Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology

Autogynephilia merge proposal

I have looked around some and don't see much academic discussion of this concept outside the closed circle of BBL advocates - virtually all the cites are fomr Blanchard's own work, which looks wrong as we should be drawing primarily on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. I think the article Autogynephilia needs to be merged to a short section here; we appear to e trying to blaze a trail in documenting this largely-ignored idea. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC) :Before I comment further on this proposal just what do you wan't to merge this with?--Hfarmer (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I did not notice that this link was to the BBL theory talk page instead of the autogynephilia talk page. Well you say that this idea is not notable enough. To warrant a separate article. Let me address your assertion directly. Sexology is not a huge field in the first place so the fact that not allot of people write papers about any sexological theory has to be weighed against that. Then there is another way of assesing the value of a scientific theory that is how many others cite that theory (papers writen specifically about that theory). Looking at google scholar if you drill donwn below the first three pages you see that Blanchard's papers on autogynephila appear cited in many many places and by a variety of sexologist beyond just that "small circle". Last but not least there is the way that the scientist who proposes a theory is regarded by their peer's. Again using google scholar to seach for Autogynephilia. It list the key authors as Blanchard and Zucker along with Cohen-Kettenis. Ok now look at the names of the people choosen to help write the part of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychological association. [1] Zucker is in charge of the working group, Blanchard and Cohen-Ketennis are part of the group. That can only be taken as a sign of the respect that those people have in the field of sexology. Richard B. Krueger, and Jack Drescher have also written papers that made reference to autogynephilia.

With the above in mind I cite the policy WP:NOTE "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

If one uses google to search for news article that have the word Autogynephilia verbatim [2] there are three pages of hits. If one searches regular google for any websites that have Autogynephila you will find 37,000 hits. If even 10% of those are reliable sources that more than meets the "significant coverage" requirement.

Last but not least there is WP:SUMMARY Which states that

Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place| Summary sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template |To preserve links to the edit history of the moved text, the first edit summary of the new article links back to the original.

Which is the case here. These two articles are linked in that BBL theory is the main article, Autogynephila is a pure sub article. Homosexual transsexual is a related article in it's own right since that term and the phenomena it describes were around before Blanchard. The controversy is also deserving of a separate article because that aspect has taken on a life of it's own. Simmilar arguements to the one above work for the other related articles. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No merge. The two pages are related, but not redundant. Autogynephilia refers to a specific pattern of sexual interests; BBL theory (a misnomer, in my opinion) refers to a taxonomy of male-to-female transsexuality, one of which (the theory says) is motivated by autogynephilia. One can experience autogynephilia without being transsexual, and one can be transsexual without being autogynephilic.

Second, the Blanchard pubs are secondary sources for WP purposes. Guy's use of primary vs. secondary sources above is incorrect, although I do acknowledge that the primary/secondary distinction differs between the physical/medical sciences and the humanities. In the humanities, a primary source would be, for example, an historical document, whereas the secondary source would be an historian's published article about that document. (WP editors are expected generally to cite the historian, not interpret the historical document for themselves.) In the physical/medical sciences, that primary source would be the data collected for a study, and the scientist's published article is the secondary source. (WP editors are expected generally to cite the scientist, not acquire and analyze the data themselves.) Although the scientist's publication is the first thing available to the public, it is a secondary source for WP, and such reports are noted as the preferred source by WP:V and WP:SPS. (Incidentally, I am not a long-timer here; I am merely repeating the interpretations I have been given, in this case by an admin (user:DGG).)

Third, autogynephilia has indeed been mentioned in multiple notable RS's, including the DSM. The enormous interest in autogynephilia by WP editors (both supporting and decrying the idea) as indicated in the history page here also suggests that the topic is all but ignored. Even if the topic were of only little interest, it nonetheless meets all WP policies for having a page. Whether it is far over the line or barely over the line doesn't matter.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal Let's sandbox it

I have a proposal let us compose a merged article in a sandbox and see what it would look like. It will be a merger of all of those things that are related to Blanchardian gender theory. (let us not argue about the title it's just a sandbox). I have a day to kill so I'll do now.

User:Hfarmer/Sandbox:Blanchardian_Transsexual_Theory (In thier infinite wisdom someone felt it would be a good idea to move this to my talk page but did not think it necessary to redirect this link.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

We can look at what merging these together would look like then discuss them. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

OK that about does it. Take a look at the sandbox. I have done some preliminary work on what a merger of all of the related articles into one article would look like. Merger has been proposedn on all of them at some point. I have done my best to remove redundant matterial. However no through copyediting for small pieces of redundant matterial. I would estimate that at best it could be made 1/3 smaller.

Take a look at that and ask yourselves does this serve WP better? Does this comply with WP:NOTE and WP:SUMMARY as I argued this could not above? --Hfarmer (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am more than appreciative of Hfarmer's effort. I do not believe that the resultant merge improves things, however. The article is quite long and unfocussed, in my opinion. Moreover, it confabulates the basic meanings of autogynephilia and the taxonomy of transsexualism that Blanchard proposed. For example, Blanchard has also written that erotic cross-dressing (transvestism) in non-transsexuals is motivated by autogynephilia. To include autogynephilia as a subtopic within Blanchard's taxonomy of transsexuals is to ignore important parts of the concept. Blanchard developed his ideas about transsexual taxonomy independently of his ideas about autogynephilia, and he is extremely precise in each of his papers to show how they are related, but should not be confused. From the point of view of someone who studies transsexuality, autogynephilia would seem a subtopic; but from the point of view of someone who studies sexuality in more of its breadth, autogynephilia and the homosexual/nonhomosexual taxonomy are distinct (albeit overlapping) ideas. It is an error to subsume one under the other.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with James (yes, it happened once before!). Autogynephilia is just one of Blanchard's weird ideas. His taxonomy that Bailey and Lawrence promote is relatively distinct as a (lame) concept. Dicklyon (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my main concern here is that by having multiple articles we give undue weight to a crank theory with only a very small number of proponents. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

However as you can see it is not a trival matter to compress such a broad topic into one article. I really tried above (I could not and would not do all of this myself. Let's face it whatever the group decides in practice I seem to be the one who ends up implementing things. This would be no different. I will execute a merger if that is decided.

Also this cranck theory arguement is just not supportable by the evidence. Autogynephilia and the researchers who put it forward have some level of acceptance by most other psychologist. Zucker, Blanchard, and Cohen-Kietennis are working on the section of the DSM which covers gender identity disorder. They would not be put in that position by other psychologist if they were regarded as cranks.(A crank scientist is like someone who looks for the loc ness Monster or bigfoot. You don't see people like that being placed in authoratative positions by other biologist. That is what a crank does.)--Hfarmer (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Merging the related articles makes them too long and unwieldy. I don't see this as a service to the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am disturbed by a WP administrator (or member of a WP cabal) referring to Blanchard's theory as "crank." I hope that this administrator will disqualify himself from any future involvement, as administrator, in issues pertaining to related pages.ProudAGP (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lighten up. This happens all the time. Admins are as entitled to opinions as anyone, and are generally careful not to make admin decisions in areas where they've expressed a strong content opinion, since it wouldn't stand. Dicklyon (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

ProudAGP, admins are certainly not prohibited from normal editing, and JzG (who is an admin, and the "cabal" is a joke) has not proposed doing anything administrative with this page, so I think that your complaint is overblown. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what to do about the 'Summary of Ad Hominem Attacks' section. The entire thing seems to tread on BLP violations. To keep it as it is includes only (in my opinion, rather biased part) of the story, whereas to expand it is both unfocused and, in my opinion, quite possible actively harmful. Nogladfeline (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say toss it out, and then any editors who care about anything that was lost can find reliable sources, check for BLP problems, and put the info back in a more suitable place and style. Dicklyon (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure let's toss it out. Then I can rewrite this all over again finding reliable sources for the whole thing. Let's just toss out ALL of the articles and start from scratch. But, only if Dicklyon pledges on pain of banning that he will do most of the rewriting and that he has to actually be able to write it in a way that is really and truly neutral. --71.201.225.194 (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I pledge on pain of banning that I'm not going to rewrite any of that junk. Dicklyon (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So basically you have comitted to never actually write anything, and in the process have to insult me and my writing personallty. Dick that is the last straw.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2009(UTC) I am going to give this one more chance. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

HFarmer, hasn't DickLyon already been forced into a non-editing stance? And participation in Wikipedia is voluntary. More important that the writing style, which I think is adequate, is the framing and content. I'm worried that it's actively harmful: e.g. just continues a fight further into ad hominem territory. In particular, I'm worried that by including whomever's claims against whomever else, regardless of notability or substantiation, then in effect wikipedia is acting as a powerful and official seeming conduit to arbitrary personal attacks. I don't think that ultimatums are helpful. In particular, not all interested parties have the time or energy to engage endlessly in sandboxes and talk pages. Most of us have other lives. Nogladfeline (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand why you have those concerns. But those personal attacks are personal attacks that have already been published elsewhere. They have been published in news papers and peer reviwed journals and magazines. Aren't those official sounding already. Wikipedia is at this point only recording what has been said and written in RS's already. As for that "ultimatum" I wrote that because I am tired of people insulting me and my writing because I refuse to bow to their point of view. I am actively trying to resolve the dispute between me and DickLyon. As for endless talkpages and sandboxes and such. I am not the only person who writes on those. My creating a sandbox was so that I could get started on the task of actually executing a merger IF it was agreed to by the community. A merger with which I disagree. But because as you have just intimated by writing "Most of us have other lives" I will be the one on whom the burden of that work actually falls. I will do it if that is the actual consenssus.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what I would even go so far as to say that excluding personal attacks like those in that section would have to be a violation of WP:SOAP basically an attempt to right the great wrongs that have been committed by sanitizing the article. People said and did some really ugly things in relation to this whole mess. What are we supposed to do? (I am refering to the ugly things done in the course of the controversy and not about any wikipedia stuff at all.)--Hfarmer (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, nobody is asking you to take on more than your share of the work; in fact, take a month or two off; with pay. Anyway, I wasn't making fun of your writing, I was making fun of 71.201.225.194's. Dicklyon (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal two Break the controversy into two uneven parts

The way this controversy has been presented in wikipedia has so far been all wrong. We have all tended to mix the scientifically questionable use of terminology, with the unscientific reactions to and all the spears and arros thrown over TMWWBQ. They are really quite separate. So I propose the following. We do away with the controversy article. The controversy around The Man Who Would be queen will only be mentioned in the article on the book and no where else. Not in any articles that are about Blanchard's theory. While in articles that are about or related to the scientific aspects of Blanchard's theory will contain a section which describes the scientific questionability of that theory. (To head off someone out there thinking that use of the word theory means "acceptance" or "liking his ideas" etc. Non scientist understand that word differently. Websters dictionary defines it as a system of thought. A glossary from the hard sciences describes a theory as a hypothesis which can be stated in some form of mathematics, which is well tested, makes predictions or suggest new area's of research. That is all the word means. This comes up about once a month on here so... I'm just getting that part of the conversation out of the way.)--Hfarmer (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish that you had waited for a reaction here before starting the AfD process.

I do not agree to removing the scandal from the bios of individuals involved in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Result of Automated Peer Review

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

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

After editing this article this morning I ran this automate peer review. Does anyone have suggestions for what could be done to address what it mentions?--Hfarmer (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Define Homosexual

Given the core topic being discussed (male-to-female transsexual people), terms such as straight, heterosexual, and homosexual are extremely unhelpful in identifying a person's sexual orientation. At least up until the point where the terms are defined within the context of those published professionals' theories, I propose that they be replaced with, or noted in-line as being synonymous with, androphilial/androsexual (attracted to men) or gynophilial/gynosexual (attracted to women) as appropriate. ( see Androphilia and gynephilia). Rhialto (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are the BBL & "Autogynephilia" articles 100% pure, unbalanced, BBL POV?

E.g., BBL para 1: "Scientific and popular criticism of this theory has centered on its use of terminology that refers to transsexual individuals by their biological sex instead of their mental gender identity."

Well, no, not even close: scientific and popular criticism has centered around the arguments that it's a misguided, needlessly reductionist, and profoundly misleading approach to understanding why some males feel the desire for body feminization and feminine gender roles, where "feminine" gender identification and distress at having to fulfill "masculine" social roles often play a major role, and where biological factors involving differences in brain structure may be involved. Instead, with BBL it's all about sexual orientation, and there are only two alternatives: androphilic- or "female-self"-oriented... and the latter is labelled as a "paraphilia" to boot!

"This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute." HELL YEAH! But you'd never know it from these articles!

Another example of bias: two external links are provided under the "Autogynephilia" article: one to Dr. Lawrence's site, and one to "The autogynephilia resource", which is 100% pro-BBL; no links are provided to (for example) Andrea James' <http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-blanchard-lawrence.html>, which would give a person who did not already have some background in transgender issues insight into why BBL is "controversial". Bonzesaunders (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Critical links and sourced commentary were systematically removed by Blanchard's coworker MarionTheLibrarian aka James Cantor [3] and by self-described "homosexual transsexual" Hontas Farmer [4]. You are welcome to make any edits that might help remedy this bias. Jokestress (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on this, I added templates to inform other editors to look into the matter. RichLow (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

They only seem like 100% unbalanced pro BBL POV because to you someone who I am sure is 100% anti BBL neutral writing looks unbalanced. Jokesstress was involved in the drafting process from the beginning and is only pouting because she did not get her way all of the time. For the record to people who are 100% pro BBL this article looks harshly critical this they have told me personally. Kind of like Liberals who think Fox is biased and MSNBC is neutral or Conservatives who think Fox is neutral but MSNBC is biased... when in their all biased and just cant' see it.

As for why links to Andrea James's website were not included that has to do with WP:RS which at the time and probably now does not consider a personal website or blog by someone without academic credentials to be a reliable source. If you are talking about external links then fine be BOLD and add her websites as external links. However they are for the purpose of WP not reliable sources.

A large part of the problem I have had with providing information from the trans POV on this is that little written by transpeople on this topic has been published in a way that would make it a WP:RS which could not be objected to. Most of what is written appears on websites or blogs. One book which is self published and by WP's bizarre standards a self published book is assumed to be unreliable. Plus there seems to be consensus that simply being trans does not make one an expert by WP standards. The very policies of WP which favor academic sources and people with academic credentials (in the pertinent fields of sexology, psychology etc.) are the reason that these articles are hard but not impossible to balance.

For those reasons this article is about as balanced as it can get. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hfarmer -- Please note WP:CIV & WP:AGF

Inspired by WP:BB, I'm making some edits here.

I quoted above the sentence which gives the impression that BBL theory is NOT controversial on wider grounds: "E.g., BBL para 1: 'Scientific and popular criticism of this theory has centered on its use of terminology that refers to transsexual individuals by their biological sex instead of their mental gender identity.'" This line, which originated in an edit by Hfarmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blanchard%2C_Bailey%2C_and_Lawrence_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=259680739&oldid=259680276), is WP:OR: I'm deleting it.

I'm restoring as WP:RS text citing academic psychologist Madeline Wyndzen's published comments which was deleted by "Marion the Librarian" (IRL James Cantor, with a COI) "(?BBL controversy: Does not meet WP:RS)" Revision as of 22:01, 4 June 2008:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blanchard%2C_Bailey%2C_and_Lawrence_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=217167232&oldid=217072677

Wyndzen's more thorough criticism of Blanchard's model is available at *Autogynephilia & Ray Blanchard's Mis-Directed Sex-Drive Model of Transsexuality by Madeline H. Wyndzen (2003), which used to be included as a link in a "BBL Controversy" section... until James Cantor deleted the whole section as "non-RS". (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blanchard%2C_Bailey%2C_and_Lawrence_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=228473852&oldid=227729642). Wyndzen's analysis strikes me as reliable, even though it's self-published, but I'm going to refrain from adding it.

bonze blayk (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As you noticed already, I'm new to the whole article. I understood Jokestress' accusation of POV to refer to the relative absence of citation of non-RS, non-POV, academic material. If that's not the case, I understand your position on that issue. And although I do see BBL theory as largely relying on a very naive understanding of the concept of fetishes and ignorance regarding sociological matters involved in the topic, not to mention the other issues it has, I don't intend to let that result in OR- and/or POV-driven editing of the article. RichLow (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I. Frankly I think psychology as a science goes is the softest of them all. Short of some mindreading technology I don't see how they can every really prove anything in the way that say chemist do. For this reason I take this theory as worth a heavy grain of salt. Most of it's weight coming from the reaction of transsexuals to it.

She describes me as a self described "homosexual transsexual". If asked which of Blanchards categories I would be labeled with I think it's a better than 90% chance it would be that one. Furthermore as part of research for the article Homosexual Transsexual I sought to get a idea of the POV of a group of self described homosexual transsexuals. Their POV was for the most part negative towards the label though they felt it was somehow useful to not treat all transsexuals the same. That's the closest I come to having a COI. Which is not at all because I had/have nothing invested in that website.

As for it's treatment of fetishes I too think that what Psychology in general has done up to this is suspect. It seems that any sexuality which is not "normal" according to our society is called a Paraphillia. In which case I would have to say Autogynephilia is in line with the rest of that field. That's just how psychology operates. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Linking Jokestress's website would probably violate WP:ELNO #11 (which generally bans personal websites, except those written by a recognized authority). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Which hits upon the true source of unfairness in this whole mess. Who decides who is a "recognized authority"? The academic world. Is the academic world open enough to transgender people not really. There are some notable successes. However the far majority of transwomen are black Hispanic and undereducated OR even if educated are still excluded from Academia.

So who decides who is a recognized authority? To many in the transgender world AJ is such an authority. Why is that not valid? ::Because she's never had to defend her work from hostile questioning in a environment where she did not control the conversation. She has never been through a thesis process. That seems to be the only difference. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrea James is clearly a recognized authority on transgender issues; she's mentioned in many books and articles as such. The ELNO#11 says "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)" Obviously, at least that criterion has been met; and more. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh brother. You and I know the only way that will ever be worked out to anyones satisfaction is to RfC, and then when one side or the other won't let it go there get informal mediation. So who want's to begin the process? I guess either Rich Low or myself are the least involved parties and should do it.

RichLow when you see this could you perhaps start a formal RfC on the "regongnized expertness" of Andrea James. I did my bit already and what'd it get me. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems premature to escalate, since nobody has objected to my point yet. Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Just to move things along, for the sake of process I object. She's not an "recognized authority" strictly speaking. The policy states "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." What is meant by reliable third party sources? It seems to me that they mean people who have been published in academic journals. A person with some relevant academic educational credentials who just maybe blogs a bit. One such guideline is WP:MEDRS which more or less restricts that to established journals for medical articles. On the other hand what specific books or journals published by a third party (not counting "self published" books) has she been published in. Not just cited in published in. That would bring her to the basic minimum level. If such books can be found those should also be cited. However without presenting at least links to those books we cannot proceed to make durable edits without further consultation. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard would probably be the place to put an RFC on this issue.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:SPS is the usual standard for determining whether a notable person is a 'recognized authority' for the purposes of WP:ELNO #11. It's not, however, restricted merely to academic publications.

The most appropriate forum for outside assistance is the WP:External links noticeboard, not WP:RSN. I'm fairly active there -- so I know a bit more than the average editor about the usual application of the guideline -- and I do not expect them to consider Andrea James a 'recognized authority'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's pointless to speculate in the abstract. If someone wants to add a statement of position, sourced to her website, and it gets challenged on this basis, than we can seek input. It will likely come down to the medical sexologists arguing that only medical sexologists have a right to be regarded as experts on transgender issues, but then again, maybe not. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

But what about the tags on the page? Unless there is some unquestionable WP RS that someone wants to add or some specific complaint other than "seems biased" they ought to be removed. The article is as neutral as the rules of WP will allow this article to be given that they favor academic expertise over peoples practical experience. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the tags should stay. The rules won't prevent a good-faith effort to clean up the problem, should someone decide to take it on. Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the docs for the tags at Template:POV/doc, the tags should be removed, unless there is an active effort to address the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Links to RSN about Wyndzen

The question of whether a pseudonymous author can be accepted as an expert on the basis of professional credentials that cannot be verified has been addressed repeatedly at WP:RSN and other fora, and Wyndzen's comment been rejected every time. See, for example, multiple discussions, ad nauseum, and then some more. The community's consistent view is that this open-call publish-all-comers unknown-author letter does not meet Wikipedia's standards for a (non-self-published) reliable source, and that since Wyndzen chooses to be anonymous, it is not possible for the community to accept the comment under the usual standards for self-published sources. Consequently, we can't use it in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is unfortunate. Her opinions are valuable but unless we can look up her CV or verify who she says she is then she could be totally made up. (I know she isn't simple searching on the websites can reveal her full name she's quite real.) So far as I know she is the only transgender person with a academic degree in psychology which would make her immensely and irrefutably qualified to dispute BBL theory. Not only here but out in the world. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The previous discussions were basically just arguments among the principle editors of these controversial articles. Very little community input is found there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My quick scan of the linked discussions turns up comments from Protonk, Vassyana, Eubulides, Momento, Paul B, DGG, VasileGaburici, Philcha, Squidfryerchef, Soulscanner, and Blueboar -- eleven uninvolved editors, by my count, or about three times the usual number of editors commenting at any RSN question. If eleven uninvolved editors is "very little community input" in your books, perhaps you'd tell us how many editors you need to get to an acceptable level of community input? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't counting, just noting that it's hard to find community input among all the noise of the usual participants, in the discussions that you linked. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Noise" As opposed to the utter clarity of letting either AJ or JC bias the comments. When I started each of those I would post a question which we had hashed out here and was reasonably neutral (getting us to all agree is why we need an RFC so waiting for 100% agreement would be futile.) If it will make you all happy then list some specific sources you want used and we can RFC them at RS/N one at a time. Though I think that it is well established by now that anonymous or pseudonymous sources are not acceptable. Practically anything else should be looked at intently and fairly interpreted and used.. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hfarmer: Wyndzen's comment should be included, if only in the "Public Controversy" section. There are excellent reasons why she writes under a pseudonym; she's written by far the most reasonable and scientifically-oriented negative critical analysis of Blanchard's work. It would be a great irony if the one writer one this topic who has written work that never descends into flaming diatribes should be wholly excluded.

Whatamidoing: I think you're seriously overstating your case.

I looked over the RSN on the June 2008 ASB issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25.

This regards the Dreger commentaries rather than Wyndzen's writings per se, but I believe the comments are quite relevant: "...more like a war than a normal academic debate...".

First, I decided to do a character count of the text: 10,065 from commenters out of 39,102 total. Dicklyon has a point here...

Here are quotations and extracts from the discussion of the correct classification of the commentaries by Squidfryerchef, Philcha, DGG, Protonk, and soulscanner; I don't see a "consensus" here.

_____

Would you consider asking at WP:RFC? This area is really for short discussions on what passes the minimum of a reliable source. ::::Its already been established that the disputed citations have been published, the question is whether it makes sense to use them in the article. A request for comment should help with that. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

_____

...the earlier discussion[s] make it plain that the whole issue was more like a war than a normal academic debate.

...

• If you mean editors working on scientific topics that are so controversial that there's a lot of dirty politicking, like this one, the safest course is to treat it like any political controversy that is still active (e.g. The Middle East situation): assume all sources have a POV; aim for balanced coverage rather than attempting to identify a consensus; if any doubt at all, attribute statements as the views of particular person or groups.
• I have no experience of working on academic topics outside the traditional sciences, i.e. where hypotheses are not empirically falsifiable. If I got involved in such a topic, I'd treat as controversial (balanced coverage, attributed statements, etc.) until proven otherwise. Other editors with more experience in thse fields may take a different view.
• For most other topics on Wikipedia, WP:RS already takes an excessively academic point of view, and I would hate to see that reinforced. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

_____

... So long as they are under the control of the editor, i consider them as published.... DGG (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

_____

• Comment Why was the result of the last WP:RSN discussion not sufficient? I don't see any reason to deviate from:
• Treat the published article as RS.
• Treat the named "invited" comments as self-published material and include them per WP:SPS and WP:UNDUE (where I specifically mean that if they are experts their opinion and factual notes are included and where they are not experts no mention is made because the article isn't about them)
• Exclude the anonymous and pseudonymous commentary entirely. (Emphasis added by Whatamidoing 16:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC) -- bonze blayk (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC))
• What happened to that? Protonk (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

_____

Commentaries in peer review journals represent opinions of qualified specialists. Journals would not publish them if they did not represent important opinions.... --soulscanner (talk).. 08:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

...

If the editor published all submissions, then all submissions should be treated as a letter to an open public forum....

Finally, there is a question of whether this is a point of scientific fact, or one of social relevance....

--soulscanner (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC

...

Perhaps it's a good idea to focus on principles rather than personalities. Is the commentary in question in a section reviewing the results of documented research, or is it intended to be about policy, social and political relevance, or possible applications of the research? --soulscanner (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

_____

And for the finale I'll note:

One cannot have an informed discussion about this topic without knowing its context: There exists great conflict at the moment between the ideas expressed predominantly in high-end scientific journals and the beliefs expressed predominantly by transsexual activists. — James Cantor (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Italics mine, just to make a point: I looove the use of the swear word "activists"; and if you can't accept that, e.g., Lynn Conway has ideas, I think you ought to... check your premises :-)

bonze blayk (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I will begin from the end of your comments. I have the utmost respect for Prof Conway but she is not a psychologist endocrinologist neurologist or even published as a sexologist in any journal. While she is a very intelligent woman the word activist is the best word that can describe her in this instance.

As for the seclection of quotes you have above cherry picking one of those conversations proves nothing. The overall result was at the time that sources that were not peer reviewed, even if in a print journal, are not considered reliable unless the person is a recognized expert. We argued over what makes one a recognized expert. Using one's actual name was one issue. On top of that having a peer reviewed citation to your name on the subject of transsexualism, transgenderism or just in psychology was determined as a minimum requirement.

Now I know how unfair that is to people who know what they are talking about but do not have the credentials, name recognition, or institutional affiliation to get through peer review. (Trust me many a lazy lazy peer reviewer decides if something is "worth their time" based on such nonsense.) Those institutional roadblocks bias the set of sources that current WP policy will allow. Thems the rules, the [WP:RS] rules would be very hard to change but that's about what it would take to get a different result.

Come here with a new source that we who are commited to this have not discussed to the point of exhaustion and we'll consider it! I would love to have a fully accredited, fully credentialed, transgender sexologist to quote. More critical perspective is needed.

That said this article cannot be all about criticism either. That too would be biased. The article has to do a few things. It has to explain effectively and understandably what the ideas of BBL are. Second it has to discuss the scientific criticism and mention the controversy (Which I believe has it's own article). Third it has to do those first two without showing any bias towards either point of view.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Hfarmer, please note WP:CIV. I did not engage in "cherry picking". Some of the editors' comments had to be abridged, but every one is represented, and I don't see a consensus there.

I will repeat what I said above:

Hfarmer: Wyndzen's comment should be included, if only in the "Public Controversy" section.

What is the reasonable objection to including this comment there? You don't address this issue, instead engaging in laments about how WP:RS just won't allow its presence ... apparently in any place on the page.

What I see going on with this page is a whole lotta legalistic wrangling about what constitutes a reliable source, with no inclination to reach reasonable compromises: OK, fine: so she's a figure in the "Public Controversy". WP:BURO. The strictest interpretations of WP:RS are not sacred when they lead to violation of WP:NPOV, which is what's going on here; the only reason there's a "problem" with Wyndzen is that she publishes under a pseudonym. Philcha's comment that this is "more like a war than a normal academic debate" makes it clear why she does that.

bonze blayk (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Bonze, I've highlighted (with underlining) the quotation you provided above that represents (IMO) the ultimate decision at RSN.

The 'problem' with Wyndzen is not that she publishes under a pseudonym: we could cope with a nom de plume just fine under other circumstances. The problem is that the letters are self-published under Wikipedia's rules, and the pseudonymity prevents us from determining whether she actually has the academic and legal credentials that she claims to have (and that would make the self-published letter qualify for the expert exemption at WP:SPS). Consequently, for Wikipedia's purposes, we have a self-published, non-(provably)expert letter in an open forum, and such sources are not reliable sources. The status, in fact, is almost exactly the same as a reader comment on a blog (albeit, by blog standards, an unusually thoughtful comment). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Still wrong. Blog comments don't have PubMed IDs: Wyndzen MH. A social psychology of a history of a snippet in the psychology of transgenderism. Arch Sex Behav. 2008 Jun;37(3):366-421. PMID 18431620. This is just WhatamIdoing still trying to control this debate and game the system in order to right great wrongs (she thinks this is about "academic freedom"). She is deliberately misrepresenting a published commentary in a reliable source because she thinks this fiasco threatens the integrity of academia. This has never been an academic debate, though. It's a debate about academia and its abuses. It is a watershed moment in the history of the pathologization of trans people: the beginning of the end of the intellectualized justification of oppression. See Surkan, K (2007). Transsexuals Protest Academic Exploitation. In Lillian Faderman, Yolanda Retter, Horacio Roque Ramírez, eds. Great Events From History: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Events, 1848-2006. pages 111-114. Salem Press ISBN 978-1-58765-263-9 All of the viewpoints that challenge WhatamIdoing's POV/COI have been stripped out systematically by WhatamIdoing and her like-minded allies. Anyone who is presented the facts without WhatamIdoing's spin can see that there are plenty of reliably-sourced articles that can balance this article's bias. Jokestress (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood what I said:

Wikipedia divides sources into two groups: "reliable" and "not reliable". The Wyndzen comment was deemed to fit in the "not reliable" category at all of the many RSN discussions. This means that the community (rightly or wrongly) decided that it falls into the same category of sources as reader comments at a blog (=another example of sources deemed 'not reliable' by the community), and for much the same reasons (inability to demonstrate that the self-published comment is from a proper subject-matter expert).

PMIDs are not magic talismans that exempt the sources from complying with Wikipedia's standards, so the fact that Wyndzen's comment has been assigned a PMID is completely irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Credentialism is what's irrelevant here. The journal's editor is responsible for vetting contributors and assessing the quality of content. This is a published comment in a notable journal: verifiable, reliable, and deemed to have value by the journal's editor. They did not publish all comments, and they edited comments for content. This is entirely about excluding a point of view that would balance the article. WhatamIdoing is spinning it as some sort of fakery, when there are clearly good reasons why Wyndzen is publishing pseudonymously, like Dr. H. Anonymous. The points are as valid as the source. It is not self-published. Wyndzen has no control over the publisher, the Archives of Sexual Behavior. If they had concerns that Wyndzen is a fraud, their editing and fact-checking process would have caught that. If this had not been consistently spun by WhatamIdoing as a self-published blog comment instead of a response published in an academic journal, any uninvolved editor would see that this is a perfectly acceptable source. Let's be very clear that the issue here is the COI and POV-pushing of WhatamIdoing, which is much more subtle than her like-minded allies. Jokestress (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The previous RSN discussions determined that these open-call, publish-all-comers comments should be treated as self-published sources. The editors of the journal were contacted, and confirmed that they published 100% of on-topic responses, and that they made zero efforts to verify that the authors had any credentials, or that they were even from the people they purported to be from.

You can always take this back to RSN for a fifth or sixth round, if you think that the community has misunderstood the facts. Alternatively (and perhaps more likely to be successful), you can go to WP:SPS and see about having the section re-written to be less restrictive in ways that would permit the existing facts to be deemed a reliable source. Personally, I think SPS needs a good re-write, beginning with a definition of 'self-publication is when the person or group that writes the material ("author") is the same person or group that decides to publish it ("publisher")', as opposed to our current non-definition ('self-publication is a term of disparagement used by a couple of admins to reject sources they don't like; non-self-published is a term of approval used by these editors to accept sources they do like, regardless of who the authors and publishers are'). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As for your allegations of a conflict of interest, I thought we had previously established that I'm the only straight, cis-gendered editor at this page who has neither met any of the principals or ever been paid by anyone to do anything related to transgenderism. Consequently, I don't think that your efforts to smear me with the COI tar brush will be effective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Your COI is related to your POV-warring on "academic freedom", specifically as it pertains to Institutional Review Boards, because you see it as a slippery slope that could affect your own research and the work of your peers. It's also clear that you have a huge problem with how "innocent children" (two college-aged young adults) doing press for a book dedicated to them were treated in one aspect of this fiasco. Your COI falls under the "righting great wrongs" category, and you have demonstrated again and again that your involvement in this article cluster is less about neutrality and more about upholding a personal grudge. That's why you are instantly all over new editors like RichLow and Bonzesaunders. This topic involves a number of important issues, but uninvolved readers would never know it because only one POV is represented. COI editors like you make sure of it, because they see this case as a rallying point for academic freedom rather than a rallying point for academic exploitation. Your efforts here to punish people you think deserve punishment undermine the goals of Wikipedia. Jokestress (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The status of oral histories before IRBs and the right of a university professor to talk to people or to write a book have absolutely no connection to any of my professional interests. I realize that my anonymity makes it difficult for you to attack me accurately, but your guesses are so far incorrect. On your other points:

• "Righting great wrongs" isn't a type of COI under Wikipedia's policies, and 'making the article reflect the views in the mainstream press' isn't really the sort of thing that most editors file under that title anyway -- or under "POV warring", either.
• My reply to Bonze's suggestion of linking your website appears fifty-two (52) days after his suggestion, which is not how most people define being "instantly all over" a suggestion. It might qualify for labels like 'completely failing to pay attention to my watchlist', but not 'being instantly all over new editors'.
• As you know, Bailey's children weren't college age and weren't promoting the book when you publicly attacked them, with their real names and photographs taken for their elementary and junior-high yearbooks, for the 'crime' of being born to someone you disagree with. That they have gotten older in the intervening years doesn't change the fact that, at the time, you were publicly humiliating minors to get back at their father.

Hope this helps clarify things for you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) You are pseudonymous like me, not anonymous. You have identified yourself here and elsewhere, and your reasons for interest in biomedical topics are both personal (your illness) and professional (the drug you develop). Wikipedia policy precludes specifying the nonprofit where you work and the sort of biomedical research you do, but IRB is involved, and that's the source of one COI. 17- and 19-year-olds who are old enough to flog a book in which they are held up as paragons of normalcy are old enough to deal with criticism for it. Your mapping of your own family onto this controversy is another aspect of your COI. It would be helpful if you would just admit your personal and professional reasons for being so enraged about this controversy, rather than pretending you have no COI. I consider that bad faith gaming the system. Hope this helps clarify things for you. Jokestress (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tell me is her name something that rhymes with "edger" by any chance?

Seriously though among ourselves we are never ever going to agree. So why don't we do this we will follow WP procedure with a RfC at RS/N. It's a simple question, the one that's the real bone of contention. "Is this by Madeline Wyndzen (Link to website/commentary) a reliable source even though the author uses a pseudonym?" What's wrong with doing that?

WP has procedures for handling these things let us follow them instead of this unproductive bickering of which all of us are guilty.

On an emotional level I agree with Jokestress on this aspect. Should academic credentials be the end all and be all of who's considered a reliable source on Wikipedia? No. What can we do about it? WhatamIdoing points out is a valid line of attack. We could try to rewrite WP SPS to be a more honest policy than it is now. No matter what we choose to do it's going to take a long time and will only take longer the more we argue. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatamidoing: "As for your allegations of a conflict of interest, I thought we had previously established that I'm the only straight, cis-gendered editor at this page who has neither met any of the principals or ever been paid by anyone to do anything related to transgenderism."

You appear to be asserting here that non-straight and/or non-cisgendered editors of this page have a COI? I hope that's not what you meant to say, because it would obviously be wrong...

I'm also curious as to why you now object so strongly to citing a source which you did not delete, but instead edited into a more appropriate form earlier, noting that a pen name was used:

Revision as of 22:05, 20 December 2007 (edit) (undo)

WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)

"(?BBL controversy)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blanchard%2C_Bailey%2C_and_Lawrence_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=179266701&oldid=179258137

This is almost identical to the text I used as source for my edit; note that this is derived NOT from her ASB commentary but her APA Div 44 Newsletter letter. (Of course, you're free to change your opinion, but... you're also free to change your opinion back :-).  ::My own take on all this WP:RS mongering re: Wyndzen is that it's being used to exclude a notable, verifiable, 95% RS comment and viewpoint, and that the original motivation to delete it (it survived for ~2 years prior in various articles) was because... it's embarrassing. "What? We failed to provide for controls? BIRTH females? D'oh!"

My objection to the page as it stands is that it discusses a "highly controversial theory" without noting at all why it's controversial; all the material that would explain why that's the case got cut out in Marion the Librarian/James Cantor's June 2008 "WP:RS"-justified, COI-driven editing rampage, including the External Links.

bonze blayk (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS mongering? That's a rule. What are we supposed to do just throw the rules out when they suit us? WP articles have to have credible reliable sources.

Stop trying to make this into a big conspiracy would you. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Jokestress is apparently mistaken about my identity. To give just one example, I haven't worked in any capacity for an organization with an IRB for almost 20 years now (and my job, in the IT department, had no connection to it). Short of submitting 20 years of income tax returns for editors' perusal, I don't know how I'd prove this, but those are the facts.

Bonze, WP:COI names 'being too close to the subject matter' as a conflict of interest. If, for example, an editor believes that this idea personally harms his/her life, then the editor probably has a COI. (I'd say the same thing about neighbors of a proposed wind farm re-writing wind power to make it "more balanced", or Winduhs sales staff re-writing Mac OS X to be "more fair", or any number of similar situations.) Consequently, I think it reasonable to assert that some trans people have at least a weak conflict of interest.

The more important facts are the ones at the end of the sentence: except for me, apparently all of the regular editors on this page either were personally involved in the book scandal, or know the people involved in the scandal. AFAICT, I am the only regular editor on this page whose knowledge is entirely restricted to what I can read in the reliable sources, and whose real life is unaffected by Blanchard's idea. The community generally agrees that writing about yourself, your friends, and your personal enemies has some COI issues.

As for the substance of your comment: I think that Wikipedia's standards for sourcing have risen since 2007. IMO if Wyndzen is right, it is unfortunate that the criticisms haven't been published by a person willing to put his/her reputation on the line for them. The fact that nobody seems to have done this makes me wonder (a little) about whether Wyndzen's criticisms are as important, relevant, or valid as they seem, at first glance, to a non-expert like me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please drop the silly ruse. No one is mistaken about your identity or your COI, because you personally provided your name to everyone before you started making this claim that you are "anonymous." We're not talking about your time in Iowa, which you mention on your user page. We are talking about your subsequent work. I am looking at a 2002 article right now where you and your colleague are quoted by name bemoaning the processes and expenses of institutionalized science. You and I both know that the drug you're developing will be subject to institutional review boards when (more like if) it becomes time for human trials. I have done a lot of stuff with FDA over the years, and we both know well that CDER will require IRB. That's one horse you have in this race regarding your COI here. The other major COI is your frequent carrying out of vendettas against WP editors who have done something to annoy you on- or off-wiki. It interferes with the aims of the project, which is to provide a balanced, neutral article. I have said for years that I consider you the key hindrance to getting this article properly balanced and sourced. I have written to you in the past privately (using your real name BTW) asking you to stop gaming the system here, but you continue to do it.

Now that we have confirmed that your power word is well-established without divulging it to anyone who might not follow you on ED, let's discuss sourcing again. I provided a citation above (Surkan) which shows this is not an academic debate, but a debate about academia, specifically academic exploitation of sex and gender minorities. To say that only academics can be cited when this is not an academic debate is making this article one-sided. That violates a slew of Wikipedia policies. It's clear to anyone who happens upon it that the article presents only one POV. That's because of the efforts of you, Hfarmer, and MariontheLibrarian aka James Cantor. Your claims of no COI are simply untrue. Jokestress (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the debate/controversy have it's own separate article? Was it deleted? Why? This is the exact reason that article was created to discuss the non academic controversy around the issue at lenth.

While this article was to be more about the actual idea with a good summary of the controversy and objections.

If that's not the way things are why don't we make them that way.

Jokestress please stop with the conspiracy type talk it's really not all that serious. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's serious. WhatamIdoing has an avowed hatred for Jokestress, and teamed up with BBL insider James Cantor to pitch many articles along the policy lines of the Zucker sexologists. That's the reality we're coming from. The question is just how to deal with it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Following AJ's clue I must say I am surprised. It seems that every person by her name has some kind of post graduate education. However I see nothing that would indicate a COI or any motive to become involved in a grand conspiracy.

Could you point me to a link where she "avows hatred". I never sensed hatred it seems like she was sucked into the whirlpool of BBL and cant get out.

For my part WAID points out rightly that even I being familiar with the players involved and, in comparison to everyone else, their neighbor I have a mild COI. Namely I don't want to get an angry knock at the door (Which could happen I am easily findable.)

Again, I have no particular hope of convincing Jokestress, although other editors may want to know that I'm not the only person in my extended family with the same first name, and Jokestress' list of "COI crimes" includes more than one person.

Even if every claim Jokestress made were entirely true, however, I don't see anything in WP:COI that any of these claims might fall under. For example, chatting with people in a bar and writing a book about what they said (what Bailey did) isn't usually part of the drug development process, so I can't see how drug development processes could be affected by it (even if they'd decided that he needed IRB approval to write a book, which they didn't). Believing that Jokestress showed appallingly bad judgment in attacking Bailey's kids also isn't in the COI list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to give everyone an honest hearing. They say these things and I wonder where's the beef. I mean the name they allude to is not really unusual. Their seem to be at least a few distinct people who come up when it is Google'd.

Dicklyon please show me where the beef is so we can settle this. Nothing I have found on my own would indicate a COI or anything amiss in this specific instance. I don't think I found everything or even what you had in mind. Email me the info/link if you prefer that (gravitygirl62 #@# Gmail.com). --Hfarmer (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

((outdent) bonze blayk with a long note here...

Re: COI: It seems to me that one's sex, gender, race, religion, opinions, neighborhood, etc. are wholly irrelevant to violating WP:COI as long as one is open about falling under one of Wikipedia's listed COIs and not logrolling or editing in such a way as to undermine Wikipedia's goal of providing a reliable free online encyclopedia.

Basically, I'm experiencing a major discombobulation at how highly technical and restrictive interpretations of WP:RS and WP:SPS have been used here to delete all evidence that "BBL theory" is in fact controversial, including External Links. It appears that the interpretation of WP:RS and WP:SPS have (d)evolved into systems with fairly complex rules enforced under very rigid exclusionary stances regarding their application, where there is NO willingness to make exceptions in exceptional cases (e.g., Wyndzen). This in turn has made me feel very doubtful about the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of information on ANY controversial topic.

I welcome Whatamidoing's suggestion that the wording of WP:SPS be revisited so that it comports with the plain-language meaning of the term "self-published", which is a very worthwhile proposal. The "self-published" label is being applied here to sources (Wyndzen's APA letter and Dreger commentary) which to me are obviously NOT self-published. Here I'd like to quote Kenneth Zucker's "Introduction to Dreger (2008) and Peer Commentaries" in the Dreger ASB issue: "I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in consultation with the author." (Italics mine.) OK, Wyndzen's commentary was not "peer-reviewed"; but labelling it "self-published" seems ludicrous to me. And claiming, as James Cantor has, that ALL commentaries should be excluded as unreliable SPS, seems to me to imply that the editors of reputable journals are morons who will publish any crank letter that crosses their desk.

Also--Whatamidoing: "IMO if Wyndzen is right, it is unfortunate that the criticisms haven't been published by a person willing to put his/her reputation on the line for them." See Charles Moser's wholly WP:RS "Autogynephilia in Women" article--he followed up on Wyndzen's criticism that Blanchard's reserach lacked a control group of natal females with a study which confirmed that "autogynephilia" can be found in birth women--I added text referring to this study to the Autogynephilia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogynephilia#cite_note-6, http://home.netcom.com/~docx2/AGF.htm

re: my POV. The comment I found most provocative among the RSN responses was Philcha's: basically, this ain't science as I do science; it's not falsifiable. Good luck getting an article arguing that perspective published in a journal of sexology!

For the sake of complete disclosure: I should note that I share somewhat in Jokestress' POV regarding the "science" involved here, and that I am a fan of David Hume, Thomas Kuhn, and Nicholas Nassim Taleb: "epistemic arrogance" abounds in the social sciences, and especially in fields relating to "mental health". (The "narcissistic injury" analysis/diagnosis deployed by some defenders of the BBL faith to deflect criticisms of the theory by transwomen is an excellent example of how the socio-psychological defense mechanisms of clinical psychologists manifest themselves.)

The truth is that my POV has more to do with my theoretical perspective than with transsexuality. On the other hand... in the course of therapy, I realized that my very early rejection of dualistic modes of thinking generally was related to the fact that the M/F gender binary didn't make sense to me--and that if either/or didn't make sense there, why should it be expected to elsewhere?

And with regard to Hfarmer's presumption that I am "100% anti-BBL": I deeply appreciate the fact that BB&L have argued for access to SRS based on the likelihood of a "successful" outcome, rather than restricting it to "true transsexuals"... of course, there's this ideological baggage of paraphilia attached, and the bizarre comparisons made with amputation fetishists, and a whole lotta gatekeeping still required... harumph. No, I don't think they get it... but I am happy about the provision of greater latitude in approving access to treatment in the SOC. bonze blayk (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We might be able to do use Moser's recent paper, although it has some significant methodological limitations. Here are a few of the points:

• Moser's sample size is "small", which the author directly identifies as a concern.
• There's no control group.
• It's an unvalidated "scale" made up by the author. (This is a huge concern, because we don't know if the scale [inadvertently] contains loaded questions, if the questions are sensitive enough to pick up real differences between groups [if any], or if it suffers from any of the other usual problems with new survey instruments.)

In short, there's a series of reasons why Moser's own conclusion is basically an explanation of why you shouldn't put too much stock in his survey, even though the survey results mostly lined up with his POV.

Additionally, I'm not sure that it actually addresses the core points in Blanchard's idea: Blanchard says, "You can (usefully) divide MTFs into two groups: MTFs attracted to men, and everyone else". Moser's paper says, basically, "[Insert lengthy disclaimers] I think Blanchard's 'everyone else MTFs' should probably be called something like 'normal women' instead of 'MTFs with a weird psychological problem'." So as a criticism of Blanchard's basic idea, it's pretty tangential. We could perhaps justify a statement along the lines of "Charles Moser says that some natal women may also share some characteristics that Blanchard identifies in 'everyone else MTFs'," but I'm not sure that this really adds much to this particular article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatamidoing: You claim that "Moser's paper says, basically, "[Insert lengthy disclaimers] I think Blanchard's 'everyone else MTFs' should probably be called something like 'normal women' instead of 'MTFs with a weird psychological problem'.""

You are not accurately representing Moser's paper:

"It is possible that autogynephilia among MTFs and natal women are different phenomena and the present inventories lack the sophistication to distinguish these differences." ... "If autogynephilia is not a paraphilia in natal women, then it may not represent a paraphilia in MTFs." ... "Although it is possible that autogynephilia is manifested differently in men than women, Blanchard (2005) incorrectly predicts the response of women to autogynephilic stimuli."

Moser makes no such claims about MtFs being "normal women".

Furthermore, the notion that "autogynephilia" is a paraphilia is central to the whole argument that BBL put forth; this paraphilic desire is supposed to be the cause of the desire to transition. "Autogynephilia" is presumed to be a source of relationship problems, which I believe plays a major role in moving them to categorize it as a paraphilia: "Blanchard (1993a) stated 'Autogynephilia is clinically significant because it interferes with normal interpersonal sexual attraction and because it is associated with gender dysphoria' (p. 301)." (In Moser: that's the only use of the word "normal" in the whole text.)

It seems you don't understand at all why there's a huge flaming never-ending public controversy here, and why most transwomen labelled as "autogynephilic" object vehemently to the label once they understand the implications: that their desire to transition has, or had, nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with their personal identity, feelings that they are psychologically more feminine than masculine, etc.; instead it's all prompted by a rather bizarre sexual self-fetishization (viz. Cher/Kieltyka, whom Bailey characterizes as an archetypal autogynephile): it's a "paraphilia", and therefore most people will associate you in their minds with pedophiles, peepers, and rapists... and NARTH, Mass Resistance, and transphobes in general will use this label as a centerpiece of their case for oppressing and victimizing transwomen.

As far as "methodological limitations" in Moser's paper--it's WP:RS. I'm not going to discuss the flaws I perceive in Blanchard's studies, even though I could, because that's just WP:OR as far as this forum is concerned... amirite? bonze blayk (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

WAID none of that matters since Mosers paper is WP RS and WP V compliant in every way it needs to be included. While I agree that what he measured is probably not "autogynephilia" in the sense that Blanchard menant it. In the most literal sense any woman with self esteem "loves herself as a woman". Do they fetishize their being female? I don't think so. What I think does not matter either, since it's not a WP RS source and it's Original research which I trust is still forbidden.

Bonzesaunders If you want to include commentaries on Mosers work you have to admit that would have to include commentaries that are critical of it as well. The idea is to give the reader an unbiased summary of what the sources that WP says are acceptable are.

As for the Wyndzen issue we have been over that a million times. Cheery pick those statements all you want. A anonymous person is just not a reliable source per the current standards. So until we work to change those Their will not be any change in the stauts of her as a source here. I am going to get the ball rolling personally. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, using a primary source (like Moser 2009) to de-bunk the secondary sources is discouraged by WP:NOR and WP:MEDRS, so we don't "need" to include it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read, the first and most fundamental step in BBL is deciding that there are two clinically different types of MTFs (i.e., not all MTFs are alike). Moser doesn't seem to address or contest this point, and the clinical relevance of division-in-two could still be valid even if Blanchard's notion of what is going on with one of the two groups is entirely wrong. (What would invalidate Blanchard's basic idea is proof that the number of clinically distinguishable groups of MTFs was some number other than two, or that there were two groups divided by some basis other than sexual orientation.)

It seems to me that Moser is only trying to determine whether -- after simply taking for granted BBL's fundamental division-in-two structure -- autogynephilic phenomena exist natal women. That is, if natal women and one type of MTFs self-report the same phenomena, then those MTFs have sexual behaviors that are normal for women, not some weird/pathological/paraphilic situation. This doesn't actually attack the fundamental division-in-two notion; at most, it only relabels Blanchard's description of one of his two groups from "weird" to "normal".

This page doesn't actually say anything one way or the other about the normalcy of autogynephilic phenomenon (or, for that matter, of just about any other characteristic that differs between Blanchard's two groups). This page only says that this phenomenon is more common in non-HSTS MTFs than in other MTFs, and makes no effort to compare that to natal women. It treats this characteristic exactly like all the other characteristics that could be compared to natal women, such as age at puberty, height, and weight.

IMO this detail belongs in Autogynephilia (where you have added it), but I'm not sure that it really fits into this article, whose most important point is the division-in-two, not the relationship of one subtype to natal women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference is the extent of it's discussion. It should be cited and mentioned here in a couple sentences. With perhaps a more extensive discussion at Autogynephilia.

I personally, well, on one hand, I can see where Moser is coming from. I have been taking a dance class at a woman only studio. Their all about touching your curves and loving your body etc etc. Which I guess in the most literal translation is autogynephilic. Love of ones self as a woman. OTOH I have dealt with people who have a transformation fetish (that might be a better word than autogynephilia.) They seem to me to be quite different. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made the suggestion to rewrite the SPS definition

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self_Published_Sources_is_worded_in_a_way_which_is_too_broad. Here it is. I did not mention any specifics of this case. I just said that the definition we have now is somewhat confusing in cases like ours. That the kind of straight forward definition used by WAID would be a good starting point. If that type of wording is used then all of the comments in the ASB edition that accompanied Dreger's Paper can be used weather the person is an "expert" or not. Perhaps even if the person is using a pseudonym. I really hope that Jokestress, Bonzesaunders, and Dicklyon will support this. It will give you all what you want the commentaries in that issue will be used in WP. There is no logical reason not to support this. This is the last stop before Birmingham people. Endless RfC's and dispute resolution have not changed the basic policy that has been the bone of contention here. If changing this definition does not work after a good honest try then I would really like it if this issue was permanently dropped. --Hfarmer (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok people as far as I am concerned we have reached Birmingham. I have tried to reason with these people in a way that will result in a change to WP SPS that will clearly allow things like the "peer commentaries" in the Dreger issues. Only WAID has tried to help. If ya'll who talk about the exclusion of the bulk of those commentaries like a huge conspiracy can't show up for this then to heck with it. Go there and state a case for a more fair policy or just shut up about those damm commentaries forever. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You've been told there that policy changes are never the right way to resolve a dispute, and that your proposal is seriously flawed. I agree. All we have to do here is acknowledge that the commentaries are not self-published, and to agree that excluding one side the argument from the same special issue of a journal as the other side is biased and unacceptable on wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that policy changes are not a way to resolve a dispute. However, the very thing you mentioned is the reason that policy needs to change to bring actual balance to this issue. The "other side" as you put it has PhD's and credentials that they can use to say they are "experts" in the pertinent fields. Where as most who are critics do not have PhD's or have them in irrelevant area's.

Unless that policy changes then there is no point in discussing those sources any further.

What we need to do is going to be like amending the constitution. If you aren't willing to go to that level then we need to move on. Find other sources that say the same thing that are up to snuff and they will be included. I sincerely do not care to slant this to one side or the other. How the rules work now is what does the slanting. Do you see that now? --Hfarmer (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"Only WAID has tried to help. If ya'll who talk about the exclusion of the bulk of those commentaries like a huge conspiracy can't show up for this then to heck with it. Go there and state a case for a more fair policy or just shut up about those damm commentaries forever. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)"

Hfarmer: you failed to notice that I made a post correcting your grotesque misstatement of the facts regarding Zucker's degree of editorial involvement ("basically he spell checked"), along with the post I'd made the day before you made that statement which made Zucker's role clear: he functioned as an editor in the publication of the Commentaries.

I've presented an alternative here, which has received no response: place Wyndzen's remarks in the "Public Controversy" section, where she would qualify as a source... on her controversial self... :-)

What I perceive here is a remarkable degree of rigidity... not a commonsense approach to dealing with issues in a an article that has serious problems in presenting an NPOV.

Here are a few of the statements that editors made in the Talk:Verifiability section underscoring that flexibility is permissible under the existing rules:

"... IMHO WP:VER's sourcing criteria (and the granular level) are written such that 90% of Wikipedia sourcing doesn't meet a rigorous interpretation of them. I'd hate to see this go even farther from reality...." North8000 (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"But the policy as written doesn't draw a bright line, let alone one in the wrong place. As written, there can be debates over what constitutes a self-published source and whether the reference in question falls into that category. Self-published source is not defined...." RJC TalkContribs 02:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"(ec) I don't think you can quantify, or legislate, common sense. Wikipedia's rules, including verifiability, are all based primarily on common sense, along with guiding principles. For verifiability, the guiding principles are that the publisher of the sourced material must have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and cannot be self published — i.e. a person publishing his own material, without vetting by a professional staff, is generally considered unreliable as a source." Crum375 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

bonze blayk (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hfarmer, what would be best is if you'd just stop grandstanding, playing both sides of the issue in a pretense of trying to fix it. Take a stand if you want to, and if you're opposed by WhatAmIDoing or someone else, that will become clear. Don't be playing the other side at the same time, telling people to give up, etc., like you're the grand poobah. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The the thing is Dick I am not opposed to WAID or you. You seem to draw some kind of energy off the idea that I am and go out of your way to be contrary.

I am making an honest effort to bring about the kind of systemic change that will allow a article that you and Jokestress can feel is fair. The consensus after many discussions as of now is that those sources are not allowed under the current rules. This leaves two options.

1.) Stop complaining about the peer comentaries being considered self published under the current rules and move on.

2.) Change the rules.

It's up to you. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you should stop representing one side as consensus, especially if you don't actually agree with it, like several others of us don't. I don't think anyone is complaining about the commentaries being considered self published; they're not. The complaint, if any, is that people on one side of the argument want to exclude items on the other side, from the same journal. If some of them use the "self published" argument, they're just grasping at straws, since these are obviously not self published by any reasonable interpretation; you don't need to try to encode that into the guideline pages. Dicklyon (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter what I believe it maters what the rules say and what can be proven.

After much discussion it is the interpretation of the community that those peer commentaries not written by people with some applicable credentials are to be excluded.

Changing the rules is what needs to be done. We cannot just throw away rules we do not like on our own.--Hfarmer (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I disagree with your premise. The rules are not the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Moser 2009

About this:

Recent experiments reveal that natal women report similar rates of autogynephilia to M2F transsexuals, suggesting that what is being probed is not a paraphilia but rather a standard part of female sexuality.

Moser 2009 is a WP:PRIMARY source using an unvalidated survey instrument that Moser himself says (plainly, in Moser 2009) may have produced results that cannot be compared to Blanchard's work. That is, Moser's results may be True™, but nobody (including Moser) actually knows that at this time. (And no matter what the Truth™, it is certainly misleading to describe this single survey as "experiments" anyway.)

Furthermore, "Is autogynephilia properly classified as a paraphilia?" is not the subject of this article. (It is the subject of this other article, where it's already mentioned.) The subject of this article is, "Are MTFs who are sexually attracted only to males clinically different from MTFs who aren't?" Blanchard says yes; Moser 2009 ignores this question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

First off, concerning WP:PRIMARY: As with most scientific articles, virtually all of the cites in this article are WP:PRIMARY. And WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed, so long as you don't interpret them beyond summing up what they state.

Secondly, Moser himself absolutely does not state what you say he states. Right at the top of "METHODS" reads:

Using the Cross-Gender Fetishism Scale (Blanchard, 1985) and items created for other studies (Blanchard, 1989b), an analogous Autogynephilia Scale for Women was created for this study (see Appendix A). An experimental item (#9) not derived from these scales was also included.

I don't think we need to debate the meaning of the word "analogous", do we? Secondly, Moser published an entire second paper defending the equivalency of his survey to Blanchard's against criticism for Lawrence.

The paper is WP:V, WP:PRIMARY (valid if no OR), and is not WP:OR. Without including it, the article would be WP:POV. Hence, it must be included.

Third, whether autogynephilia is a paraphilia, the article is in the category "Paraphilias", for crying out loud. It's mentioned as a paraphilia four times in the article. Again, to not allow a WP:V source which contradicts such a claim would be clear WP:POV. Neither the focus of Moser, nor my summary, focused on the paraphilia aspect, and either way, removing those couple words is hardly ground to remove the entire cite. And contrary to your assertion, Moser does in fact address the homosexual vs. non-homosexual aspects -- in the very first paragraph of the article, as his reason for conducting the experiment therein:

The term autogynephilia, defined as erotic interest in the thought or image of oneself as a woman, was coined by Blanchard (1989a, 2005) from its Greek roots, and associates the presence or absence of autogynephilia with the sexual orientation of male-to-female transsexuals (MTFs). Blanchard (2005) suggests that autogynephilia is absent in all homosexual MTFs (those who are primarily erotically attracted to other genetic males) and present in all nonhomosexual MTFs (those who are primarily attracted to genetic women, men and women, or not attracted to others). (The terms homosexual and nonhomosexual are used in this article as Blanchard has defined them; see Blanchard, 1989b). The theory and definitions suggest that this association is true of all MTFs, although Blanchard (2005) acknowledges the need for these statements to be confirmed by empirical studies. Autogynephilia is also present in at least some transvestites and gender dysphoric males who are not transsexual (Blanchard, 2005). Blanchard (1989a, 2005) states that autogynephilia does not exist in genetic females and suggests the analogous concept (erotic interest in the thought or image of oneself as a man, autoandrophilia) does not exist in female-to-male transsexuals.

I actually have trouble even understanding what you think this paper is about if not to disprove the notion that autogynephilia is something unique to M2Fs who are attracted to women. I mean, Moser spells it out over and over again, and in his reply to Lawrence. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just to be abundantly clear: disagreeing with Moser about whether his scale is analogous to Blanchard's is absolutely not grounds for removing the citation. I'd be more than happy to comprmoise with you on this one -- for example, if you think we should include Lawrence's critique, and then Moser's reply to Lawrence's critique, I think that would be fair. But your personal opinion of whether Moser's scale is analogous or not is irrelevant, since he said that it is ("an analogous Autogynephilia Scale for Women was created for this study"), and he's peer-reviewed. Only another peer-reviewed paper can refute that (hence the option to add Lawrence's criticism -- but then you couldn't really include that without Moser's reply or risk shoving this article back into WP:POV territory). Heck, I should probably also include Veale, Clarke, and Lomax (2008), who also contradict BBL (they found that 52% of natal women taking an autogynephilia quiz -- developed independent of Moser's -- was higher than the mean for "homosexual transsexuals" in Blanchard's study). 128.255.251.167 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• What you call Moser's "entire second paper" is what the rest of the world calls a letter to the editor. It is not a peer-reviewed paper.
• That Moser thinks his scale is valid (despite having reported zero effort to validate it) does not mean that that the scale is valid. In fact, Moser says the opposite: "It is possible that autogynephilia among MTFs and natal women are different phenomena and the present inventories lack the sophistication to distinguish these differences." In plain language, "It suits me to say that natal women have autogynephiliac experiences, but I could be completely wrong about that."
• To say that Moser's survey "reveals that natal women report similar rates of autogynephilia" (as opposed to, say, that it says "natal women report experiences that, if they were reported by MTFs, might have caused Blanchard to classify the respondent as having autogynephilia") goes far beyond Moser's paper. Moser makes no such claim: Moser carefully says (see last paragraph) that his survey indicates (only) that he was unable to prove autogynephiliac responses are absent in natal women. ("The present study does not support the contention...that autogynephilia is absent in natal women.") There's a big difference between "doesn't disprove the absence" (=what Moser claimed) and "proves the presence" (=what you wrote in the article). Consequently, I think that your description significantly misrepresents the very limited and carefully hedged claims Moser actually makes.
• I have trouble understanding what you think this particular Wikipedia article is about, if not "Are HSTS and non-HSTS people clinically different?" "Should doctors treat HSTS and non-HSTS people differently?" is not a question that Moser addresses. Autogynephilia—the subject that Moser addresses—is a completely separate article (and one where, IMO, Moser's paper should be accurately presented). The "BBL theory" is not "non-HSTS MTFs have a paraphilia." Blanchard's theory is that MTFs who are attracted to men are different from other MTFs.
• It is perfectly normal to remove minority viewpoints from articles that are only slightly or tangentially connected to the subject and are supported solely by WP:PRIMARY sources that have been largely ignored by his colleagues (e.g., the article's primary source of citations are letters to the editor, not proper papers). As Moser is (apparently) the only sexologist on the planet who supports his survey (at this time), I think we can easily classify his recent work as sufficiently FRINGEy to remove it as WP:UNDUE from any Wikipedia article except Autogynephilia (especially from the lead!). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I'm sorry, but you do not get to decide that Moser is wrong. Moser clearly says that his scale is analogous to Blanchard's. Moser is peer-reviewed. What you think of whether it's analogous is irrelevant. Every paper (including Blanchard's) includes caveats, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire purpose of this paper was to debunk the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. Once again, this is made clear in the first paragraph, which is an unambiguous summary of of BBL, and which the paper then proceeds to attempt to tear down. I'll repost it for your benefit:

The term autogynephilia, defined as erotic interest in the thought or image of oneself as a woman, was coined by Blanchard (1989a, 2005) from its Greek roots, and associates the presence or absence of autogynephilia with the sexual orientation of male-to-female transsexuals (MTFs). Blanchard (2005) suggests that autogynephilia is absent in all homosexual MTFs (those who are primarily erotically attracted to other genetic males) and present in all nonhomosexual MTFs (those who are primarily attracted to genetic women, men and women, or not attracted to others). (The terms homosexual and nonhomosexual are used in this article as Blanchard has defined them; see Blanchard, 1989b). The theory and definitions suggest that this association is true of all MTFs, although Blanchard (2005) acknowledges the need for these statements to be confirmed by empirical studies. Autogynephilia is also present in at least some transvestites and gender dysphoric males who are not transsexual (Blanchard, 2005). Blanchard (1989a, 2005) states that autogynephilia does not exist in genetic females and suggests the analogous concept (erotic interest in the thought or image of oneself as a man, autoandrophilia) does not exist in female-to-male transsexuals.

That is the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. And the paper is all about debunking that assertion.

Your quote: "The present study does not support the contention...that autogynephilia is absent in natal women." -- snips out the part that contradicts your claim. Moser's full quote is: "The present study does not support the contention that autogynephilic MTFs are manifesting a type of “male” sexuality or that autogynephilia is absent in natal women." If you'd like me to use that exact wording in Moser's paper, I would be fine with it, but I don't see how a person could see my wording as being different from that.

I have no need to respond to your fourth paragraph, as I already did above: the very first paragraph in Moser's paper (cited above) makes it abundantly clear that the paper exists to criticize the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. Likewise, the article is in the category paraphilias and refers to it as a paraphilia several times. So long as that is the case, it is perfectly fair to reference whether or not it's a paraphilia.

Moser 2009 is hardly alone in criticizing BBL. See also Moser (2010), Nuttbrock et al (2010), and Veale et al (2008). Calling a paper that's been published in 2009 as "fringe" which already has several papers arguing the same thing "fringe" is utterly absurd. And the article is as it stands a giant WP:POV for excluding all contradictory scientific papers.

As note: I made changes based on your criticism with my last edit. This will be my first RV to that version. You have had two RVs to the old article. I do not advise that you break the three-RV rule. Also, I'll add that I would welcome conflict resolution to this dispute, since you do not seem willing to compromise. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: If your standard is that any criticism of BBL theory must literally include the words "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory" to be included (instead of simply describing the details of the theory, the papers that established it, and then criticizing them) -- you'll find few papers of *any* type can be included, including those *promoting* the theory. The overwhelming majority of references in the page as it stands would have to be removed. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The fact that Moser says his brand-new, unvalidated scale is "analogous" to the validated scale does not mean that Moser is correct. It might be; it might not be. We need a reliable source other than Moser to make that call. (AFAICT, the jury's still out on that issue.)
2. Blanchard's typology is not Autogynephilia; the BBL theory is "There are two types of transwomen." Blanchard additionally says that the HSTS people have these characteristics (e.g., a lower body weight), and non-HSTS people have these other characteristics (e.g., autogynephilia), but the "BBL theory" itself is "divide the community of transwomen into two groups". (If you really believe that BBL = autogynephilia, then you should be proposing that the articles be WP:MERGEd.)
3. Moser's 2009 survey does not support anything at all about MTFs, as he didn't survey a single MTF person. More relevantly, whether his survey supports the absence of autogynephilia in natal women is absolutely unrelated to whether the sexuality that some MTFs exhibit should be considered "male". "Or" in this sentence is a coordinating conjunction; the two halves do not modify each other. When something "does not support A or B", then the proposition that "it does not support B" is true.
4. The fact that this article is listed in Category:Paraphilias is irrelevant. We cat articles according to what readers might be looking for, if they go look in the category. Putting an article in a given cat does not mean that the subject is verifiably classified that way. For example, that cat also lists Bugchasing, which is not a paraphilia. (The cat was added to this article in 2006 by User:Alison.)
5. Three of the four times that "paraphilia" was mentioned in this article (before you added the term multiple times yourself), it has nothing to do with autogynephilia. It reports the classification of a different 'disorder' (transvestic fetishism) in the DSM.
6. I have no objection to including criticism in this article. However, I'm committed to not using primary sources to debunk secondary sources. I'm also not willing to misrepresent the current state of scientific thought about this idea. Blanchard's typology just isn't getting much criticism except from Moser (a physician who styles himself as a "professor" at his unaccredited college). The fact is that BBL is currently the dominant idea in the field. It might be entirely wrong (spontaneous generation was once the dominant idea in its field), but BBL is currently the dominant idea, and must be presented that way per WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL.
7. Just because something's published in an academic journal does not mean that it's a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Journals publish editorials and letters as well. Here are the four "papers" that cite Moser's 2009 paper:
   • Nuttbrock 2010 (PMID 20559866) is a letter to the editor.
   • Moser 2010 (PMID 20582797) is a letter to the editor.
   • Moser 2010 (PMID 20652734) is a letter to the editor.
   • Lawrence 2009 (PMID 20069491) is a letter to the editor.

I hope that we can agree that none of these are properly classified as peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that Moser says his brand-new, unvalidated scale is "analogous" to the validated scale does not mean that Moser is correct." Let me reiterate this again: Wikipedia doesn't give a flying flip what you think about Moser's scale. And let's be especially clear about this, from the very top of WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Every time you make the argument that you don't believe Moser's scale is analogous, you're arguing against the core tenet of Wikipedia article inclusion. Please don't make me cover this most rudimentary of policy positions again.

Blanchard's typology is not Autogynephilia; the BBL theory is "There are two types of transwomen." But hey, looks like I have to. So here we go: Wikipedia doesn't give a flying flip whether you think Moser is criticizing BBL or not. Moser says he is. That's the end of the story.

"Moser's 2009 survey does not support anything at all about MTFs, as he didn't survey a single MTF person." Yes, he used Blanchards data, and simply supplemented it with data from natal women. This is a complete red herring.

"# The fact that this article is listed in Category:Paraphilias is irrelevant." The fact that an article is in a category on a subject and discusses that subject doesn't mean whether the subject is the case is relevant or not? That's absurd.

"However, I'm committed to not using primary sources to debunk secondary sources." What are you referring to as primary sources refuting secondary sources? What secondary sources are there on the subject of the aspect of Blanchard's theory that asserts that gynephilic M2Fs are distinguished from natal women by autogynephilia?

Finally, for your information: one, none of those are letters to the editor since they're all reviewed and WP:V, and hence citeable. I didn't cite Lawrence (2009). You got the wrong Nuttbrock et al (2010), it's DOI: 10.1007/s10508-009-9579-2, and it is a peer-reviewed paper. Moser (2010) is PMID: 20582803 and is a peer-reviewed paper. To quote Moser: "It helps if you compare the correct items." -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? Even the ones that directly and plainly say "Letter to the editor" at the top of the page, are somehow magically not letters to the editor? Have a look for yourself. Can you explain why this page says "letter to the editor" in the gray bar in the top, lefthand corner of the page, if this is not a letter to the editor? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you just link an article that we're not discussing? This is just getting silly. And it's a pointless debate anyway, since there was editorial review, and hence it's WP:V no matter what you call it. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory / Moser 2009

This RFC is for a dispute between User:WhatamIdoing and myself. I wish to include a summary of the paper Moser (2009) in the article. WhatamIdoing opposes the inclusion. The current article includes no scientific criticism of the theory, which I see as WP:POV. User:WhatamIdoing sees criticism of it as fringe science. I consider it absurd to claim that something for which there have been four peer-reviewed papers in the past two years on (Veale et al, 2008; Moser, 2009; Moser, 2010; and Nuttbrock et al, 2010) to be "fringe science", and that the BBL theory itself is rapidly becoming "fringe". The RV status, as of the time of writing, is two RVs by User:WhatamIdoing and one editing by myself (taking into account User:WhatamIdoing's criticisms) and one RV. I offered a compromise, but it wasn't acknowledged. I think it's time to bring in some outside viewpoints. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Question for the anon:

Moser conducted one (1) survey that produced twenty-nine (29) responses. Can you explain to me why you have repeatedly characterized this single survey as "Recent experiments"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Veale, Clarke, and Lomax (2008)? Same result (now, *their* TS's scored higher than Blanchard's, but 52% of their natal women scored higher than Blanchard's gynephilic M2Fs -- also, Veale's gynephilic M2Fs scored *higher* than natal women in terms of female childhood gender identity). Moser 2010 is more of a review, but still very instructive, and Nuttbrock 2010 is a critique with some new data on M2Fs. Bockting (2005) is a pretty harsh critique of Bailey's concepts and how they contradict with the actual data obtained by clinicians and goes into some of that. I'd be glad to cite *more* papers, but less is simply unacceptable in terms of WP:POV. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: I just got a reply for clarification from Moser:

Dear ((MyName)),

The 2009 article was meant as a test of Blanchard's theory. A later paper (2010) cited below is the critique article. As you may know Anne Lawrence wrote a letter to the editor criticizing the paper and I published a rejoinder. The rejoinder has additional information about autogynephilia in women.

As far as your summary, I did not conclude that Blanchard's statement was clearly false; my paper only raised questions and challenged BBL to study the question. (ED: I will change that wording to reflect Moser's stance)

My rejoinder was reviewed by the editor. I believe he reviewed Lawrence's letter as well.

As far as the other editor, I do not have a theory (fringe or otherwise); I have only questioned the BBL theory. In my critique article, I found several weaknesses, inconsistencies, and showed how the data could be interpreted differently. I believe my paper raises serious concerns about the theory, the methods and studies on which it is based, and implications of the theory. In science, BBL should respond to my critique, point out why my criticism is not valid, do further studies, or admit that the theory has problems. If I took quotes out of context, misrepresented the studies, or misunderstood the data, that should be noted. If not, my "fringe" paper should stand as a creditable critique of the theory.

Take care,

Charles Moser, PhD, MD, FACP

So apart from one critique of one part of my wording (which I will change shortly -- I sent him the entire wording of what I wrote)), he seems to have come down strongly towards my presentation of his work -- notably, the following key points:

1: He is criticizing BBL.

2: His "letter to the editor", as you call it, is reviewed.

3: Unsurprisingly, he strongly disagrees that this is a "fringe theory", only a criticism of an existing theory (matching with my section title, "Scientific Criticism").

I hope this will help resolve this conflict. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Editorial review is not the same thing as peer review. I'm sure that Moser is capable of explaining the difference to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

One, I never said "peer-reviewed"; you did. Two, editorial review is sufficient for WP:V. Three, it distinctly is not a Letter to the editor, as you called it. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Moser and Veale are part of the problem, through their uncritical adoption of the concept and terminology in question. They have fallen for the rhetorical trap set by proponents of these beliefs, which is why those proponents latch onto anyone like them who is unsophisticated enough to make this mistake (Helen Boyd, etc.). Because Moser and Veale start from the premise that "autogynephilia" exists, they play into the hands of the very people they claim they are opposing.

This entire matter does not merit its own article. All of this crap should be summarized in an article on gender identity and sexual orientation. The whole premise here is that trans women are simply a manifestation of sexual orientations that (in this belief system) can reach the level of psychosexual pathology or psychopathology. Jokestress (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

They're kind of stuck; when responding to papers, you're supposed to adopt those papers terminology (even though in this case, it's offensive and presupposes its conclusion). I think there's more than enough criticism of Blanchard's terminology out there. And I agree with you about whether this merits it's own article; I think the article on Autogynephilia is enough. Perhaps this should be WP:VFD instead? -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole series of redundant articles here that should be merged, including transgender sexuality, homosexual transsexual and others. I encourage you to be bold and take those steps. Jokestress (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I will. The topic is certainly WP:Notability, but it's also clearly WP:UNDUE. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Moser and Veale are starting from the perspective that there are two types of MTFs. Almost the entire research community believes that (to a first approximation) (at this time).

It is not necessary to adopt the terminology of papers you disagree with, and you normally should not, if you think the terminology is offensive.

To the anon: You might benefit from asking Moser to clarify what exactly he means when he says "Blanchard's theory" in the first sentence of his e-mail message. Specifically, is this "Blanchard's theory that there are two types of MTFs", or "Blanchard's theory that autogynephilia is an abnormal expression of sexuality seen exclusively or primarily in natal males"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, "almost the entire research community" does NOT believe that there are only two types of transsexuals. For example, you clearly haven't read Veale yet. Or Nuttbrock. Heck, the very conclusion of Nuttbrock's paper reads that "a classification of the MTF population, based solely on sexual orientation, is fundamentally limited." Or are Larry Nuttbrock, Walter Bockting, Mona Mason, Sel Hwahng, Andrew Rosenblum, Monica Macri, and Jeffrey Becker (just the authors of that one paper alone) not part of the research community? Heck, Nuttbrock's reply is called The Limitations Of Blanchard's Typology: A Response To Lawrence (2010). Are you even reading the research on the subject? Moser 2010 alone cites over a dozen different papers that argue against Blanchard's classification. Heck, the very premise itself requires that one believe the fringe theory that there's no such thing as bisexuality.

Adopting the terminology of the authors you're responding to is standard practice in scientific research, whether you accept it or not.

Re, clarifying Moser's reply: No clarification is needed. Here's what he was replying to:

"I'm currently involved in an editing dispute on Wikipedia over the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of transsexuality. I've been working to get your 2009 paper included (right now, the article is 100% supportive of the theory).

1) Was your paper intended as a critique of the BBL theory? (It seems pretty obvious to me, but the other editor is insisting that it's not)

So yes, he was critiquing BBL theory. And I'm baffled as to why I even had to ask him that in the first place; the very first paragraph of the paper makes it plainly obvious -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue that needs clarifying was what exactly "BBL theory" means in the above sentence. Does Moser believe that his survey of natal women demonstrates that transwomen attracted to men are clinically identical to transwomen who are not (=opposes BBL theory, as defined in this article)? Or does Moser believe that his survey of natal women demonstrates that natal women report experiences that Blanchard would call autogynephilia in a transwoman (=critiquing a detail of autogynephilia, not what this article calls BBL theory)?

I believe from the context that Moser's survey criticizes Blanchard's idea of autogynephilia. I believe it says nothing at all about whether HSTS and non-HSTS MTFs are clinically distinguishable groups. I suspect that Moser would agree with me, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have read Mosers paper at length, and like the anon I also corresponded with Dr. Moser on the subject. My take on his point of view is that the title of his paper is his point of view. Which is that Autogynephilia exist in women.

We can argue about the significance of his small sample size survey, which he himself admits in his paper is a limitation. However there is no argument that he thinks Autogynephilia does not exist.

The thing is a summary of his work, a very short summary, could be good. Anything more than a five sentence paragraph would be overkill. It also has to be neutral and not try to overplay what Moser's study indicates. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, we have decided that the original claim ("Blanchard says that autogynephilia doesn't exist in natal women") is too tangential and trivial to mention anywhere in this article.

Don't you think it's a little silly to include Moser's "rebuttal" to Blanchard's belief, if we don't first mention Blanchard's belief? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point.

I really wish the anon who wants to merge all of these articles would make their case.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatamidoing: I am increasingly finding that your tendency to make "statements" of the nature of BBL theory and characterizations of other research exhibits a marked tendency to rely on your interpretation of articles, rather than their plain contents, and that your summaries of such are unreliable WP:OR, e.g., "I believe from the context that Moser's survey criticizes Blanchard's idea of autogynephilia."

"I agree that Moser and Veale are starting from the perspective that there are two types of MTFs." Would you please quote Moser to establish this? I believe he makes no such assumptions.

And also, "BBL theory" is comprised of the whole schmeer, not just the distinction between "two types" of MTF: that MTF transsexuality is an expression of sexual preference rather than gender identity, with two distinct types, "homosexual" and "autogynephilic"; "homosexual" transsexuality is motivated by what one might call "sexual economics", while "autogynephilic" transsexuality is an extreme form of a paraphilia involving an erotic obsession with the image of oneself as a woman; and finally, when you get right down to it... doesn't SRS as a treatment for "autogynephilic" transsexuality resemble an amputation fetish?

Personally, I can say this: I would have zero interest in SRS if it were merely an "amputation". bonze blayk (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The following are verbatim quotes from Mosers paper "Autogynephilia in Women" DOI: 10.1080/00918360903005212 .

"The presence or absence of autogynephilia is considered clinically and etiologically important in MTFs. Blanchard (1993a) stated “Autogynephilia is clinically significant because it interferes with normal interpersonal sexual attraction and because it is associated with gender dysphoria” (p. 301). Additionally Blanchard (1991) suggested that “Gender dysphoria, in young nonhomosexual males, usually appears along with, or subsequent to, autogynephilia; in later years, however, autogynephilic sexual arousal may diminish or disappear, while the transsexual wish remains or grows even stronger” (p. 248).

The hypothesized absence of autogynephilia in women is seen as supporting Blanchard's theory that autogynephilia is an unusual sexual interest of men and that the desire for SRS is sexually motivated. If genetic women and MTFs both endorse the same statements and exhibit the same behaviors, then autogynephilia may not be an unusual sex interest of men, but a sex interest shared by both groups; it could be a characteristic of female sexuality. Thus, the presence or absence of autogynephilia in women is a significant finding in understanding the sexuality of both natal women and MTFs."

That makes it sound like he's not only agreeing with Blanchard about the clinical importance, but that he's saying it's generally accepted that the AGP/HSTS distinction is important. He does not qualify "The presence or absence of autogynephilia is considered clinically and etiologically important in MTFs," at all. He does not say Blanchard asserts the presence or absence.... Then he quotes Blanchards papers. Here's another quote. Their are two things that make this paper problematic to me. Moser writes. "It is possible that some respondents in the present study (genetic women) were aroused by the possibility of or fantasy about a sexual encounter rather than the “autogynephilic” stimuli described. It is possible that some “autogynephilic” MTFs were aroused by the possibility of or fantasy about a sexual encounter as a female rather than “autogynephilic” stimuli."

The a paragraph latter he writes.

"The present study does not support the contention that autogynephilic MTFs are manifesting a type of “male” sexuality or that autogynephilia is absent in natal women. The meaning of a sexual interest in one's own body (or ideal body) is not understood for men, women, or transsexuals. Autogynephilia appears to be a different phenomenon from other paraphilias, in its frequency, intensity, and duration. Although it is possible that autogynephilia is manifested differently in men than women, Blanchard (2005) incorrectly predicts the response of women to autogynephilic stimuli."

Which are both self contradictory. It is possible that his study failed to measure actual autogynephilia in women... Take a look at the questions that were asked and the answers he got.

Mosers Questions and raw data:

Questions	Number of responses (Never, On Occasion, Frequently, No data)
I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself in the nude.	9, 15, 2, 3
I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself wearing lingerie, underwear, or foundation garments (e.g., corsets).	10, 16, 2, 1
I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself fully clothedin sexy attire.	15, 13, 1, 0
I have been erotically aroused by dressing in lingerie or sexy attire for a romantic evening or when hoping to meet a sex partner.	7, 14, 8, 0
I have been erotically aroused by preparing (shaving my legs, applying make-up, etc.) for a romantic evening or when hoping to meet a sex partner.	10, 12, 5, 2
I have dressed in lingerie, sexy attire or prepared myself (shaving my legs, applying make-up, etc.) before masturbating.	19, 10, 0, 0
I have been erotically aroused by imagining myself with a “sexier” body.	14, 13, 1, 1
I have been erotically aroused by imagining that others find me particularly sexy, attractive, or irresistible.	4, 19, 6, 0
I have been erotically aroused by using specific articles of clothing, odors, or textures during masturbation.	14, 13, 0, 0

Overall most responses to all questions were Never, or on occasion. Only two of the women reported frequent arousal to simply being nude, or wearing sexy clothes. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The following are quotes from Moser's latter paper which indicate that he does belive autogynephilia exist. "Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory: A Critique" DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2010.486241

"Blanchard (1988) argues that MTFs can be classified by their sexual orientation into two basic types, “homosexual” (predominantly sexually attracted to men) and “nonhomosexual” (notpredominantly sexually attracted to men). Blanchard employs these terms in relation to natal sex, not self-definition or presentation. He adopted the term “nonhomosexual” as individuals in this group report sexual interest in women, both men and women, or neither men nor women, but not primarily in men (Blanchard, 1988). This article will use Blanchard's terms for consistency, but the terms will be critiqued later in the article.

In his review of the development of autogynephilia, Blanchard (2005) appropriately distinguishes between autogynephilia and theories involving autogynephilia. No one disputes that autogynephilia exists or that it can explain the motivation of some MTFs; many MTFs readily admit that this construct describes their sexual interest and motivation. Nevertheless, it is not clear how accurately the BAT predicts the behavior, history, and motivation of MTFs in general."

In the following he questions weather Blanchard's Autogynephilia theory BAT has he calls BBL theory here is correct. He asserts things, then says that more study is needed to confirm his assertions. Significantly he does not say that this paper supports any other theory of transsexualism.

"This article questions the following tenets and predictions of BAT. Reviewing the same data as the BAT proponents, it is not clear that autogynephilia is always present in non-homosexual MTFs and always absent in homosexual MTFs; the practice of discounting statements by non-homosexual MTFs “denying” and homosexual MTFs reporting autogynephilia appears flawed; autogynephilia seems to differ from other paraphilias in significant ways; natal women score as autogynephilic on similar inventories used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic; according to Blanchard's (1993a) definition of orientation, autogynephilia does not seem to be an orientation overshadowing other traditional orientations; there is little reason to suggest that autogynephilia is the motivation of non-homosexual MTFs to SRS; and there are no data to suggest that non-homosexual MTFs have difficulty with pair bonding. Further empirical studies are needed to confirm any of these assertions.

This article should not be interpreted as supporting any alternative theory or hypothesis of the origins or nature of transsexuality. There may be more than one cause of transsexuality; Blanchard et al. (2009) similarly accepts that there can be more than one cause of a paraphilia."

There is one more Moser paper. I am going to retrieve that now. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In "A Rejoinder to Lawrence (2010): It Helps If You Compare the Correct Items" DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2010.485859 .

He creates a table where he compares some of Blanchards questions to his. I won't recreate this one. Just to give you a sense of it.... Moser claims that this ". I have been erotically aroused by dressing in lingerie or sexy attire for a romantic evening or when hoping to meet a sex partner." is the same as this " Have you ever felt sexually aroused when putting on women's underwear, stockings, or a nightgown? [CGFS item 6]". Moser claims that this " I have been erotically aroused by preparing (shaving my legs, applying make-up, etc.) for a romantic evening or when hoping to meet a sex partner." is the same as this " Have you ever felt sexually aroused when putting on women's perfume or makeup, or when shaving your legs? [CGFS item 5]"

Finally he writes of his study himself. "Blanchard (2005) contends that “Autogynephilia does not occur in women” (p. 445), but there is no data to support that assertion. My study was a small, proof of concept study. It never purported to be definitive, although it does cast doubt on Blanchard's prediction about women."--Hfarmer (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It is my opinion that because Lawrence 2010 is part of this discussion, it too would need to be included in some form or the other. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To reply to many of the points above from different posters:

Re, applicability: Moser specifically replied to the wording, "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory", exactly the same as the title of this article. His first paragraph of his paper describes BBL theory. So even if any of YOU don't think it's applicable, HE does, and he's peer-reviewed. The debate ends right there. This is borderline entering No true Scotsman territory here.

Re, merger: These three articles -- autogynephilia, BBL theory, and "homosexual transsexual", are all just different aspects of the exact same thing -- all part of a single theory on transsexuality. Since autogynephilia is by far the most recognizeable of these terms, and is the article that the overwhelming percent of people arriving at Wikipedia will get to first (who do you think would randomly guess "Blanchard,_Bailey,_and_Lawrence_theory", with exactly that spacing, comma structure, and wording?), the suggestion is to merge them into the autogynephilia article. Most of the articles' content is redundant.

Re, Moser's questions to assess autogynephilia: For God's sake, how many times do I have to point out the top line of WP:V? The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia doesn't give a flying flip if you think Moser's questions are an appropriate test of autogynephilia. Moser does. Moser's peer reviewed. The argument ends there. If you don't like Wikipedia's rules, go somewhere else.

Once again, I'll reiterate: there are no exceptions to the rules for this or any other article.

Let's review what's been established. I can name four peer-reviewed papers critical of this theory (Moser 2009, Moser 2010, Veale et al 2008, Nuttbrock et al 2010), representing over a dozen researchers in a relatively tiny field. Hence, the article, without any counters, easily violates WP:NPOV. As per Wikipedia's rules, this mandates the inclusion of criticism to restore balance. Moser 2010 is a secondary source (a review of the literature), which is ideal and actually makes it a better paper than virtually every cite in this article (although primaries are still acceptable so long as accurately represented, which would include Moser 2009, Veale et al 2008, and Nuttbrock et al 2010). All of these are highly WP:V sources, which is the requirement for inclusion. Hence, the only thing that should be up for debate is how to accurately represent these papers in the article(s).

Feel free to toss out wording suggestions. -- [Special:Contributions/128.255.251.167|128.255.251.167]] (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We really should keep discussion of the merger or not merger separate from the rest of this or it could be a very confusing discussion.

As for the papers, no one has said that the papers are not applicable as far as I can see. Second the major work on these articles was done more than a year ago. The papers you describe are all newer than that. We haven't even had a chance to react to them, honestly I wasn't even thinking about this.

I propose the following. We go to a talk page of your choice, and discuss the merger proposal first. THEN we talk about what sources and wording will be in what articles. I say this because I would not want to do the same work twice. Once now, then again after a merger. Is that ok and reasonable to you?--Hfarmer (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that sounds perfectly fair. Perhaps the merger proposal should be discussed on the autogynephilia page, since that's the proposed merger place. I'll go ahead and start it out, and you can join the discussion. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now added a section discussing the merger. I look forward to discussing it with you over there. Thanks! -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger complete

As per the approach favored by all but two commenters in Talk:Autogynephilia, the articles Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory and Autogynephilia have been merged, and Homosexual transsexual is a disambig page.

Merger details:

• The overwhelming majority of content from the original three articles made it into the merged version.
• The redundancy was removed (i.e., each article before had to explain the background, the theory, the criticism of terms, etc)
• Cruft, such as references that didn't match up with their text, were removed when found.
• Extraneous topics of lesser importance that didn't seem to lead anywhere, such as how homosexual transsexuals use their penis and the like, were removed. We want people getting to key points and evidence rather than being wrapped up in tangential elements.
• A significant amount of effort was expended on making the subject easier to understand to a reader with no background on the subject. I think I did a good job with the header, although the science sections could probably do to be clearer.
• I tried to handle balance properly between "Justification of the two classifications" and the "Scientific criticism of the theory". A few years ago, this would have necessitated only a few sentence on criticism of the theory, but recently, there's been a lot of criticism of the theory. Still, since it's in the DSM and still has lots of papers out there, I made sure to give the pro side more room. IMHO, we should try to make sure that we don't shift the balance out of whack in our edits, although there's certainly room for discussion of what's appropriate balance. I think the "Scientific criticism of the theory" side could do to be a few sentences shorter (3-4?), although I'm not sure what would be best to remove -- any thoughts?

Overall, even with the criticism section added in, the article is about 2/3rds the size of the total of the other three, and IMHO, a lot clearer to read and more balanced. However, as James Cantor mentioned in talk, I think we should come up with a better name for it. I've seen "Blanchard's theories" and "BAT" used in the literature.

As this is a work in progress, I highly encourage editors to be bold and take part in editing and to join the discussion. If things work well and we all do our best to get along, I think we can get this to the Good Article list.  :)

Hack away at it! -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)