Talk:Erotic target location error

Self-cite
I should note that among the RS's I have added to the main page, is one of which I am the first author. This is permissible under WP:COI, but I felt I should not it here. — James Cantor (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This article seems like a tail without a head
It looks like this article collects a grab bag of weird phenomena, but ignores more common instances of the same thing. For every amputee fetishist there must be a million people who take some kind of weird erotic pleasure from having piercings or tattoos or scarification, etc. For every "furry" I imagine there must be hundreds of people who take some pleasure in being hairy or long-haired. I don't know this field, but I would assume that every group that is weird enough to be notable should be associated with some other group that is common enough to be ignored. Can you link this content to explanations about makeup, impractical shoes, jewelry, leather clothing and so forth? (I understand of course that as in genetics the weird case is what illuminates the commonplace, but one also needs to have an understanding of the commonplace to understand the weird...) Wnt (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the nominal subject of the article is "having a sexual preference or strong sexual interest in features that are somewhere other than on one's sexual partners" (isn't that roughly the definition of sexual fetishism?), but it only actually discusses the subset of fetishes where one fantasizes about oneself "in another physical form." It also reads like a POV fork for the controversial theories of Blanchard and Lawrence, who appear to be the only authors in the references section that actually use the "ETLE" term (aside from the rebuttal of Lawrence by Moser, who explicitly criticizes the term). It would make more sense to mention Blanchard's controversial theories with appropriate weight in the other articles we have on sexual fetishism, and redirect this title to sexual fetishism itself. Fran Rogers (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, these are basically just new versions of old terms. Autogynephilia = transvestic fetishism disorder.  But if you say the words fetish and disorder then people will be offended.   The evolution of psychiatric terminology is interesting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.188.153 (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's easy to explain: "Paraphilia" is a highly biased, toxic social construct; so-called paraphilias are merely socially unaccepted sexual preferences. For example, the article breast fetishism fails to explain the difference between "highly atypical sexual interest focused on female breasts" and the typical form, which supports the suspicion that the division is artificial, pseudoscientific bunk. (In fact, the eroticisation of breasts is entirely culturally constructed: in cultures without a taboo surrounding the open display of breasts, men don't think of them as erotically charged in the first place.) "Paraphilia" is merely a euphemism used by bigoted psychiatrists and psychologist in place of "perversion". The word "fetish" is used to shame and ostracise; the word "disorder" is used to pathologise, infantilise and other. No wonder that trans women (trans men are hypocritically not targeted) will have none of that and resent the association. Even "autogynephilia" is ultimately still used to shame and pathologise gender variance – it's no less controversial than "transvestic fetishism" or "fetishtic disorder" because it's only an obscure euphemism for the same thing. Keep in mind that it's called "erotic target location error" – the "erotic" part sexualises and shames, the "error" part explicitly pathologises trans women. The Blanchard school propagates the notion that queer trans women are only disgusting male perverts and straight trans women are hyperfeminine, equally perverted gay men. It's pure bigoted pseudoscience (just like now-discredited speculation about the psychological origin of homo- and bisexuality), which is apparent in the fallacious logic used by defenders, like when they equivocate between autoerotic gender-related fantasies (a phenomenon that's definitely real) and the "AGP theory", claiming that activists who reject the "theory" deny the existence of the former phenomenon, too. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Florian Blaschke, WP:NOT A FORUM. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you keep slapping me with NOTAFORUM – a discussion involves more than one person. Looks like you've got it in for me. Maybe stop your stalkerish behaviour towards me? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How in the world am I stalking you when I have all of these articles on my watchlist? You know that I edit many sexual topics. I do not follow you. Nor do I have it "in for you." You, however, have followed me, as acknowledged by you in the past. If I "slap [you] with NOTAFORUM," it's because you deserve it. We have rules to follow. And you know by now what is a NOTAFORUM issue; you've been reminded of NOTAFORUM by enough people. Instead of engage you by pointing out how you are wrong about paraphilias, I decided to state "WP:NOT A FORUM," which, per WP:TALK, is what should be done in cases like these. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Entirely, Florian? You fall in the opposite trap, of thinking that features that are normally (i.e. culture-specific normally) on display cannot (by that fact alone) hold any erotic interest. Breasts are an important erogenous zone, whether or not their normal display is cultural norm. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C85D:E443:C575:6519 (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

AN/I and Tag-bombing by IP editor.
I have reported the repeated tag-bombing by the IP editor to AN/I here. Because I cannot alert the IP editor (IP editors have no talk pages), I am posting the notification template here: Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — James Cantor (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Tags
There have been many tags and re-tags of this article, despite there being no discussion of the issues over many months. I'd like to remove them, if there is no remaining issue.— James Cantor (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Grammar error - locked for editing
"mismatched to" should be "mismatched with". 86.159.197.174 (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevance
I feel like the article should lead with some evidence that this is a real concept. Blanchard's transsexualism typology resembles more what I'd expect it to look like - it's important to note who it is that claims this as a distinct paraphilia. Kuralesache (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The source provided, Lawrence, defines it as a "paraphilic dimension", coined and conceptualized by Blanchard. Shouldn't this be enough to answer the "by whom?" tag? what else is missing? am i missing something? -  (talk)  10:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the notability of this article based solely on Lawrence being a known name in the field? If there's a good reason that the term is notable it should be clear where the consensus on this idea is. ok it's a hypothesis so it wouldn't be the DSM or a large organization, but is this Lawrence/Blanchard pair actually important for any reason? if their ideas took hold with anyone, it's probably worth mentioning here, or if they had any impact... basically at this point I think the article fails Notability, particularly on the point about secondary sources Kuralesache (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we are taking about two different things. I was concerned with the {by whom} tag only. For me, it's very clear that the concept was created by Blanchard (and I see no reason to put that tag there, is there any?).
 * Whereas you're questioning the notability of the article itself, and i agree that it is poorly sourced and written. It's probably best to extract the few relevant parts of it and put them in Blanchard's main article (and delete this one). -  (talk)  19:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They're the same question to me, because the people pushing the hypothesis are the people who would qualify it as notable. I kind of arrived at notability in a roundabout way, but the red flag to me was that it's not clear who is pushing the term as valid, and that's not the same thing as just coining the term. It seems Blanchard not only coined the term but also believes that it corresponds to some real phenomena, so my issue was that Blanchard using the term didn't actually do much to provide evidence that the paraphilia is "hypothesized" to exist. Maybe it's pedantic, I think the notability tag is all I should have done in the first place, but it jumped out at me specifically that there was no claim "hypothesized by the medical community" or anything to give the word "hypothesized" weight or real meaning, Blanchard's coining of the term seems unrelated to that problem (or, if it was rewritten as "hypothesized by a grand total of 2 controversial academics", it would make the notability issue glaringly obvious) Kuralesache (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Scholar.google yields >80 academic pubs, from a wide variety of authors.— James Cantor (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge?
See Talk:Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology -sche (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)