Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Synthesis Problem

Thanks for your help, I marked the page numbers where the BBL "theory" is discussed: "The controversy over Bailey’s book has allowed his critics to lump together the work of Bailey, Blanchard , and Anne Lawrence as a monolithic, containable, anti-trans-rights theoretic entity known as “the Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence theory” (see, e.g., James,n.d.-h)."

I can see why this topic is controversial, having read up on a little bit just to try and form my criticisms.

Rhodescus 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Further Comments (Clarification)

As to the synthesis problem, both the "theory" and the content supporting the "theory" suffer from the problem of synthesis. The larger problem is the content, as anyone working in the field of GBLT Studies could vouch for the idea of the "theory". But that isn't stated (wikipedia makes some allowance for this, and I did find one external source that alludes to "Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence" as a collective set of ideas - that would probably be enough.)

A pure, cited, description of the successive common theories of Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence with respect to autogynephilia or homosexuality motivating sex changes should be all that this article contains. Use of the Freund studies to establish the origin of the "theory" as earlier assertions of the sexual identity of transvestites is synthesis and/or original work, and is unsupported. The accompanying citations do not refer to a paper outlining the origin of this "theory".

Better yet, ascribing to this "theory" the denial of sexual identity causes for transexual behavior might make the article a lot more readable, instead of presenting the theory as 'either/or'.

Thanks,

Rhodescus 17:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In Response To Peer Review Comments

This article is very disjointed. It resembles an original work. It does start out well.

It starts to turn about here:

"Sexual orientation is not changed by medical procedures.[2] Male-to-female transsexual people who switch from female to male sex partners after transition are nonhomosexual and hence autogynephilic, and are "lying" if they claim otherwise."

The second sentence is redundant and appears to be emotionally defensive. Redundancy is common in emotionally motivated writings. Not good writing style for a psychology article.

In the section about origin, several unrelated concepts are brought up:

"Blanchard notes that "Freund, perhaps for the first time of any author, employed a term other than 'transvestism' to denote erotic arousal in association with cross-gender fantasy."[10]" "In the 2000 revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), the section on gender identity disorder specifies transvestic fetishism as a related paraphilia.[14][15] Though advocates of the concept have gotten it mentioned in the DSM, some psychologists object to the pathologizing of gender variance and paraphilia.[16]"

These aren't properly tied into the section (or the article.) Perhaps the author intended some form of suggestion, but it comes across as an unformed concept. It also indicates original work.

This part represents more unrelated quotes, related to original work attempting to discredit the 'theory':

"Psychologist Yolanda Smith concluded that a distinction based sexual orientation appears theoretically and clinically meaningful, and that different factors influence each group's decision to apply for sex reassignment, noting a lower percentage of homosexual transsexuals reported being (or having been) married and sexually aroused while cross-dressing.[20]" "Other proponents have observed several correlations to homosexual transsexuals, including lower IQ, lower social class, immigrant status, non-intact family, non-Caucasian race, and childhood behavior problems, which are unrelated to gender identity disorder.[21]" "Bailey states that about 60% of homosexual transsexuals he studied were Latina or black, about three times the rate of ordinary gay men (p. 183). He states that most learn to live on the streets, often resorting to prostitution, shoplifting, or both (p. 184)."

These types of statements don't describe the theory, or published viewpoints on the theory.

I've done a little research to help out whoever wants to rewrite this article. I have some examples of sources which might be usable, and those to avoid.

Samples of Conway's emotional work on Bailey: "http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Bailey%20attempts%20to%20defend%20his%20writings.htm" You'd want to avoid anything with this emotional tone, accusatory, defensive and gloating. I'm assuming she doesn't publish in this form though. But you want to avoid any emotional statements. Actually, I'm not sure why this article tops the google results, it must be a 'PageRank' thing.

I did manage to find what appears to be at least one article on "Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence": http://www.starways.net/beth/ag.html The article contains informal references, and hyperlinks. The article is part of a series of similar works by the same author. The author may be a source of information for this article.

As it is, this article is practically incoherent. The above article (http://www.starways.net/beth/ag.html) is the only writing I could find that discussed this "theory", and it is not mentioned in the references to this article.

There is no actual reference in the article to sources establishing this theory. I am placing the synthesis warning on this page. Please read my criticisms, and find more appropriate sources.

Rhodescus 17:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• /Archive of "Autogynephilla" talk page

• /Archive of "Homosexual transsexual" talk page

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

• /Archive1 August 9th 2006

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)

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,

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)

BBL controversy

Someone has created BBL controversy, which seems to be a content fork. Could someone with knowledge of this subject merge it into this article? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest it is not a content fork. The controversy over BBL theory has a life all it's own. A life that has nothing to do with the concepts of the theory. If you look back at the articles on "BBL theory" "Autogynephilia" and "homosexual transsexual" you will see that half of those articles was cluttered with peoples objections. I mean is that really what a wikipedia article is for? I don't think so. This is a reference. If someone Google's "What is a homosexual transsexual?" they get a a short encyclopedic article that defines just what it is. The controversey around it....morphed from a discussion of the theories merits or lack thereof a long time ago. That is why I think the Controversey deserves it's own article. --Hfarmer 00:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the wikipedia guide line on content forks and all that. What I have done is to make a summary paragraph and place it in all three articles. It gives the high lights of the controversy. To get a feel for how big the controversy is consider that the article on it has 36 references. That would be allot of references for a section or subsection of an article.

• There are two articles which appear completely unnecessary: Autogynephilia, a paraphilia coined only in connection with BBL theory, and BBL controversy, which should be merged to this. Yes, most of the literature is going to refer to controversy, because the overwhelming reaction to BBL theory is rejection; that's the case for many fringe theories. We document it as it is, not as we wish it would be (and some would wish that this particular piece of bigotry did not exist at all, of course). Guy (Help!) 17:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is also Homosexual transsexual. Hm... I don't think I have anything else relevant to say. *laugh* --Puellanivis 19:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

JzG, do you think that all four of these pages should be merged into a single long one, of which half the page will be a 'controversy' section? WhatamIdoing 04:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It would be a monster of a bear of an article. While we are at it why not merge this into the article on transsexualism? (I think that would be a bad idea, and explosive to do so.) There are people who say the article related to this talk page is unnecessary that only the article on "Autogynephilia" is necessary. Look back at the history of this page. These four pages have existed for a while and proven necessary.

These separate articles are needed in order to comply with the wikipedia policy that mandates "summary style".--Hfarmer 15:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV copy-edit

I just finished an extensive edit of the article to make it better conform with NPOV, as things are neutrally advanced, and attributed. Some appropriate criticism could flesh out the article very well, by placing it here and there throughout the article.

I didn't do the BBL Controversy part, because eh... I'd already edited enough, and gone through several drafts for each paragraph already. *laugh* --Puellanivis (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Dual Motive Theory

I have had to go to all of the articles in this complex of articles ( with the exception of Homosexual Transsexual and remove references to "Dual Motive Theory. The correct way to advance a theory is to submit it to a peer reviewed journal. Until this has been published in such a journal it has no place in Wikipedia. Even then It would get it's own articles. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, like a Flat Earth theory. Original Research is a restriction upon someone putting personally created information, such as to prevent people who are heavily invested in the matter from putting up ideas and thoughts with Wikipedia the only source of that research. If someone's research is notable, then it will be added by someone else, but it should not be added by the author. The fact that there is a webpage independent of Wikipedia for this theory shows that the theory has a standing. If I recall correctly, neither Bailey nor Lawrence have submitted any peer-reviewed papers regarding the very topic of this article, and I'm willing to bet that neither has Blanchard. Original Research doesn't mean that it has to be peer-reviewed, it means that it has to have a non-Wikipedia reference for the information. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Puellanivis, you might want to look at the refs in the article. Journal of Sex Research and Archives of Sexual Behavior (where Blanchard published much of this) are both peer-reviewed journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I lose my bet for Blanchard. I have seen no evidence that Bailey and Lawrence have though. Most of the attention of the BBL Theory came from Bailey's book "The Boy Who Would Be Queen", and Lawrence's praise of it. TBWWBQ is not entirely scientific, and is based on empirical and anecdotal evidence rather than being published in a manner that would make it something that could be considered to publish to a peer-reviewed journal. --Puellanivis (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you lose your bet for Anne Lawrence, too. Perhaps I should look up Bailey's publications? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And it turns out that you lose your bet on Bailey as well (see PMID 15803248 for one example). You know, I've heard variations on that claim from so many different sources that I assumed that it was true. I was actually unaware, for example, that Lawrence did any kind of research. It's not that I haven't seen false rumors make the rounds before (doubtless one of these rumormongers is the source of your own initial beliefs on this subject), but it never occurred to me that anyone would start a rumor that could be trivially disproven by anyone with access to Google -- and clearly someone has started such a rumor, and propagated it for a long time without anyone bothering to check the facts.

As for the bigger picture: I have no idea whether the Dual Motive Theory is sufficiently notable to merit its inclusion. I suspect that an article in a secondary or tertiary source (e.g., a newspaper or magazine) would be a better proof of its notability than inclusion in a scientific journal. (I'd also want any such article to be primarily about the idea itself, and not, say, a human-interest story or a puff piece on a local resident.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First off I would like to cite the wikipedia's policy on original research. Wikipedia:No_original_research. Second follow the links related to Dual Motive Theory and you will see that they are links to the personal website of het person who created the theory. This is classic self promotion. Simply putting things on a personal blog are not the bar for what goes into the wikipedia. The bar is much higher. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, considering this later, I realized that simply having a webpage may not be sufficient, (proves existence but not notability). As well links to a personal websites for scientific reference are generally inappropriate, unless that site details specific professional/amature material, which is explicitly intended for analysis and critic by sexologists, and other scientific reviewers as appropriate, and in a form that is reasonably equivalent to publishing a peer-reviewed paper, which should explicitly acknowledge, and reflect reviews, critics, and suggestions. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Major Revision

I am in the proecess of major revisions of this page. It has turned once again from a neutral article to a list of grievances with autogynephilia. There is more to BBL theory than autogynephilia!

Specifically what I am going to do is rewrite the introductory section of the page. A section which once simply listed Blanchards postulates now list a bunch of complaints. (i.e. related to a comment by one colleague of Blanchard's from the Clark institute who said that autogynephiles lie... and other things that belong in and are in the article about the controversy.

Let the controversy be reported in the article that is devoted to it and the theory be described in this article. After this is done it will be more neutral than it is now. Right now, right now it is not neutral at all. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done!  :-) The change that I fear will be the hardest to keep pat will be that of removing the statements related to systematic distortion. Those are not main ideas of BBL theory as a whole but are specific to Autogynephilia. They should be mentioned in the article about autogynephilia and not this article which is as much about homosexual transsexuality. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I really appreciate many of your edits, as they are correcting important details that I missed, or misrepresented. I've only made a few slight changes to language use, except for a condesation of the entry paragraph to ensure that it functions as a summary, and not a detailed exposition, that's what the rest of the article is for. I have nothing to contribute to the sections cover criticism, and contraversy, as I have not considered any of that material sufficiently to make any alterations. So, again, thanks! --Puellanivis (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-)--Hfarmer (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Undoing the undiscussed merger

To whoever merged this article with that on the controversy. I am going to have to undo that. The purpose of ginving the controversey it's onwn article was to separate the two subjects. The controversey was given due mention in this article before. Now it has undue weight. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Orientation semantics

I'd like to challenge the usage of the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" in the article. I don't like their usage because they're just plain confusing in the context of fluid sexes. Specifically, does "homosexual" or "heterosexual" refer to the pre-transition sex or post-transition sex? Myself, even being familiar with the idea I can't keep track. Additionally, post-transition transexuals are offended when people refer to them as their pre-transition gender as this language does. I read Bailey's book on the topic and I know he uses this language thru out, as does Lawrence, which seems the only reason to keep it. However, in the context of an entire book, a reader at least has a long context to get used to it; that's not the case in the article here. Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence are not in the business of insulting transpeople and do not oppose transitioning so their language does not reflect an anti-trans feeling. My suggestion is to replace this language with androphile and gynephile because these words for orientation don't depend on the sex of the subject. These would apply to the article autogynephilia as well. --Ephilei (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To "correct" homosexual and heterosexual to androphile and gynephile would be to change the content of the theory in such a way as to obscure one of the (many) reasons why the trans/gendergueer community objects to it. And in fact, Blanchard and Bailey are very much in the business of insulting transpeople, if you read some of their public statements especially after they were sacked. (Lawrence isn't, as far as I can tell; she just latched on to the fact that one word defined in the theory seemed to partly describe her own experience, ignoring the fact that the rest of it is entirely unscientific. Personally I consider her as much a victim as a proponent of Blanchard's theory.) David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reference

Please provide reference that Blanchard did not refer to the two as "autogynephilic transsexuals" and "homosexual transsexuals". --Puellanivis (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are his articles on the topic. The articles which compare the types of transsexuals (the first list) refer to homosexual and nonhomosexual transsexuals. The only articles which mention autogynephilic transsexuals are the articles about autogynephilia itself (the second list). His research on groupings were different from his research on what motivated the nonhomosexual transsexuals.

Firstlist:

• Blanchard, R., Clemmensen, L. J., & Steiner, B. W. (1987). Heterosexual and homosexual gender dysphoria. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 139–152.Blanchard, R. (1988). Nonhomosexual gender dysphoria. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 188–193.
• Blanchard, R. (1989). The classification and labelling of nonhomosexual gender dysphorias. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 18, 315–334.
• Blanchard, R., & Sheridan, P. M. (1992). Sibship size, sibling sex ratio, birth order, and parental age in homosexual and nonhomosexual gender dysphorics. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 180, 40–47.

Second list:

• Blanchard, R. (1989). The concept of autogynephilia and the typology of male gender dysphoria. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 177, 616–623.
• Blanchard, R. (1991). Clinical observations and systematic studies of autogynephilia. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 17, 235–251.
• Blanchard, R. (1992). Nonmonotonic relation of autogynephilia and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 271–276.
• Blanchard, R. (1993). Partial versus complete autogynephilia and gender dysphoria. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 19, 301–307.
• Blanchard, R. (1993). The she-male phenomenon and the concept of partial autogynephilia. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 19, 70–76.
• Blanchard, R. (1993). Varieties of autogynephilia and their relationship to gender dysphoria. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22, 241–251.
• Blanchard, R. (2005). Early history of the concept of autogynephilia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 439–446.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Two types" versus "only two types"

I appreciate that there is only a subtle difference between saying that there are "two types" versus "only two types" of male-to-female transsexuals. Blanchard (repeatedly) claims that there could not exist one type, but he never said there could not be more. He simply never found any evidence of other types and neither has anyone else. So, saying "two types" is the accurate descriptor of what he said.

I appreciate also that many blogs have gotten this point incorrect, so it is widely misunderstood. But, if I am wrong then all you have to do is find where Blanchard said there could not be more than two and to cite it.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Compromise to use the phrase "two discrete types"? This at least also gives the indication that the theory does not talk about a spectrum, but rather, you're either HST, or AGT. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Two discrete types" sounds good to me.

Incidentally, you are doing a lot of reverts, and there is a "three revert rule" per page per 24 hr period. Let's discuss other changes you don't like here first?

As for "biological," intersex conditions don't occur in transsexualism. In fact, according to the DSM, having an intersex condition precludes a diagnosis of GID. Would "heterosexual natal males" or "hetersexual born-males" be acceptable? I use "biological" since that what most of the peer-reviewed literature uses.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR rule is intended to avoid revert wars. Naturally, I've not taken objection to many of the changes you have made... just a few. Clearly, we're not engaged in an edit war... but rather, simply, working as intended collaboratively produce a better article. As for "biological" I'm talking about the world exposed by both transsexual and intersexual conditions. Genetic? You would declare CAIS females as "biological males". Hormonally? You would declare transsexual women as "biological females". Genitalia? You would declare post-op transsexual women as "biological female". I tend to prefer to term "natal male/female" as this indicates "sex assigned as birth" without having to write all that out. As well, while the DSM excludes "intersex conditions" for it's diagnosis, there is "GID Not Otherwise Specified" or "GIDNOS", which can be used for individuals who have intersexed conditions. The idea of "transsexual" is not a clinical diagnosis however, and thus cannot be excluded simply because "GID" doesn't include intersexed. There are intersexed transsexuals. There are not intersexed individuals that have GID, but there are those who have GIDNOS. --Puellanivis (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. We agree on "natal."
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Article title change

The title of this article has never appeared in print as such. The closest is Dreger's "Blanchard-Bailey-Lawrence theory," coined in Dreger's 2008 Archives of Sexual Behavior article. I coined "Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence" in 2003 but have never referred to BBL as a theory.

I propose this article be renamed Blanchard-Bailey-Lawrence theory and note that Dreger originated the term.

In addition, the content fork of the controversy section should be merged with this article. Jokestress (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where Dreger has called it that. Just this: labeled by its critics the “Blanchard-Bailey-Lawrence” theoretical construct. But I don't much care what we call it. Do you have an early source for it being called that, by Dreger or others? Anyway, if we change it, let's punctuate it correctly, with en dashes, not hyphens. Dicklyon (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can use that as an option as well. This quotation occurs at page 55 in the same article: "The controversy over Bailey’s book has allowed his critics to lump together the work of Bailey, Blanchard, and Anne Lawrence as a monolithic, containable, anti-trans-rights theoretic entity known as “the Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence theory” (see, e.g., James, n.d.-h)." As with a number of Dreger citations, this term does not appear in the text she cites, which in this case is something I wrote. The suggestion is that she is quoting me, but she is pretty sloppy about use of quotations marks and loves to quote-mine. In this case, she made up the quotation as marked. Since 2003, I have always put "Bailey" first in "BBL" and hyphenated the full name, and I do not believe I have referred to BBL as a "theory" in any of my writings. And yes, if we don't use commas. en dashes are in order. Jokestress (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So it appears that article is already named for what Dreger says it is called (even if she did mis-attribute it to you via a misquote). So why do we want to move it? I'm not sure in what sense it matter whether it is a theory; it sort of sounds like one. What else would we call it? Whose would be offended, one way or the other? That is, I'm still unclear on the constituents in this controversy, and what they care about, other than making each other look bad. Not necessarily addressed to you, Andrea, but I'm open to opinions on what would be a better title, or whether we should just leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a difficult question to ask. Even if one thinks that the title should use en-dashes (as it grammatically should) instead of hyphens, we would still need to redirect the hyphen version to the en-dash version. Then, you would have to redirect the current page to the other page. Who could really be said to have coined a name for the theory? Likely, the first person to coin a name that is accurate and acceptable should establish that one to be used, I think. However, all the links will simply be redirecting to the same, article, so I don't really understand how the title of the article could have that much significance. --Puellanivis (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really the combination of "BBL" and "theory" that makes the title inaccurate. Calling this concept a "theory" is disputed, but appears to be one of the major goals of the BBL folks (in order to add legitimacy and "science" to it). Personally, something like "Blanchard taxonomy of transsexualism" or something to that effect seems better. Bailey and Lawrence popularized Blanchard's ideas in distinct but mutually beneficial ways. The three of them were not involved in developing the taxonomy. Jokestress (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

But the crux of the "theory" is that the taxonomy makes sense, it it not? Maybe "hypothesis" would be more appropriate there. Oh, well, I don't care what we call it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd prefer "hypothesis" over "theory." As many people who understand the scientific meaning of "theory" have noted, BBL 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

I just think the current title is inaccurate and misleading. I am open to any suggestions. Jokestress (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I like Jokestress' suggestion. I suggested "Blanchard taxonomy" previously,[2] but "Blanchard taxonomy of transsexualism" would certainly be more precise (which I like). "The Blanchard taxonomy of MtF transsexualism" would be still more precise, but awfully wordy.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I found an article (via Conway's site) that explains what the "theory" is, and added that to the lead, since the article wasn't getting to it very well. Since Conway blasts the article as "clearly fronting for Bailey," I figure it is at least not biased against the promoters of the theory. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a problem with "BBL Theory" just like "Flat Earth Theory" etc. It doesn't mean anything really. As for "hypothesis": ''hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was ..." from [wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn] People tend to think of "Theory of Evolution" and say "it's scientifically proven, that means theory is a strong statement" but it's not. A "theory" is a proposal, or an idea of how the world works in a coherent way. Blanchard's taxonomy fits this definition of "Theory", just as "Gender Identity Theory" is the most well accepted theory regarding transsexualism, because it does the best job of explaining all the data. Darwin's Theory of Evolution, had dolphins evolving from bears, however more recent scientific study has shown that dolphins most likely evolved from a canine-like creature. Theories, especially good theories constantly evolve. If you want to take a page from Physics, Quantum field theory is the best explanation for the world around us, but we know it isn't right. It's simply providing a practical model that we can examine rather than the impractical and unwieldy physical universe.

If you want another argument: Theory: "In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation." Is BBL Theory testable? Yes, it is. Does it allow one to make predictions of future events? Yes, it does. Is it testable through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation? Yes. Like it or not, BBL Theory is a heck of a lot better than Intelligent Design, and other pseudosciences. It proposes a model, that can be demonstrated to be wrong. Namely, find a decisively non-homosexual MTF transsexual who decisively falls under the observed behaviors of a homosexual MTF transsexual or the other way around. Is the theory pretty poor? Yeah, it is. Does it fail to account for a lot of behavior? Yeah, it does, but that behavior is all typically anecdotal. And just like you can't prove a theory with anecdotal evidence, you can't disprove it with that evidence either. If you want to scientifically falsify BBL Theory, then you have to conduct a proper and rigorous scientific inquiry, and be able to justify your results with more than "all these people say they don't fit the mold." BBL Theory is so keenly interesting to proponents because it describes accurately that there is a division between MTF transsexuals, those who pass easily, and those who don't pass easily. This is a well known phenomena, and this provides an explanation for it. No matter how wrong it is, because it hasn't been decisively proved wrong yet. And even then, it won't not become a "Theory" it will simply be a "false theory". --Puellanivis (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I also don't regard "theory" as a problem, esp. now that I find it common in the popular literature about it. Lot's theories are lame; I don't think the term confer any status to it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Defining "gender dysphoria"

I think you are absolutely correct that it is simpler to just give a link to gender dysphoria to differentiate it from transsexualism and gender identity disorder. The problem is that, currently, WP:Gender_Dysphoria redirects to WP:gender_identity_disorder, rather than showing the difference between them.

If no one else does it before I get the chance to, I would end that re-direct and use the gender dysphoria page to define that term specifically (discontent with one's natal sex) and show that not everyone with gender dysphoria experiences it strongly enough to qualify as GID (which is what having the redirect essentially implies). So, I think the change you made should be done only after there is a separate gender dysphoria page to go to.

That said, I don't have any strong opinion about this, however, so if you want to re-make your change, I won't revert it again.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The alternative is to fix it within the article that it currently redirects to, possibly using an anchor link in the redirect. It's often easier to clarify a distinction between related terms within a single article, rather than making a new article for every term that needs a definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

As others have noted, separating the controversy from the article is a POV fork. In addition, the controversy section has a huge amount of work needed to make it an acceptable article. Jokestress (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The controversy article doesn't explain the controversy at all, even, it just lists the ad hominem attacks; what's the point of that? It might be best to drop all that and merge by writing a balanced section on what the controversy is. One interesting part of the controversy (to me, since the substance of it is outside the realm that I care about) is that the participants can't seem to even agree on who is on what side; people on one side, for example, like to hold Dreger out as a neutral "scholar", even while she rants against the other side in blogs and radio shows. I think it would be useful to explain that a bit; trouble is, what can be used for sources? Do we allow the blogs of the participants? Or just relatively neutral news articles like the NYT? Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really plan to engage Dreger in any substantive matter at this time, but I did prepare an [3] that I believe should be included here and on my biography (where the BBL material seems to have surpassed WP:UNDUE). I'll let others determine its reliability, but it seems if her site is OK, mine is too, especially on matters where I am mentioned by name.

I'm not about to start trying to interpret the blogs of the combatants; but I agree that your bio has been trashed by the Dreger camp and that it needs to be cleaned up per WP:BLP.

I agree completely on trashing the content fork and starting fresh. That page is a huge mess. Jokestress (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Unfortunately, we need to have people who were 3rd parties to the activities develop the article, to avoid any idea of CoI, since lord knows people who are in a huff about anything will blow anything up that they possibly can. --Puellanivis (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I object to this merger proposal. Articles such as this one are not unprecedented. In cases where the controversy over a topic has taken on it's own life it get's its own article. For examples

• Creation-evolution controversy
• History of the creation-evolution controversy
• MSM blood donor controversy
• Yale student abortion art controversy
• And so an and so on and so on.

So I would say that there is plenty of precedent for the existence of this article. What we have now is much better than what was here before. Look back to 2006 or before. All that was here was the article on Autogynephilia and it consisted mostly of words talking about how horrible of a thing it was. One who read that page would come away not knowing anything about the theory. They would not even know of the existence of two types of transsexual or anything about the other type. What we have now is four very well sourced and well written articles, one of which homosexual transsexual is in fact a "good article". So much more information is available right here on wikipedia. To merge this into the main article would mean having to decide what to leave out. I mean should the article only say what was done by Blanchard or Bailey that would look bad? Should it not talk about Andrea's behavior good and bad as well? I think it should give complete information on all of this if it is sourced. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hfarmer's point about controversies taking on their own lives is an excellent one.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article and 'controversy' be merged. A listing of ad-hominem attacks is not notable by itself, and has no bearing on the content of the theory. The article as it stands serves no purpose, except to alter the reputations of the effected parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogladfeline (talk • contribs) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it has been long agreed, why doesn't someone just redirect it? If there's any relevant content to salvage, that might motivate someone to work on it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure it's agreed. Hfarmer pointed out that controversies that have taken on lives of their own can and do have their own articles. Although I originally believed that the pages should be merged, Hfarmer convinced me otherwise.

— James Cantor (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Since H said the issue was long dead and removed the proposal tag, and I put it back, can we try to get to a resolution on this question? The controversy page seems like pretty much a POV fork; it's generally preferred that the POVs be integrated into one article, I think. Other opinions? Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I never responded to this. Could you answer just who's POV is being overrepresented in that page. It tells what each side has said about the other side in a very concise non-narrative fashion. In a sense it's a list of personal attacks which both sides have engaged in. How is that POV?--Hfarmer (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:BBL sidebar

Template:BBL sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and Cleanup Really Needed

Questionable science

Due to discussion a new consensus has formed regarding the relation of these articles to the policy WP:FRINGE. For reasons that I detail on the page Talk:Homosexual transsexual I am going to make sure the criticism of these articles is a bit more prominent. However these theories are at worst at the level of What the ArbCOM called "questionable science", not crakpot kooky conspiracy theory (I.e. who shot JFK and alien abduction and such. Not like) The ArbCOM's example of this was Psychoanalysis#Scientific_criticism. Which I find really interesting and illuminating in this case since BBL theory is basically a psychoanalytic theory and reading that article I see some overlap between the criticisms. i.e. "E. Fuller Torrey, writing in Witchdoctors and Psychiatrists (1986), stated that psychoanalytic theories have no more scientific basis than the theories of traditional native healers, "witchdoctors" or modern "cult" alternatives such as est." Like I have said at least half a dozen times I see, and now I think I am justified in seeing, BBL theory in being no more valid than any other simmilar theory of psychology. Which is when compared to say a physical theory not very valid at all. But then it is not a physical theory, it is not right to compare theories across fields so in that sense BBL theory is established if not accepted. Due to the fact that it is questioned by many and the article should reflect that.

NPOV

Right now it does not feel neutral. Not at all. It's way in the BBL + direction. I have not really done much with this article in a long while. Check the history.

cleanup

The article is a mess overall. Could some of the people who have decided to take my edits personally pealse HELP with this. So that they wont have to make WP:OWN claims latter. When I talk about how much I have done to the article because I infact will have done it all. Please somebody help me.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Benjamin":

• From Autogynephilia: Benjamin, Harry. The Transsexual Phenomenon. Chapter 2, Paragraph 16. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
• From Homosexual transsexual: BenjaminQ, Harry. symposion. com/ijt/benjamin/chap_02.htm#Relationship%20to%20homosexuality The Transsexual Phenomenon. Chapter 2, Paragraph 16. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5