Talk:Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy

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.
B This article has been rated as B-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
Peer review Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 21, 2007
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

I just wanted any editors who are interested that I am in the process of trying to read an comprehend the work of Dr Alice Dredger on this matter. It is quite long and will surely have the effect of adding nuclear fuel to chernobyl. --Hfarmer 23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] In the process of rewriting

I am in the process of rewriting this article almost totally. All the content that was there before will be represented afterward. New content will be incorporated. I am looking to make this more encyclopedic and scholarly. A rough outline would look like this.

Introduction

Scientific controversey

Scientific concerns of critics
Scientific Investications and studies
Ad Hominem arguements

A summary of the ad hominem arguements that have been used. Listed under a heading for each person they were directed at. A statement will be considered an ad Hominem if the person the statement was directed at felt it was insulting or an attack. The persons will be listed in Alphabetical order in order to avert any percieved POV in their position on the list. All statements in here will be summary style and based on quotes. I will stick to the basic principle of wikipedia editing the "Trifecta". In that spirit the references that point to website which are basically personal blogs (i.e. tsroadmap.com and lynnconway.com as well as others) will be treated with equal weight as other simmilar websites (i.e. transkids.us) the only information used here will be that which can be crossreferenced in a non webbased format. This will be done pursuant to the wikipedia policies WP:BLP and WP:SOURCE as well as WP:REF. --Hfarmer 00:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The ad hominems section is not where I would like it to be. I speed read Dreger's paper and there are some things in there that I recall but not exactly where they are written. I recall her account of Dr. Conway calling or contacting Northwestern...to warn Dr. Bailey that he could potentially be in danger. (To be honest I thought the same thing. There are some real kooks out there). This warning being interpreted by Dredger as threat is why it is an ad hominem arguement. I am trying to choose one arguement directed at each person that is really representative of all the personal attacks that came at a given person.

The other possibility would be to simply mention that such attacks have happened and link to a bunch of websites...but that would leave the article woefully incomplete. --Hfarmer 16:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated peer review

The following 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 16:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC) --Hfarmer 16:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reverted redirect

Someone redirected this article supposedly citing that the article is POV and such and such. What this article has is tons of references and is composed of factual quotes from involved parties in the subject of this article....a certain controversey. How can someone's own quote violate the NPOV rule? It's something that was said, an event, nothing more. I could see If somehow I made one "side" look more victimized somehow. Everybody in this mess haas been subject to unwarranted ad hominem attacks. (kind of like children in a disagreement who after running out of logic go "well your a stinky pants" or something...but cloaked in fancier language. EVERYONE in this controversey has done that at some point.) In the future if you want to make a huge change like that to an article tha was rated as B class by a independant reviewer you could try discussing it. --Hfarmer 02:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • We've received complaints regarding the article frm individuals asserting that it defames them. "Controversy" articles are usually a minefield, of course. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Who is "we"? Who are those "individuals"? What were the "complaints"? Why should we take your word for this? I'm undecided on the issue of whether this article should exist, but I don't like the way you're handling this. SethTisue 13:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
JzG, I think you've overstepped the bounds of reasonable behavior. For one thing, while this notion is truly offensive to a number of people, that's not the same thing as an outline of steps and missteps taken by supporters and critics being defamatory. For example, the fact that Andrea James published obscene remarks about Bailey's young children might well be considered defamatory, no matter how true it is. But the whole article? I'm not buying the story.
For another thing, I haven't found any related complaints of defamation on Wikipedia. I may have missed something, but I suspect that you are inferring complaints from the blogs of this idea's many prominent critics. (For example, the activists at tsroadmap.com use the word "defamation" repeatedly, although a careful reading suggests that the word they're probably reaching for is "derogatory".)
Even though I think that these two articles could be successfully merged (and I have no opinion on whether they should be merged), I'm going to undo your high-handed redirect and let the merge discussion follow its proper course. So -- now's your chance. Let's hear your specific, concrete examples of what you think is actually defamatory. Ideally, you'll have something more specific to say than "I don't like the whole idea." WhatamIdoing 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK Let us discuss the case for a merger

Here is the problem I had and still have with a merge of this article. Is that what should it be merged with? Their are a whole group of three articles on this. "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence Theory", "Autogynephilia", and "homosexual transsexual". Before I created this article each of them had half their substance devoted to criticism and controversey. That's just too much. The controversial aspects should be mentioned but not dominate the article. That would be the solution here if this were a normal controversey. (A good example of a normal controversey would be that around to article and topic loop quantum gravity. )

The unique thing about this subject is that the controversey around it has a life of it's own that has nothing to do with the scientific issues. But they are intertwined. I just cannot imagine how I could put all of that into a paragraph that would satisfy everyone. --Hfarmer 00:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is simple: this comes across as a POV fork. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I will assume that you are not a transperson and are not involved in this. So I would say you see this as a way of settling out an mere wikipedia based arguement. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. This controversey is, itself, a separate entity from the theory it is about. Google the terms Bailey Controversey or Autogynephilia, or homosexual transsexual. What you will find is mostly pages and pages and pages of writings about the controverseiality of these terms. --Hfarmer 18:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I do think that the article should be merged into Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory, into an expanded section on the controversy. The controversial aspects can and should be discussed in the articles on the theory instead -- per NPOV and due weight, all significant views should be discussed in an unbiased manner, and it makes sense that the resounding criticism and non-acceptance of the theory by scientists and the transgendered alike would be a significant part of those articles. krimpet✽ 04:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

This article is not stable if it has {{merge}}. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Ad hominem arguments' section

I was reading this article to try to understand what the controversy is about, but found the 'ad hominem arguments' section just too confusing to work my way through. It's not clear who is criticising who and for what; as far as I can tell, criticisms of BB&L or their supporters are mixed in with criticisms of their opponents, which makes it quite hard to read. It would be better if this section was broken into two (or more) lists, titled 'Criticism of Blanchard, Bailey & Lawrence' and 'Criticism of the critics' or something like that.

It also could do with a better name; although the article does its best to claim neutrality, 'ad hominem attack' is an unavoidably non-neutral description, that encourages the reader to side with the victim. 'Criticisms' would be far more neutral terminology, without any loss of meaning. Terraxos (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's actually discuss the merger this time.

Here is the deal. The merger of this article with that on BBL theory would in my mind result in short shrift for the controversey as it self. This contorversey has been a big chasm in the "transgendered community" for some time. The merger when part of the BBL theory article gives the controversey undo weight. Because that article is about the theory not the controversey surrounding the theory. Having separate articles for a theory and it's contoversey is common to science related articles in WP. I know there are those who would object to counting BBL theory in that category. Well formally that's what it is. Therefore it should be treated as such. Weather it is correct or not is a separate issue from that. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If a theory is met with resounding criticism the way autogynephilia is, then per NPOV the notable criticism belongs in that article. Wikipedia's neutral point of view does not mean a sympathetic point of view, but rather all significant views should be neutrally covered with due weight to each. We're not supposed to have two articles on the same subject, one glowing and one critical - this is POV forking. krimpet✽ 19:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is what is wrong with your reasoning. Suppose I accept your arguement and we merge BBL theory and its criticism. Since BBL theory includes "Autogynephilia" and "Homosexual Transsexual" we should merge those under BBL Theory. Then since (and I have heard this here in the past) "most people just call it "autogynephilia" we would just rename the article "Autogynephilia". Basically it would undo what now... almost two years of work by many many people to expand on this subject and make it a more complete account of the theory and it's criticisms.
What we have right now is a complex of four complimentary articles which make reference to each other and many of the same sources. Each one covers a different aspect of this theory. "Autogynephilia" is the most discussed part, but just a part. The "homosexual transsexual" is another part which is rarely mentioned. When it is often the comments are as hostile to those who would be called "homosexual transsexuals" as it is to the theory. (i.e. the oft repeated "Bailey just interviewed some latino drag queens he met in a gay bar in Chicago".) I wanted to give some sort of voice to that part of the theory and the people described by it. Weather they agreed or disagreed with it. An article like BBL theory made sense to unify both of those. Then the controversey article made sense because in the case of certain articles over half of the article was on the controversey. Usually it was unsourced or only sourced to one of two websites. Which just isn't enough for WP.
Basically I think the reasons for keeping the articles as is are the same as they were for the creation of the articles in the first place. The size of one comprehensive article would not be in the "summary style" WP prefers. To make such an article in summary style it would give short shrift to one or more important parts of the story. Last but not least to a great extent th theory and it's controversey are separate entities. The controversey could and would live on for decades even if there were great weight of scientific evidence for it (which there is not but consider the state of the theory of evolution will it ever not be controversial?) --Hfarmer (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to deal with major problems here

I have let this article stand uncorrected for a long time, but perhaps it's time to step in and note a few of the major problems, due to a few recent inaccurate IP edits.

  1. It is a POV fork and should be merged.
  2. "Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence" is the term as coined.
  3. "Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence" and "BBL" have been used a number of times in academic publications, including by Bailey himself.
  4. It is not a theory, but a behavioral model. It does not have the scientific rigor to be considered a theory.
  5. The whole section of profiles is largely unsourced or poorly sourced.

I'm not too involved with this project these days, but perhaps someone can deal with this mess. Jokestress (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a merge is in order, but apparently that was done before and reverted. So time to make a merge proposal and see if we can get a consensus. I'll support it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that anonymous edits have caused problems with this article and need to be addressed. I however must take counterpoint to what Jokestress wrote.
  1. The Controversy surrounding BBL theory has taken on a life of it's own and deserves as article of it's own. Examples of other WP articles that do this Creation-evolution controversy, History of the creation-evolution controversy, and a whole list of such WP articles if one searches for "controversy".
  2. If one googles the terms Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence the term comes up and is used both ways in different places.
  3. Placing Blanchard first in the naming of the theory is the correct way to name this theory as he is the one who originated it. (Just as no one would write of a Lorentz transformation and call it an Einstein transformation even though Lorentz's work is most famous for how Einstein Applied it.)
  4. Ahem. This "behavioral model" as you call it. Has been published in peer reviewed journals. It has also been the subject of other articles in peer reviewed jorunals. I think those reviewers know better than you about what does and does not have scientific merit.
  5. I agree that the section that list some of the Ad hominem arguments should be very carefully written and consist almost entierly of quotes by people from any side which are directed at specific people or groups of people involved in the controversy.
IF this article would be merged with any article which would would either of you propose that should be. As I recall when I first came upon this subject here on WP the only article was Autogynephilia. I would have to vehemently oppose any thing that resembles a return to that in some way.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that a controversy is normally discussed in the article on the topic, in this case Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory; it might also make sense to merge their invented concept of Autogynephillia to there, but that's a different question. Dicklyon (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Re: ""BBL" have been used a number of times in academic publications, including by Bailey himself..."

Could you provide some examples? I've never seen it used as more than a nickname, and I have never in any scholarly, peer-reviewed publication.

  • Re: "It is not a theory, but a behavioral model..."

Actually, the distinction between homosexual and nonhomosexual transsexuality is a taxonomy, whereas the idea that autogynephilia motivates some cases of nonhomosexual gender dysphoria is a theory. Unlike Blanchard's very specific uses of terms, "BBL" has never been clear on exactly which it addresses. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "taxonomy" is accurate and is what I used in transsexual sexuality. As many people who understand the scientific meaning of "theory" have noted, proponents and reporters seem to throw around the word rather carelessly:
Carey calls the offending thesis a “theory.” But reading this, it’s more of a notion. Hypothesis may even overdress it. It’s not that science writers are going to alter the colloquial meaning of theory in conversation, but in a story with an academic setting it ought be used more formally. Petit, Charles (21 August 2007). ScienceTimes. Knight Science Journalism Tracker
You can find references to the term "Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence" in the Dreger "history" and in the piece Bailey wrote with "Kiira Triea." The informal "BBL" acronym was created as shorthand for the ideological feedback cycle that allowed a small number of people to amplify Blanchard's largely unnoticed work. It certainly does not describe any unified theory, which is why I have always said use of "theory" in this POV fork's title is unscientific and inaccurate (among its myriad other problems). Jokestress (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting; thank you. How did Blanchard refer to idea?—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Initially, Blanchard referred to the idea as part of a "concept" or "typology" (1989), and later a "taxonomy" (2000, possibly earlier). Jokestress (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; that's what I thought too. So, it seems that "BBL Theory" is incorrect; it should be the "BBL Taxonomy." Personally, I think "Blanchard Taxonomy" is better; Bailey popularized the idea and Lawrence expanded upon it, but Blanchard invented it on his own. Yes?—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence sometimes uses "model," a term more common in medicine, but yes, the two-type taxonomy based on sexual orientation (homosexual/nonhomosexual) is really the creation of Blanchard, as is the coining of a paraphilia encompassing all cross-gender interests. I'm not sure I've seen it referred to in the literature as the "Blanchard __" (taxonomy/typology/concept) except perhaps "Blanchard's model" in Wyndzen (2008). Jokestress (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me refer to some sources.
From the wikipedia article on the word Theory.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.

That sounds like BBL theory to me. It is a model that is internally consistent. Which describes the behavior of the people it is concerned with. Given this meaning I see the reason Jokestress does not want it to be called a theory because that could give the impression of legitimacy to something she feels is false and insulting.
Furthermore... [1] Gives these Criteria (s)
Logical
A scientific theory must be:
  1. 1. a simple unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary ("Occam's Razor")
  2. 2. logically consistent
  3. 3. logically falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid)
  4. 4. clearly limited by explicit boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not particular data are or are not relevant to verification or falsification
Emperical
  1. A scientific theory must:
  2. 1. be empirically testable or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable
  3. 2. actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions
  4. 3. involve reproducible results
  5. 4. provide criteria for the interpretation of data as factual, artifactual, anomalous or irrelevant
Dr. Blanchards Model as you like to cal it. Is empirically testable. Yolanda Smith working in the Netherlands tested it using Genetic women as a control group and checked for the presence of an analogue to autogynephilia. She affirmed that Dr. Blanchards Model has some merit and clinical use. That looking at transsexuals in terms of sexual orientation has some value. Which leads to point two Yolanda Smith verified most of the salient predictions of Dr. Blanchard's theory (all but that "homosexual transsexuals" and "Autogynephilic transsexuals" will have different height weight and BMI.) Which leads to point 3 which was also affirmed by Dr. Smith et al. Blanchard's model also provides criteria for the interpretation of data (most infamously stated by Maxine Petersen).
Dr. Blanchard's model fulfills all the criteria of a theory. Therefore the name BBL theory is proper scientifically proper. As is the order of the names used within.
Another thing Jokestress do you not have this page. [2] This is your webpage is it not? You have used the form of this name yourself. To now say that only "proponents use it is quite disingenuous. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV rewrite by SPA MarionTheLibrarian

I haven't even read this whole article yet, but it's very clear the wholesale rewrite with strong POV by User:MarionTheLibrarian, a newly register WP:SPA presumably the same as the anon IP SPA that started it, is not helping to move it toward a more objective or verifiable state. And starting out here by argueing about what the theory is called, instead of working that issue in the article on the theory itself, is clearly out of place. So we can approach this more sanely and neutrally? Probably MarionTheLibrarian can not, being totally tied up in a particular POV on these transsexual issues. Dicklyon (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You want sane and neutral out of this debacle? Good luck! What I think would improve this article is some way of providing more of the context it happened in. It's really a bunch of controversy's combined into a Chimera. There is the controversy around how Dr. Blanchard developed the theory in the first place. There is controversy around TMWWBQ and the informal research Dr. Bailey did, including alleged informal polling of the transsexuals of Chicago. There is controversy around how Dr. Conway, Andrea james (a.k.a. Jokestress) and, the illustrious McCloskey conducted their early investigation which is only known due to the controversial work of Alice Dreger. A small controversy is around WP, these articles (which people like Dreger think are anti Blanchard :-? ) and yours truly who has been called a "HSTS lady boy", and a "faker"! (Please talk to Julia Serano about that if you will. She's met me and can vouch for my realness and existence).
My advice to you is to run away! This controversey turns anyone who gets hands on with it into a very insane partisan. Let us partisans sort it out amongst ourselves. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe I will take your advice, having looked at the user pages of a few of the main editors here. Bye. Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)