part of the currently accepted model of gender-variant behaviour, while the other is an outsider theory.)
See for example [1]:
"This (TVF) occurs in heterosexual males and is not part of Gender Identity Disorder."
"Differential Diagnosis
Some disorders have similar or even the same symptoms. The clinician, therefore, in his/her diagnostic attempt has to differentiate against the following disorders which need to be ruled out to establish a precise diagnosis.
  • Gender Identity Disorder Not Otherwise Specified - Those who wish to belong to the other sex and to be rid of their own genitals.
  • Transsexualism."
The DSM also classifies TVF as a paraphilia which is obviously different from GID. It lists TVF as a "Differential diagnosis" and both diagnosis can be applied to a person:
"Males with presentation that meets full criteria for Gender Identity Disorder as well as Tranvestic Fetishism should be given both diagnoses. If gender dysphoria is present in an individual with Transvetic Fetishism but full criteria for Gender Identity Disorder are not met, the specifier With Gender Dysphoria can be used." [2]
Hence autogynophilia, which is a hypothesis describing transsexual women, is obviously distinctively different from the DSM diagnosis of TVF.
So it seems to me that there is no factual basis of your "plan", hence you should not exactly count on being able to pull it through. -- John Smythe 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Whatever. I just feel that any transwoman who sees TVF on her differential diagnosis must realize that their psych has labled them an autogynephille. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.130.180 (talk • contribs) 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Errr ... how is that? A differential diagnosis means that is something you don't have. And if you don't have TVF, how can you be autogynophiliac? (Providing the latter would be a real diagnosis in the first place, of course.) -- John Smythe 12:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No I believe a differential diagnosis is a list of things you could have but the psychologist just haven't narrowed the list down to one. To provide a list of things you dont have they would have to list every mental illness in the DSM. How does that make sese? It wouldn't make sense to make a list of things you do not have. Just a heads up to anyone transwoman out there who sees this on a psych letter. If you see "transvestetic fetishism" designation on your letter the psych thinks you are an autogynephille. You could seek another psych. Or you could just say to heck with what they think and take the letter. I vote for the second option.

Oh and Mr. Smythe this article is only about "The model is an attempt to explain transwomen (male-to-female transsexual and transgender persons) who are not exclusively attracted to males, including lesbian (or "gynephilic"), bisexual and asexual transwomen. " as quoted from the article. The whole BBL theory goes on at length about the psychology of the so called "homosexual transsexual". Yet nowhere is there an article about said people. I am considering unilaterally creating one. The argument above against creating such an article doesnot hold water. The concept refered to by the term "homosexual transsexual" is not really covered anywhere. At least not in perpective of the BBL theory. --Smartgirl62 13:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested merge

Someone has just created homosexual transsexual. I've suggested that it be merged (or redirected) here. -- Karada 15:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well merging these two articles would be difficult. I would have to somehow integrate the two concept together define both. Then compare and contrast them. Really autogynephillia does not make sense unless the "homosexual transsexual" is known. It could be done but would it be fair to the either idea? I don't think so. --Smartgirl62 16:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The article Homosexual transsexual is the crappiest I have seen for a long time, and it does not even come close to being neutral. (Which is especially funny because it was written by somebody who claimed this one was too critical of the theory.) Anyway, one might try to salvage the few bits from the other one and put them in here, I think. One might consider, though, whether this article should not be renamed. "Autogynephilia" is certainly the term that comes to mind first when thinking of the BBL theory, but it does just name one half of the theory. -- John Smythe 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you want me to do. Heap personal insults on Bailey? What good what it do? and please please please put comments on the article you are talking about in the talk page of the article you are talking about. That's basic wikipedia procedure. --Smartgirl62 18:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The article sure does a bad job of it, the many typos in themselves are bad enough, but as it has been stated the "homosexual transsexual" is a distinct part of this theory and cannot really be included with "autogynephiliacs" without risking a serious mixup of the terms. Not that it really matters, because the theory IS utter crap anyway... But still, either there needs to be a completely new article on the theory as a whole or a merger does not make much sense. Preferably under the category of junk science. --TheOtherStephan 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
There's always Category:Pseudoscience, Category:Quackery and Category:Obsolete scientific theories :-D - Alison✍ 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The beauty of Wikipedia is if one does not like an article they can change the article. Please impliment your changes or stuff it. Stepahn

As for the post merger article I propose Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory as the replacement. The articles autogynephilla and "homosexual transsexual" will redirect here.

If only so many lazy news reporters did not get info from this source I would not care. sigh.--Smartgirl62 00:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Executing the Merger

Since I have no life this weekend I can go ahead an execute this. What I plan on doing is creating an article on the "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory" of Gender Identity Disorder. This article and the article on "homosexual transsexuality" will redirect there. The order of the names in the title follows the scientific convention of priority I believe that Blanchard came up with it, Bailey is the junior researcher who expanded on it, and lawrence supports it. I will use both this article and the one I wrote on Homosexual transsexuals as starting points. I will give equal time to both. This theory is known to those effected in terms of both of those designations. I will try to cover both the perspectives of those who accept the theory and those who reject the theory from all sides equally.

I will not let the proposition stand that the notion of the "homosexual" transsexual only makese sense in Juxtaposition to the notion of the autogynephillic transsexual. I will not contribute to the subbornation of the issues of the younger transsexual to those of the older. I have my reasons for feeling so strongly about this. See my talk page for that reason. It's a good one.

Anyone who want's to help please feel free. --Smartgirl62 08:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


If any one is interested I have written up a few paragrahps on my talk page about why I have the POV I have on this. It's not because I am evil or whatever. Just personal experiences. Reading it may help us understand eachother and wor together better. I really try not to put that POV into my writing but I am only human. --Smartgirl62 13:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This article was merged and if one wants to demerge it they should first talk about it in the post merger article. Based on the fact that the article was properly merged after lenthyl discssion I will not redirect this to the article on BBL theory. Know this that the I brokered between an ardent critic, and a devoted annymous supporter was very hard to do. Please don't pee on my parade. --Hfarmer 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note, then link

More than one editor likes the style of changing the redirect to a short explanatory text followed by a link to BBL. I say more than one because I thought it was nice once I saw it done. I've asked the most recent such editor to comment further here. I know that HFarmer felt it should remain a simple redirect after the article merge to BBL. (Meanwhile I'll add researching the redirect vs. text&link topic to my list of WP 'stuff' to look up (eventually))

BTW: I'm really hoping we can just get a discussion of good/bad points of this format vs. the usual redirect. The article history is a bit troubling recently... Shenme 16:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, here's why the redirect is improper

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

In a prior version, 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.

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 a 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 for whom total transformation, often forced upon them by women, is a sexual fantasy.

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, then run with it.Vigtrue 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Killed the redirect (again)

Redirecting this to the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory article is inappropriate. According to the people promulgating the concepts, these are different ideas. The BBL concept applies to transsexual people. Not all transsexual people are "autogynephiles," and not all "autogynephiles" are transsexual people. This needs cleanup but should be a separate article. Jokestress 22:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of {{Sexual orientation}}

Just wondering why this template was added to the article as AG could hardly be described as a sexual orientation, it being officially a paraphilia. Just asking, is all ... - Alison✍ 21:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be used on paraphilia, too. Proponents of this specific paraphilia argue it is a sexual orientation that's a type of "erotic target location error. "Jokestress 22:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Errm, yeah :-/ I'll have to think about that one (an "erotic target location error" is basically the definition of paraphilia!). Ah well ... thanks anyway, Andrea - Alison✍ 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Paraphilia is at the very least a subset of greater sexual orientation. That what it is even literally. It gets difficult and isn't overly helpful when you get into the politics of what should be validly considered a sexual orientation. If you want to get strict and associate autogynephilia with a more well-known sexual orientation, it is possible in this case, as it is generally regarded as a slightly uncommon expression of genetic male heterosexuality. 209.226.121.41 16:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Which was my original rationale for placing the sexual orientation tag on this article and the related articles in the first place. This theory is all about sexualorientation, hornyness as motivation for transsexualism. (So many people of all views are willing to anon but not to come into the light :-( :-/. What's the worst that could happen? )--Hfarmer 02:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding an example

Well. Since adding an exaple to the "homosexual transsexual" article it seems to make sense to add such a example to this one. I am of two minds on this. Using the same standard as was applied to the other article it would make sense to add someone ID'd as an autogynephile in the man who would be queen. However since, it seems, peopel are much more sensitive about that label. I think using a person who has procalimed themselves to be an autogynephile such as Anne Lawrence. What do you all think of this? --Hfarmer 15:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I let this suggestion sit for a trimester. So i guess it is unremarkable. It is done.--Hfarmer 04:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm in agreement on this one. Anne Lawrence is a self-admitted autogynephile - they *do* exist! - Alison✍ 04:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent POV edits.

First there is the issue of the reason that AGP/HSTS is called "Blanchard Bailey and Lawrence theory here. I proposed that name for the same reason that Blanchard gave for using the "homosexual transsexual" taxonomy. Tradition. There are many scientific theories and concepts that are named after the scientist who is historically most associated with them. Customarily that is extended to the three most important scientist. i.e. EPR paradox named so for Einstein Podolsky and Rosen, The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, Freudian Psychology, Hamiltonian and Lagrangian physics, Hilbert Spaces. Measureing force in units called "Newtons"...I could go on for pages. The term "BBL theory" I believe was coined by Dr. Conway in line with this very tradition of retaining old designations whenever possible...and using the names of the researchers to denote their theories. --Hfarmer 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Second the edits that have been made to the "controversey section seem to be rather even handed. Some sentences lean one way and others lead another way with the reader being left in the middle to make up their own minds. I think that an article need not be NPOV on a line by line basis so long as the overall article is balanced out. This seems more balanced. Now to check if some bitter old transsexual has edited the sister article to this one to call all such transsexuals female dogs. --Hfarmer 01:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sugestions from an automated peer review

lowing suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer 04:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

mehaps we should get around to doing these things. --Hfarmer 04:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I think that the current images are inappropriate and that the captions are insulting. There have been several reversions, mostly involving anonymous editors. Can we talk about what would be appropriate here? WhatamIdoing 19:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about those other people. But I have been reading up on transgender issues and I find it conspicuous how few pictures there are. Even in biographical articles about transgender people. If I were to get involved in this that would be a reason I would use for keeping the pictures. Whoever posted them claims to be transgendered herself. That would be another reason to keep them. --131.193.8.38 14:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There are several pictures of MtF transsexuals on the Transgender page. Generally, one of the reasons that there are so few photos is because most transgendered or intersex people look, well, like people.
Perhaps I could rephrase my question to this: Do you think that this particular page benefits by providing a forum for showing off someone's erect penis? That's what the first picture is. WhatamIdoing 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Only "most" transgender people look like people? --67.165.183.40 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objection to the pictures and captions

I, quite frankly, don't believe this article needs any pictures. However, if I'm in the minority on that opinion, I strongly object to the phrasing of the following caption: "Another example of transvestic fetishist who think they are transsexuals." Specifically, the language "...who think they are transsexuals" seems to violate Wikipedia's NPOV standard, as the issue of whether someone can "really" be transsexual (or is autogynephiliac, as the caption would imply) is far from settled. More broadly, the picture itself makes an assumption that the people in the picture identify as transgendered while the picture file itself is described as follows: "look at bill in all his leather wear spanking this tranny. Bill is an Autogynephile." That makes further assumptions about the identities of those photographed and is quite POV. At the very least, I move the caption be changed to something along the lines of "Behavior which could be classified as transvestic fetishist." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillian1138 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the understanding that part of this idea, this theory has to do with looks. That one kind of transsexual has a different characteriscic look than the other. I will not judge weather these pictures are right or wrong. I do note that they were added under a copywright tag that says it was made by the person who uploaded it. I also note that the person who uploaded it says on their talk page that they are an autogynephile. It may be reasonable to assume that the pictures are either his/her self or people they know. --67.165.183.40 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, why the delay in removing these pictures? Ok, set aside the porn content of the photos, the captions alone amount to hate speech and attempt to use a pov assessment to support a theory. "A prime example of an Autogynephile pretending to be a sex worker for their fantasies." Isn't 'pretending' here derogatory? Isn't the whole sentence an attempt to tell us what to think about a mysterious photo? "Another example of transvestic fetishist who think they are transsexuals." In that sentence the phrase 'who think they are' is pure pov and obviously contemptuous. Just imagine adding a photo to the article on Feminism showing a woman perhaps struggling with heavy machinery with the caption "Just another woman who thought she could do a man's job" Would there be a delay removing that? Would claims a woman MIGHT, perhaps, have added it even matter? What's next? A picture of a jeweler surrounded by gems wearing a Yamika with the caption "and some people still don't believe the Jews own everything." Wake up people! jg 13:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Because even though they are unencyclopedic, derogatory, and pornographic -- when they get removed, some anonymous person restores them. They've already been reverted several times. If we're going to get them off the page, I need help keeping them removed. Does anyone know how to get a picture removed from the media area? WhatamIdoing 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok then. I'm sorry. I never saw any mention that someone keeps re-adding the photos. I think there is a process to mark a page for vandalism with a warning. It may not stop the vandalism, but at least people will know we're trying. jg 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Blanchard and Anne Lawrence on autogynephila and MSM

I remember reading a recent Dan Savage article [3] where he discusses the motivations of straight-identifying men who like to wear women's clothing and have sex with other men. He makes two statements about this:

  • firstly, that crossdressing during the sex act is rare among gay-identifying men
  • and -- more germane to this article -- that it has been theorized that men who dress as women to have sex with other men are doing so to have heterosexual sex by proxy with their female fantasy self

He cites Ray Blanchard as the source of the autogynephilia theory, and quotes "Anne A. Lawrence, [...] a Seattle physician and psychotherapist who specializes in gender identity issues", on this subject. (Is this the same Anne Lawrence currently mentioned in this article?)

Savage then quotes Blanchard himself as saying:

"There is a class of heterosexual men called autogynephiles, who are sexually aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women," [...] "They may act out this fantasy in various ways. One common way is to dress up as women and seek sex with men. It is not rare that they employ pornographic movie theaters for this purpose, although that strategy usually limits them to wearing brassieres or panties beneath their male clothes."
"The exciting aspect of the men they have sex with is the symbolic value of the male partner, which enhances their fantasies of being women," [...] "Autogynephiles are not interested in men's bodies, they rarely or never have sex with men when they are not crossdressed, and they are being truthful when they state that they are not gay. In their normal lives, they are unremarkably masculine and they often have wives or girlfriends."

-- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In a single word yes. Yes he was referring to this theory. His explanation was all wrong though. He seems to have conflated the theories points on crossdressers and transsexuals who have sex with men. In the lingo of this theory their are two kinds of males who crossdress and may become transsexuals. Their are non-homosexual autogynephilic males and Homosexual Transsexual males. It seems that Mr. Savage has either confused bi an homo sexual transsexuals or he never heard about the other type. (homosexual transsexual's as defined by Blanchard are written about in relatively few places.) Mr. Savage's researchers needed to do more work....like reading this article. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hmm

If autogynephilia is just something doctors made up, then what explains kinky anime porn showing men dressed up as women or women becoming men or men becoming women? Even such tame Japanese works as Ranma 1/2 get a bit risque when it comes to the topic of sex change or gender bending? Besides, some people in hentai fan communities recognize this sort of thing as a fetish, or at least do so in blogs. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable source

Autogynephilia is extremely controversial. The statement below is not from a peer-reviewed journal, high end news outlet, or other checked source. Claims from self-published blogs do not consitute proper sourcing. Statements made under a penname obviate establishing an authors' reliability.
See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

Some scientific concerns have been raised. A transgendered psychologist writing under the pen name of Madeline Wyndzen identified four possible scientific concerns with Blanchard's model:

  • Blanchard's findings had not been replicated independently at the time of publication.
  • Blanchard did not include control groups of typically-gendered women.
  • Blanchard did not statistically standardize age differences in his data, and
  • Blanchard hypothesized causality from observational data.[1]

Some of these concerns are common to any new idea (independent replication takes time), and others can not be tested in any practical or ethical fashion (causing people to be transsexual to prove causality).

Wyndzen is concerned that Blanchard's research promotes the politically and socially dangerous idea that transsexual people are mentally defective: "Rather than asking the scientifically neutral question, “What is transgenderism?” Blanchard (1991) asks, "What kind of defect in a male's capacity for sexual learning could produce … autogynephilia, transvestitism …?" (p. 246)."[1]"

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The correct link is http://www.apadivision44.org/newsletter/2004spring.pdf (the original one quit working, and the link to Conway's page was a stopgap measure), and the official newsletter of the APA's Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues is hardly a self-published blog.
Having said that, I am also disturbed by the reliance on an unknown person, which is why I've consistently supported the inclusion of that information for the reader. The reader needs to know that the author (a) claims to be TG (for the possible "conflict of interest") and (b) chooses to make these points anonymously. The reader can decide for him-/herself how important these facts are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I agree that that newsletter is not a self-published blog; Conway's site is. However, even if Conway were replaced with the correct link, a newsletter of a private organization does not fit within WP:Verifiability#Reliable_sources:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers

Moreoever, because the author is anonymous, there is no way to ascertain whether the author is trustworthy or authoratative. So, the article would not appear (to me) to meet the standards of WP:Reliable_sources:

[T]heir authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

Perhaps the question might be posed to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard?

Btw, I am not comfortable with the idea that a trans author always has to be identified as trans when cited. Anyone can be guilty of bias, and being a member of a group can provide certain insights as well as biases (as can being non-trans). My own opinion is that statements should be evaluated on their own, and authors, soley on the history of their actions and not their demographics.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree with you. However, in this case, the author writes, "As a psychologist and transsexual, I find..." -- clearly citing personal life experience as the basis for forming some of the opinions expressed in the newsletter. Since the author thinks that being a trans person (and a psychologist) is important or relevant, then I'm inclined to provide that information to the reader.
Also, since these articles tend to use titles in very POVish ways, I'm inclined to give everyone a label when it might be even remotely relevant: If the author were a statistician, or a physician, or an activist, then I'd add those labels, too.
As to whether the source ought to be used at all: It may be impossible to find a better one. Weakly sourced criticism is better than unsourced criticism -- and I don't think that deleting the criticism will be accepted in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following your reasoning. The arguments that Wyndzen presented were about statistical standardization, the difference between correlation and causality, and so on. Being transsexual does not convey any expertise on any of those issues. Being a psychologist might, but if the author did not express those opinions in a peer-reviewed psychology journal or other acceptible outlet, then there is no way to show that the opinions are sufficiently grounded for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Because so many of the people who contribute to the autogynephilia and related pages have such strong feelings about the issue, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard still seems like the only way to see if there is any consensus for including an anonymous opinion from a non-reviewed newsletter.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You may certainly post it at RS/N if you wish, although I don't think you'll learn anything from that process that you don't already know. My primary point is that I doubt that our most critical editors will accept an outcome in which (weakly sourced) criticism is removed entirely. No one has tried to argue that it's an ideal source, or even a good one -- only that it may be the best one out there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Wyndzen has published professionally under that name, so I don't really think her name choice is a relevant criticism regarding reliability. See Wyndzen MH (2008). A social psychology of a history of a snippet in the psychology of transgenderism. Arch Sex Behav. 2008 Jun;37(3):498-502. In that article, she mentions the previous scientific claim and specifically notes that Wikipedia editors have misrepresented Smith et. al. in these articles:
In contrast, I have made a scientific claim that there is insufficient evidence to believe transsexuals come in kinds (Wyndzen, 2003). As claims require evidence, I expect those suggesting any number of kinds (including two) to provide evidence. Sexual orientations of transsexuals are not distributed in clusters consistent with two kinds. Sexual orientation is a correlate in many studies of transsexuals (as it is among non-transsexuals) and this makes sexuality an important variable to consider. It does not mean sexual orientation differentiates transsexuals qualitatively. If studies included social class, I am sure it would correlate with many things among transsexuals (as it does among non-transsexuals). But this would not mean transsexuals come in ‘‘rich’’ and ‘‘poor’’ kinds.*
*Many believe Smith, van Goozen, Kuiper, and Cohen-Kettenis (2005) is a response to this critique. For example, it appears as counter-evidence on Wikipedia. If this was their intent, it is missing the necessary evaluation of clusters and does not include the necessary control groups to account for base-rate information (a concern I have about most proautogynephilia research).
As far as a publication of DIV 44 of the APA, that most certainly is a reliable source. Jokestress (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually have to agree with MarionTheLibrarian on the reliability of a totally anonymous source like Madeline Wyndzen. I personally think that websites like those of Andrea James, Lynn Conway, etc. are good sources when dealing with certain transsexual issues that would never be covered in more traditional media. Those ladies at least say who they are and state facts that are checkable. By comparison "Dr. Wyndzen" makes statements based on expertise. Expertise that is only bolstered by the fact that her conclusions please some transsexuals. That is not enough for WP. Their are enough reliable sources which say thing that she says to cite. Let us use them. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand Jokestress' position, but there appears to be no basis for it: WP:Reliable_Sources indicates that it is peer-reviewed journals that are reliable sources, and the newsletter is not peer reviewed. Moreover, it is circular logic to use Arch Sex Behav. 2008 Jun;37(3):498-502 as evidence that "Wyndzen has published professionally." That is, it is illogical to say that Wyndzen's newsletter pub is valid because she has a professional pub when the basis of the allegedly professional pub is the newsletter pub. Moreover, the commentaries that appear in that issue of that journal were not subjected to the journal's peer review process.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I can assure you that any article published in ASB is a reliable source, and an official publication of a professional organization within APA qualifies as well. If you wish to do an RfC or other step to build consensus, please feel free. I can tell you the outcome now, though. Jokestress (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have posted the question to WP:Reliable_Sources/Noticeboard. You may want to comment there yourself to ensure that I have represent the issue fairly.
Incidentally, persistently referring to me as SPA is a violation of the recommendations in WP:SPA and the policy in WP:NPA.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Or we could all just google a bit and find sources which are more reliable and don't have the problem of being written by totally anonymous persons. Thus making this article better and avoiding unproductive bickering lively debate. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Or even better: Go to the library!
I would certainly not object to including information from any solid source.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's been a couple of days now waiting for any remaining folk to provide input on whether the Wyndzen article constitutes meets WP:RS. Jokestress believes it does. Hfarmer thinks that source does not meet WP:RS[4], the person who responded on WP:Reliable_Sources/Noticeboard thinks a better source needs to be found[5], and I also think that the ideas Wyndzen expressed need to have a more reliable source before they meet WP:RS [6].
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correct English maybe?

"When having sex with women, biological males with autogynephilia (regardless of whether they plan actually to undergo transition) sometimes imagine themselves as women sexual interacting as lesbians."

Shouldn't this be "... sexually interacting as lesbians" ?

elpincha (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically Autogynephilia also applies to heterosexual cross dressers. --24.15.18.235 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)