Talk:Homosexual transsexual/Archive 10

Homosexual transsexual "Used in psychology"?
I and a team of others wrote this article and never has this quesiton came up. The closest I can recall is one editor or the other wanting to characterize the level of acceptance of this term in psychology...never has anyone until now questioned that it is used in at least one subfield of psychology. My only argument is based on references. Look at them and judge for yourselves.
 * A google scholar search of ... homosexual transsexual psychology... turns up dozens of hits.
 * A google scholar search of ... homosexual transsexual psychology... turns up dozens of hits.
 * A google scholar search of ... homosexual transsexual psychology... turns up dozens of hits.
 * A google scholar search of ... homosexual transsexual psychology... turns up dozens of hits.

Therefore I believe we can say at the very least the word is used in psychology. We can't say how well it is accepted or not... There are two users likely to show up here who would say different things. I will let them speak for themselves.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the rub. Plenty of words are "used". That is why those of us in Psychology are continually cleaning out the category. For example, that is why we work to keep Category:Emotion out of Category:Psychology, as editors are constantly trying to put terms into Psychology that have no business there. If it can't go in the category, then leave psychologists out of the many cited in the article does not mean it is a psychological term. Almost none of the researchers mentioned in the article are psychologists, and because you can find three journals that mention the term "transsexual homosexuals" out the many referened does not mean the term is accepted in Psychology as a diagnostic term. The article isn't even in the Category:Psychology. Use  Category:Sexology or, if you must,  Psychiatry and Psychiatrists instead. Google search is not a substitute for valid research.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 03:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mattisse. You are correct. While the term has been used occasionally, it has never been widely used. It is not a formal diagnosis or official diagnostic category. It's used primarily by people associated with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, a controversial former asylum in Toronto where one editor here has worked. Few theorists have ever used the term uncritically. Most theorists advocate incorporating more complex nonbinary concepts of sex or gender, more complex relationships between sex, gender, and sexuality, and/or additional nongendered dimensions into models of sexuality. User:Hfarmer self-identifies as "homosexual transsexual," which is why Hfarmer is so defensive about this article and exhibits WP:OWN issues when people question Hfarmer's POV or Hfarmer's attempts to get this decidedly bad article declared "good." Jokestress (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But fundamentally we agree at least that it is used by at least some psychologist? right?  Jokestress you and I disagree about using the word widely or rarely or whatever.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is used by a very few psychologists, who apparently consider themselves sexologists, does not mean the word is condoned by the field of psychology. If you look at the disciplines of the authors of the papers you use as references, you will find only a few are psychologists. One reason is that practitioners in the field of sexology benefit from having a medical degree. Psychologists do not have a medical degree, have no expertise in biology, endocrinology, genetics etc., and therefore do not have the training required for an in depth understanding of the field. The diagnosis is not recognized by the field of psychology, and in fact such diagnoses are actively discouraged by the American Psychological Association and other professional groups. Why not use psychiatry and psychiatrists (psychiatrists have a medical degree). &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 14:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @ Mattisse: I have proposed many times that the opening sentence say the term is used by some psychologists, to make it clear to readers that this term is controversial and not generally accepted. I have further suggested we note that most proponents are associated with a school of thought emerging from CAMH. That change has been consistently rejected by User:Hfarmer and others, which I consider an NPOV violation. The term has probably been used in publications by no more than two dozen psychologists in the past 50 years. For perspective, the American Psychology Association has 150,000 members, so we are talking about something less than 0.02% of their members (well under 1 in 5000). The number of transsexual people who use the term favorably in reliable sources is 0.00% (0 out of many millions). This is an obscure term that's part of an obscure debate. The only reason it gets so much attention on Wikipedia is because of two editors who very strongly advocate for its use. They are outliers and not representative of consensus, but this has gone on for years because of their strong personal/professional stakes in the outcome of the debate. I have published work critical of the term, and I am familiar with the literature, so I have been trying for years to keep these editors from misrepresenting this debate on Wikipedia, with limited success. Jokestress (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am having some trouble understanding Mattisse' point of view. Although I can't say I have any strong opinion one way or the other, Mattisse' argument includes some falsehoods: As I said, I do not have any strong opinion about whether "homosexual transsexual" is a term in psychology, but the arguments against have not been (in my opinion) compelling. I think the discussion would get closer to the root the disagreement if Mattisse explicated some criteria for what constitutes a term in psychology so that folks could discuss those criteria and whether homosexual transsexual meets them. — James Cantor (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC) "In modern sexology, researchers apply tools from several academic fields, including biology, medicine, psychology, statistics, epidemiology, pedagogics, sociology, anthropology, and criminology. It studies sexual development and the development of sexual relationships as well as the mechanics of sexual intercourse and sexual malfunction. It also documents the sexualities of special groups, such as handicapped, children, and elderly, and studies sexual pathologies such as sex addiction and child sexual abuse. Sexology is often been the subject of controversy when its research findings contradict the philosophical or sacred beliefs of others."
 * It is true that few psychologists write on this topic, but only because so few scientists write on this topic: No profession has written more on this topic than have psychologists.
 * I am also at a loss to see on what basis Mattisse can say that Blanchard does not identify as a psychologist. I have known and worked with Blanchard for a decade, and this would be news to me.
 * The phenomenon of homosexual transsexuality is, of course, part of what some activists call a "Blanchard-Bailey-Lawrence Theory" of transsexuality. Both Blanchard and Bailey are psychologists.  Another proponent is Ken Zucker, who is the Chief Psychologist at his (that is, my) hospital and was appointed by the American Psychological Association to serve on their recent task force on gender identity issues.
 * It is specious to argue whether homosexual transsexuality "is accepted in Psychology as a diagnostic term." A term does not need to be a diagnosis in order to be a phenomenon that psychologists study.
 * I do not see the basis on which Mattisse can say that "practitioners in the field of sexology benefit from having a medical degree." Of the members of the major professional sexological associations (International Academy of Sex Research and Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality) only very few are physicians.  Moreover, the physicians in sexology (in my experience) tend to identify as members of their medical specialty (endocrinology, psychiatry, etc.) rather than as sexologists.
 * It is also incorrect to assert that because psychologists do not have a medical degree, they "have no expertise in biology, endocrinology, genetics etc., and therefore do not have the training required for an in depth understanding of the field." It is, of course, true that comparatively few people who plan on a purely clinical career in psychology will take an entire course in each of those fields; however, people who plan on research careers that require knowledge of those topics most certainly do.  (Conversely, it is an error to assume that a physician, whose only exposure to genetics is a course in med school, is at all an "expert" in genetics.)  A psychologists' range of expertise needs to be considered case by case, one cannot assume either expertise nor ignorance from having a degree (or license) in psychology or anything else.
 * I fail to understand your points. Psychology is one field that individuals in which individuals may gain a degree. You will find that the few psychologists that write on subjects related to "homosexual transsexuality" identify as sexologists, and rarely (if ever) do they use the term "homosexual transsexual". Please list the psychologists who do not identify as sexologists or who do not coauthor articles with psychiatrists or others with medical training. Also, the google hits are misleading, as they return all hits with "homonsexual" + "transsexual" in the same article, regardless that they are not used in conjunction. Please remember that the field of Psychology considers it unethical to label people with terms such as "homosexual" etc. Why insist on using "psychology" and "psychologists" in the lead, when it is sexologists who are interested in the field. If including psychologists, then why not include the others. This is a quote from the sexology article."
 * It is wrong and misleading to single out psychologists. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, let us consider this case: A person has a PhD in psychology.  His specific subspeciality is the psychology of sexuality.  He identifies both as a sexologist and a psychologist.  Does this person "count" as a psychologist in your books?  Because it sounds like you're only willing to take the opinions of psychologists that are NON-experts in the relevant subspecialty -- say, people that only do talk therapy with kids, or people that have specialized in psychological reactions to physical trauma.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This RfC is malformed, IMHO, I'm not sure exactly what the question is but it's certainly not neutrally presented. As to answer this generalized concern, at least partially, no one disputes that some researchers use the term but what weight and how to accurately convey the information is a part of NPOV. We don't state ____ is disputed, fringe, rejected, etc. unless it is so. Also we don't suggest or alude that it's widespread, gaining momentum, heavily cited, etc if it's not. -- Banj e  b oi   16:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Banjeboi. I don't want to get too far afield from the important issues raised by Mattisse regarding the neutrality and accuracy of stating "The term homosexual transsexual was defined in sexology and psychology to describe..." This suggests some sort of consensus or official position in these fields which does not exist. The term came into use in 1974 via Kurt Freund, immediately following the 1973 APA depathologization of homosexuality in the DSM-III. The term has never been widely used by anyone, though psychologists are among those who use it. Perhaps saying it is used by "some sex researchers" or "some behavior scientists" or "some theorists" or "some clinicians" would be a better way to proceed, since this doesn't single out any one academic/professional discipline and clarifies that the term is not widely used. The term is well-known to be controversial and reviled by the people it is intended to describe. Jokestress (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that Jokestress did not write the above without political loading, but I do agree with her actual recommendation: "Some sex researchers" or "some behavior scientists" are both neutral and accurate to my eye. (The terms "theorist" and "clinician," however, are less accurate and relevant.) — James Cantor (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with "Some sex researchers" or "some theorists" (as it is clear that the field includes more than "behavior scientists") or similar wording that avoids the connotation that a particular discipline or field condones the use of the term. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok we have a consensus on the word some....I think.  How about this?  In the lead sentence it will say...
 * homosexual transsexual is a term used by some sexologist and psychologist to describe transwomen who are attracted to men, and less often transmen who are attracted to women.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with that as we've discussed before is that these terms are used by other psychologists and sexologists to describe the opposite, so that is not accurate. I have proposed this: Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some sex researchers to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation, defined by their sex assignment at birth.
 * FYI: The plural of scientist, physicist, or any other word that ends in -ist takes an S. Scientists. Physicists. Since you want to be those things some day, I thought I'd point that out. You repeatedly misconstrue the plurals of these terms when editing and commenting. Jokestress (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You should have let me elaborated as I have below and composed before the edit conflcit. But before I do....


 * First of all you should refrain from personal attacks but I can excuse it because..... Second you are wrong!  The word physicist is a construction of the word physics, with the suffix ist.  As websters dictionary says of the word physics Function:noun plural but singular or plural in construction  Anyplace where you have seen the word "physicisists" they have been incorrect. furthermore according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Physicists"phys·i·cist  (fz-sst) n.A scientist who specializes in physics."  Note webseters mentions no plural form, which if one existed it would.  Really you english majors just have such a need to prove that you know more than us physicist...  You just cannot stand that we have such cache, what other field can get the govt. to spend billions for the sake of our curiosity? By the common rules of scrabbel you don't get your triple word score and I penalize you 5 points. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestl we physicist joke about teaching the 101 102 level's of non-calculus based physics for liberal arts majors by calling it "physics for poets". They would rather debate why momentum is called momentum rather than just call it momentum and do the calculations. [http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley It's Time to End 'Physics for Poets'


 * April 13, 2006 By Edward Morley] Or even a U Hawaii where the actually call it that. lol.  Really stop trying to prove your mental or other supeiroity to me.  It's pointless. Just recognize that and move on as equals. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (A correction for me I did find this http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physicists but it defines the word as a noun "a person who specializes in physics")--Hfarmer (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a personal attack to point out you are wrong about something you added to an article. Ask all the physicists you know and all the scientists you know. You can even ask chemists, psychologists, sexologists, optimists, or any other ___ists to tell you the plural of the noun "physicist." It is "physicists." There is no alternate spelling or version, either. You are completely wrong. One physicist. Multiple physicists. If you don't believe me, that's fine. Just thought you should know so you won't continue making that regrettable mistake in front of people who are actual physicists.
 * Now, can we correct that in the opening sentence? It's yet another example of why this article is an ongoing embarrassment to the project. Even James Cantor and WhatamIdoing will agree with me if you cannot accept that I am correct. As discussed, let's use "some sex researchers" anyway, which is more accurate and avoids the whole problem. Jokestress (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have shown you webseters dictionary in which the word physicist, and your spelling phyicists both lead to the same sigular definition "a person who specializes in pshysics."  Stop making a fool of yourlself in trying to make me look bad.  I actually like you too much to let that go on. I mean think about it... would you write breasts?  Or pronounce it physcist..s come on.  Your not talking to your brainwashed true beleiviers in the cult of Andrea here.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

← (outdent) I agree. This is a very minor point and of no relevance to the major issues being discussed. There is nothing to be gained in trying to put another editor in an unflattering light. I believe that Hfarmer's participation is in complete good faot and I personally would like to find a solution that would satisfy him. I do believe the topic is worth of an article. So I agree with him in this regard. And I thank you Hfarmer for your restained and appropriate participation in this discussion. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at my userpage... I'm a her. I am sure nothing was meant by it.--Hfarmer (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed upon sentence In the context of a implemented lead paragraph
Here it is

Homosexual transsexual is a term used by some sexologist and psychologist to describe transwomen who are attracted to men, and less often transmen who are attracted to women. First proposed by Magnus Hirschfeld in 1923, the term was used because early sexologists and psychologists thought the main difference between a male transvestite and a transsexual was same-sex attraction. The term or concept has since been used in articles by Harry Benjamin, Kurt Freund, Ray Blanchard and others. More modern alternatives recognize that gender identity not sexuality define a transsexual, while still differentiating between androphilic and gynephilic research subjects.

Here is what I think and why I wrote this....

"Sexological research has been done using these terms by researchers such as Sandra L. Johnson (1990) and Uwe Wolfradt (2001). " The words that back up that assertion are in Johnson 1990. "Results indicate a significant relationship between social gender reorientation and the feature of androphilia and between work adjustment and gynephilia. This differential adaptation is explained in terms of the different course that transsexualism takes within each typological subgroup."
 * 1) The first sentence seems to me to be what we are agreed upon. Some sexologist,and some psychologist and physicans, endocrinologists, linguists and biologists... often the same people are both do use this words.  By no means is there consensus, nor has the field not evolved to use different words to basically describe the same concepts and ideas.
 * 2) I beleive we hashed out the hirschfeld thing in the GA review. Hirshfeld basically defined the words in german, in a book which he published and updated version of every year.  At first not writing about TS/TG type people at all... then calling us all transvestitien and clearly deliniating that they were of all four cardinal flavors of sexuality... then speccifiying some people as just being transsexuals.  Other references i.e. to Benjamin specify that back in the bad ol days being attracted to men was supposedly what made a transsexual different from a transvestite. Kurt freund then took this and restated it in english.
 * 3) The term has been used in articles, books and papers by many, not just blanchard and bailey...
 * 4) The alternative terms using androphilia and gynephilia are mentioned in the lead quite promiently. Though they respect gender identity... reading the articles they do still find difference between androphilic and gynephilic transsexual subjects. i.e. and already cited in the article...

The above I think represents all the pertinent parts of this subject in microcosm. That the word was used in the past, how it's use evovled as the professsions came to understand transssexuality and transgenderism better. How terms which (at least currently are thought of as) more sensitive by some transsexuals have come to be used in conjunction with or instead of them.

The sociopolitical arguement over these words... homosexual transsexual at least... to me belongs in the article on the book The Man Who Would Be Queen... While Autogynephilia was a political issue before that book. Arguably the term homosexual transsexual was not even heard 0.09% as much let alone talked about in a political manner before then. OR they should be in the overall article on BBL theory, where they can be placed in context next to the issues around autogynephilia. That's just IMHO about that.

Can we all live with this lead sentence and paragraph as describing the term homosexual transsexual, it's use and the evolution of it's use, at least in microcosm?--Hfarmer (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove psychologist from the lead. As far as I can tell, there is one psychologist in the article that used the term. He is atypical. The term  is not used by "psychologists". If you can find some support that the term is accepted by the field of Psychology, then I will support it. I will remind you that until about 15 years ago, a pet hamster could be registered as a Licensed Psychologist in the state of Florida. The term "psychologist" is thrown around loosely. Also, because a person has a Ph.D. in Psychology does not mean they practice in the field, comport with the ethics, and can be considered a psychologist. As I mentioned above, the president of the university near me has a Ph.D. in Psychology but obviously she is a University President, not a psychologist, although trained in psychology. Having a Ph.D. in psychology is not enough to be called a psychologist.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't mean to disfigure your list above. That was a mistake as I though I was altering the initial paragraph suggestion. My point is there are other fields, namely medicine, that are more representative than psychologists of researchers and theories who study this and use the phrase. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is such a thing as consensus, which means what most of us can agree on is what is done. Jokestress would like it if the article said that the word was fringe, and crackpot, James cantor would like it if we made it sound like the word was just about to be in the DSM... Banjeboi says we can't say crack pot or fringe or accepted based on what evidence we have... You yourself said "some theorist" Or some researchers... theoriest and researchres in what.  James cantor and Jokestress actually agree on the word psychology.  All the rest of us agree at least on the first sentence., some psychologist not all... not a lunatic fringe just some. understand. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is not such a thing as consensus when it comes to discussing medical and scientific articles. Wikipedia has WP:MEDRS to cover the citing of articles relevant to this subject. You must follow those guidelines if you wish to have this other that WP:Fringe or WP:Pseudoscience. I would be all for having an article that discusses the issues you wish to discuss. I will even help you copy edit it (I am good at copy editing, even if I do not know much about this subject) if you just remove psychologists from the lead (as that is false) and follow WP:MEDRS if you want this to be scientific rather than a sociological or linguistic discussion. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

— James Cantor (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mattisse regarding following WP:MEDRS.
 * I think it odd to saying that Blanchard is not a psychologist. His having a PhD in psychologist is a matter of record; the website of the regulating body for psychologists in Ontario has him listed as having a current license in psychology:
 * I don't see the basis for saying there is only a single psychologist cited on the page who uses the term homosexual transsexual. The main page cites not only Blanchard, but also Bailey, Chivers, Cohen-Kettenis, Clemmenson, and Zucker.
 * I object to the field of psychology being connected with this term, while other fields are not, regardless whether a few psychologists opine on the subject. The term was apparently coined by a physician and enlarged upon by an endocrinologist. Blanchard many have a Ph.D. in Psychology, but his mentor was Kurt Freund, a physician who was was conducting research in chemical castration for sex offenders, he was employed by Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, he is a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and serves on a board of the American Psychiatric Association. Psychiatry does not equal Psychology. They are two different disciplines, one requiring a medical degree. As far as I know, there is no evidence, in any event, that Blanchard used the term in question. If we follow WP:MEDRS, many of these problems will disappear. We wrote a whole article on Major depressive disorder without having to affiliate MDD with a particular discipline. There is no need to do so here, except Sexology which specifically concerns itself with these issues.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse: I am emailing you a chapter Blanchard wrote in Clinical management of gender identity disorders in children and adults in which he indeed uses the term homosexual transsexual. A lot. As I said previously, I have no strong feeling about using the word psychology here, but some of the arguments being presented here are simply counter-factual. (If anyone else would like a copy of the chapter, feel free to back-channel me.) — James Cantor (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I, too, am confused by this insistence that these people somehow don't "count" as psychologists because they once worked with people that had medical training, and that the leading proponents of the concept don't use the term. Mattisse, is it possible that you need to spend a bit more time reading about this issue before we proceed?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict - reply to James Cantor)
 * Great! As I said, I have no objection to an article about the term, following WP:MEDRS. I acknowledge that Blanchard used the term, as he has posted his article on the web. I disagree that the term originated with psychologists, that it is mostly or regularly used by psychologists, and that it is a "psychological term" rather than, say, a psychiatric term. If you can document otherwise, per WP:MEDRS, then fine. As I said, we wrote a whole article on Major depressive disorder without having to ascribe it to specific disciplines. I think it is a waste of time to do that here. It is clearly a term of use to sexology, which is a multidisciplinary field. Most of the names included so far in the article are not psychologists. This article isn't even categorized as Category:Psychology. This is not primarily a topic of concern to Psychology. Rather, researchers and theorists of many disciplines are interested in it, and study and write about it. Psychologists, in my experience, are concerned with these cases in a limited way, usually. That is because often there is a question of endocrinology and other medical issues. I think the topic is interesting. If you can find evidence that it is primarily of interest to psychologists only, then OK. But I do not think you will find a psychologist working in this area that is not affiliated with a medical/psychiatric institution.   &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, every singe category in the article is a branch from Category:Psychology.  The first cat tree I checked runs like this:
 * :Psychology:Branches of psychology:Social psychology:Human behavior:Human sexuality:Gender
 * Do you want to reconsider your assertion that this article is not categorized under Category:Psychology? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, No. Um, everything in Category:Social sciences is included under that reasoning. Um, I'm just glad it doesn't, um, show up in Psychology. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the thing about WP med RS is that I think the psychiatry/psychology thing is a sort of grey area... Any psychologist worth a salt now knows that when it comes down to brass tax...the mind/brain is chemical/physical interactions. Interactions which can be studied from any number of perspectives.  Some works, like, for instance, Smith 2005 have a psychologist, psychiatrist etc involved.  Mattisse consider a reference like this one and look at the people involved and what they did...




 * As you can see we have a psychiatrist, working with a psychologist (Those are just the top two authors, you can check the article and see that there were a number of other specialist who contributed to this). Who did the work at institutes, of psychology, psychiatry, and endocrinology, then published in a journal of endocrinology... You will note this finding of this research team...
 * "Indeed, in transsexuals, cross-sex hormone treatment inducesundefinedchanges in behavior and cognitive performance on tests thatundefinedare known to manifest differences between males and females.undefinedIn MFs, 3 months of estrogen addition and testosterone suppressionundefinedresulted in a decline in anger and aggression proneness, sexualundefinedarousal, sexual desire, and spatial ability (usually males outperformundefinedfemales) and in an increase in verbal fluency (usually femalesundefinedoutperform males) (24, 26, 27)"
 * Though the words homosexual transsexual do not appear, one of those references is "Van Goozen SHM, Slabbekoorn D, Gooren LJG, Sanders G & Cohen-Kettenis PT. Organizing and activating effects of sex hormones in homosexual transsexuals. Behavioral Neuroscience 2002 116 982–988. http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=10.1037%2F0735-7044.116.6.982&link_type=DOI [CrossRef]]cgi/external_ref?access_num=000179691300005&link_type=ISI [ISI][Medline]."
 * Mattisse would you call the above references psychological, psychological, endocrinological, or some combination of all of those things?.--Hfarmer (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Study of these issues is multidisciplinary. I am not denying that psychologists are involved. I have been involved at various times in my career. I object to the formalization of "homosexual transsexual" as a "psychological term". I do not mind its use as a descriptive term if its meaning is agreed upon by the researchers using it. Psychology is inordinately sensitive to public perception and condemnation over issues involving sex. About 10 years or so ago, a perfectly sound methodological study was published in an American Psychological Association journal showing that in a sample of adults who were "sexually abused" as children, most did not have pathological effects lasting into adulthood. The negative public reaction to this one study was so great, accusing APA of condoning child sexual abuse,  that  APA apologized for the study and instituted procedures to prevent a recurrence of such publications. Can you imagine, in another discipline,  a scientific article  on a methodologically sound study  being withdrawn because the public did not like the outcome?  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I can. In biology some places still teach creationism over evolution... because the people involved don't identify as the upright walking naked ape's we all essentially are according to Darwin et al. Or in physics/energy policy why not make every mode of transport in the USA electrical and power it all with 100 more nuclear plants?  Public opinion.  This controversy is kind of like that.  Right now Jokestress says she would like it if we called "homosexual transsexual" deprecated...and declared androphilic male to female to be better... in ten years androphillic may not sound good because them it's too focused on liking men...or some such... It just goes on and on.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As a professional person, there are many terms in my field that the persons labeled with the terms don't like. That is only relevant to a degree. People don't like the term "Borderline personality disorder". Many professionals don't like the term either, but it will not be changed because those so labeled don't like it. If it is changed, it will be changed because professionals don't feel it is properly descriptive of the condition, and the name would be changed to be more be more accurately reflective. I don't know what Jokestress's investment in this particular term, the article's title, is. But neither "homosexual" nor "transsexual" is a derogatory term, to my knowledge. So I am not clear why the combination of the terms should offend. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 02:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, the transwomen will (I believe) eventually be successful in getting the term killed because they don't like its reference to themselves as men that are attracted to other men. Some of the proponents of the concept (many of whom avoid or apologize for the term) seem to think that transwomen are significantly male, but I suspect that these "neurobiological technicalities" will be considered less important than not needlessly offending transwomen.  There are, after all, other ways of describing this group that are equally accurate and less offensive.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree to an extent. This will be cyclical though.  At one point in time long long ago, homosexual transsexual was not offensive, now it seems that to many it is.  Flash forward 20 years and after the term androphilic transsexual has had time to gather some baggage... it too will be offensive.  What is more interesting is what will become of the underlying concept?  The concept that it makes a difference weather a transsexual is congenitally and terminally androphilic, or not.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

arb break

 * There seem to be few, if any, sources outside of Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence and Zucker in the last 20 years that actually use this term. Is there actually any evidence it is still used in the way presented in this article outside of that small circle? (I'm unclear on the Smith et al. reference - they refer to "homosexual transsexuals" as having been married - which would suggest they use it to refer to someone who is homosexual according to their gender identity post-transition, not pre-transition as is the case with this article.) All four of the people mentioned have been discredited, had to resign from posts due to investigations and/or been attacked by their peers for bad work. The lead paragraph should probably indicate that it was a phrase used by psychologists etc - it was certainly in use by Benjamin and his peers, but the world has moved on and the phrase is considered archaic and offensive nowadays. ~ Excesses ~  (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You asked for evidence that this term is used outside of Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence and Zucker. Here it is.






 * That's just two in the last 20 years who are not any of the people you mentioned. That is just what is in this article already. I did a Gooogle Scholar search resitrcted to the term "homosexual transsexual" without blanchard bailey zucker or lawrence, restricted to the dates 1989-2009  There are 42 hits.  Now some of them are not exact matches.  But two that I found in this way, using google scholar are.  [The transsexual syndrome in males: Primary transsexualism http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7_RUsd-lvyUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA110&dq=+%22homosexual+transsexual%22+-Blanchard+-zucker+-bailey+-lawrence&ots=yNORAjNsIS&sig=1Dzz6F_8ZjE3g9NgAIzWr0cuLPU] dated by Google Scholar to 1989.  Homosexuality in families of boys with early effeminate behavior: An epidemiological study B Zuger - Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1989 - Springer.  Those are just two which I cared to point out of a long list.


 * The point is there is evidence of this being used outside of that small circle in the last 20 years. As for claiming that all four of the people you mention hainvng been discredited.  There is the fact that Blanchard and Zucker have enough of the professional respect of their peers to be appointed to the working groups which will write the portion s of the DSM which deal with gender issues and such.  Which as the link I have provided demonstrates some people are up at arms about that.  This proves that Blanchard and Zucker are not discredited by their peers at all.  Though this at the same time does not mean that their ideas are genenerally accepted.  The above refutes the assertion that these terms are archaic, or that Balanchard Bailey etc are discredited.


 * Now it falls to you Excesses to provide sources which say that this term is archaic, and/or that the people who use it are discredited.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ~ Excesses ~ is making good points. Please remember, you must consider WP:MEDRS. You must show not only does a majority of the scientific community involved in this subject use the term, but that they use it in a technical sense, as a term, and not merely that they use the two words together. Also, it seems that there are other terms that mean the same thing, so perhaps this article should be merged with one of the others. Or else, rename the article "Controvery over the term homosexual transsexual. A Google search does not measure scientific relevance. Do a search for "good night". That gets 131,000,000 Google hits.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, the context of the Smith et al. quote in relation to marriage suggests they may be referring to "homosexual transexuals" in relation to their post-transition sexuality, which is the opposite sense to this article. The MacFarlane article is 25 years old and, unless you have access to the full article, we have no way of establishing how the phrase "homosexual transsexual" is used within it. I accept your point on Zucker and Blanchard - I would not regard the APA DSM-V working groups as any form of endorsement of anyone given their troubled history, but that's definite WP:POV. ~ Excesses ~  (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect to smith et al this is what they say on the second page of their text..
 * "In the present study, the terms homosexual and heterosexual refer to erotic attraction to members of the same or the opposite biological sex, respectively." (page 2 column 1 of the PDF which is linked and you can download)
 * Also mattise, I was not trying to say that the term is used by the majority or a minority. It was excesses who was asserting that only sexologists x,y,z used it.  I proved that more than that small group used it by showing that a larger circle than them used it.  To call something archaic and the people who use it discredited there have to be reliable sources for that as well. --Hfarmer (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by Smith et al. The abstract states: ...a lower percentage of the homosexual transsexuals reported being (or having been) married and sexually aroused while cross-dressing. This doesn't make any sense, in 2005 if someone was married they have to have been heterosexual according to their pre-transition gender identity, which is at odds with what they state on page 2. This is in complete contradiction to their use of language at the top of the first column on page 3 which is referring to married "nonhomosexual" transsexuals. The article cites 2004 and 2005 work, so it's definitely contemporary and not just a recent reprint of something old either. Does this indicate confusion in the use of the term by the journal that, or that the journal rejected the use of the term "homosexual transexual" to mean what the authors used it for?
 * Perhaps for the lead, "Homosexual Transsexual is a term used by some scientists and doctors but one that is regarded as potentially controversial and because of this and a potential to cause confusion, one that is falling into disuse...". I believe we probably have enough evidence to back the use of the phrase "potentially controversial" and it certainly doesn't appear to be used as much as it was? Renaming the article as Mattisse suggested seems too much - there's no doubt the phrase was used extensively in respected academic circles for many years. ~ Excesses ~  (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, following up on my comment immediately above - I've been playing with Google scholar. The cut-off date for the use of the phrase "homosexual transsexual" seems to be about 1990-1991, there are a few references for those years so it would seem to be about 18 years ago the phrase fell into general disuse. I didn't exclude BBL&Z when searching as I figured that might remove legitimate work that referenced them - I was quite surprised by the results. Most of the hits are "...blah, homosexual, transsexual, blah" - i.e. part of a list so one has to filter out the cruft fairly heavily. Smith et al seems to be the only one using the term recently that I could find and verify - I checked the journal it's published in and it's peer reviewed but the abstract is supposed to have been written at the same time the article was submitted by the authors so who knows how the confusion crept in. What surprised me was the number of papers in there that are basically highly critical reviews of TMWWBQ in particular and references to "homosexual transsexual" being confusing - I knew the scientific community wasn't too fond of Bailey but I hadn't realised how much so! From what I can see the term has stopped being used because it's confusing rather than offensive as there wasn't much of a trans rights movement in the 1980s to object to it's use. The backlash has come later and is mostly focused on TMWWBQ's use of the term and BBL&Z. ~ Excesses ~  (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you share with us the URL of how you did your search. Where did you place the cutoff dates?  Because with what you are saying about I am basically a liar.  Whereas I can present the evidence  of these words being used in sexology not by BBL and Z not in reaction to TMWWBQ as you demanded.  Furthermore the assertion that even Blanchard ann Bailey have not used the term since 1990-91 is patent nonsense WP:PN. Anyone who does a cursory and casual google search would see that. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My search was this one. We can't assume that if we have not had sight of the original paper or book extract that it's using the term "homosexual transsexual" in the same way as this article - of the ones we can see, many fall into the category of critiques of TMWWBQ or lists that happen to include the words homosexual and transsexual next to each other. I didn't intend to assert that Blanchard and Bailey hadn't used the term since 1991 - clearly Bailey has as it's used in TMWWBQ. Sorry if I gave that impression. ~ Excesses ~  (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so, the work in 2005 from Smith et al uses the term just as it is used in the article. In that article many of Blanchard's assertions are tested and found to be true in regards homosexual transsexuals.  (Blanchard's more controversial assertions deal with non-homosexual transexuals. Who he claims are motivated by Autogynephilia.  Aside from psychich power I don't see how one can really know for 100% certain if such a thing was true of any given transsexual.) To declare the word to be archaic, or current, accepted or rejected we need sources that claim that,  We can't just do a buch of OR and use that OR to make the declaration ourselves. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that in the Google Scholar search as well. Browsing through the hits, there seem to be few usages of "homosexual transsexual" as Blanchard, et al., use it.  As you said, most seem to be part of lists, where the words homosexual and transsexual are separated by a comma.  --Cornince (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

another
I also think psychologist should be removed from the lead, as it gives too strong a link to the discipline, immpling greater acceptance. "some sexologists and other theorists" or something would be fine. Also, *ist words pluralise with an -s.YobMod 09:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all who have weighed in. As I have been stating for years, this term is controversial, confusing, archaic, and not widely used. The term was not "proposed" or "coined" by Hirschfeld (his "transvestiten" terminology further confuses matters) and is vehemently opposed by transsexual people as a group. Hfarmer and James Cantor have personal and professional reasons they do not want the article to reflect these facts. The term has rarely been used outside of the Archives of Sexual Behavior and is used almost exclusively by sexologists who work with James Cantor. As the verbosity above indicates, this quickly turns into a forum unless we adhere strictly to a discussion of sourced content for inclusion. I have stated for a long time that conflating this controversial term and the phenomenon of transgender sexuality, specifically transmen attracted to women and transwomen attracted to men, is a key reason this article remains so unstable. "Homosexual" has been around since 1869 (Benkert). "Transsexualismus" was used by Hirschfeld in 1923 to describe what is currently called intersex and has been around in its present definition since 1949 (Cauldwell). "Homosexual transsexual" has been around since 1974 (Freund). The phenomena they describe have been around throughout recorded history. It is these 19th- and 20th-century medicalized conceptualizations that are controversial. A small but vocal group of disease-mongerers perpetuates this debate, while most progressive theorists see all of this stuff as a classic example of iatrogenic artifact. Jokestress (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be equally accurate to say that you have "personal and professional reasons" for wanting to see the term discredited, but could we perhaps focus a little more on the content, and a little less on trying to marginalize and disparage individual editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree as well. The fact is the people we cite through the article who use the word are psychologists. Saying that some psychologists use the word does not imply acceptance.  That implication is read into the words by you. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed resolutions
Ok here is what I am going to do. If anyone objects it can always be undone. In the body of the article I have made the change based on other discussions that this is what the article will say. Please look at how these play in the context of the article. Thankyou.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The concept originated with Magnus Hirschfeld, but not the term (since he was not using english).
 * The term was "defined by Kurt Freund and is used by some sexologists and psychologists.

HT vs PTS
Do we know whether Richard Docter's "Primary Transsexual Class" is generally regarded as the same thing as HT (with, obviously, a much less offensive name)? It doesn't seem a perfect match to me, but my opinion isn't important. (This unreliable source asserts they're essentially the same.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove that for now. But I am sure I can find a reliable source for that sort of comparison.  A paper by Blanchard.  I just don't feel up to it right now (see my user page).  But that is a minor point.


 * You are not the only one to see that. Much of the white hot hatred that seems to flow around this word, and those to whom it is applied/apply it to themselves/look like it might apply to them flows from that history.  There was a time when if a MTF transsexual was not androphillic they would not recieve official medical assistance in transition.  There are some who fear that this sort of language could bring back that state of affairs.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "True" and "primary," etc. are considered equally problematic but are not really notable as separate controversies. Things are moving toward "a preferred alternative to a collection of terms applied by the medical community: transsexual, primary transsexual, secondary transsexual, marginal transsexual, transvestite, fetishistic transvestite, and so on, ad nauseam. The explicit agenda behind adoption of the term enatils (a) a voicing of unity intended to supersede the analytical slicing that has heretofore prevailed, (b) the replacement of a series of somewhat pejorative terms with one designed to be TG-positive, and most significantly for our purposes here, (c) a deliberate act of naming oneself, establishing a new identity in so doing." "True," "primary" and all that are even more out of use than "homosexual," but "homosexual" is the most notable of all these problematic taxonomies/terminologies. Jokestress (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What may eventually happen in the real world is a WP:CRYSTAL issue, so what "things are moving toward" is pretty much irrelevant. We're trying to document where things are, not where they will probably be.
 * A compare-and-contrast approach to the various terms is highly appropriate for this particular article, as it helps place this concept in the appropriate context for the reader. If they're basically the same concepts, but with different authors preferring different words, then we should say so.  If there are material distinctions, then we should name them (so that the reader doesn't make inappropriate assumptions).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned more than a few times, all that compare and contrast should go under classification of transsexuals. Jokestress (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also a danger that such comparing and contrasting could border on OR and Syntyh no matter where it's put. Maybe WAID you could write up what you have in mind... So we can look at it.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify something for me
Jokestress What do you mean by "Things are moving toward "a preferred alternative to a collection of terms applied by the medical community: transsexual, primary transsexual, secondary transsexual, marginal transsexual, transvestite, fetishistic transvestite, and so on, ad nauseam. The explicit agenda behind adoption of the term enatils (a) a voicing of unity intended to supersede the analytical slicing that has heretofore prevailed, (b) the replacement of a series of somewhat pejorative terms with one designed to be TG-positive, and most significantly for our purposes here, (c) a deliberate act of naming oneself, establishing a new identity in so doing."" In citing this do you mean for us to write this article in anticipation of something that has not yet happend? --Hfarmer (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whenever WhatamIdoing needs something else explained, I try to explain it to her. She had a question about "primary transsexual" and was under the mistaken assumption that a hierarchical naming scheme of first- and second-class citizens was "much less offensive," which is not the case. I explained and provided a quotation. Transgender is a preferred alternative to a collection of terms applied by the medical community: transsexual, primary transsexual, secondary transsexual, marginal transsexual, transvestite, fetishistic transvestite, and so on, ad nauseam. The explicit agenda behind adoption of the term entails (a) a voicing of unity intended to supersede the analytical slicing that has heretofore prevailed, (b) the replacement of a series of somewhat pejorative terms with one designed to be TG-positive, and most significantly for our purposes here, (c) a deliberate act of naming oneself, establishing a new identity in so doing. All of this can be discussed at classification of transsexuals or transgender sexuality. I cited that passage here to help WhatamIdoing try to understand the bigger picture than "what is the alternative term," which is a fixation unique to a very specific type of person who can't see the big picture. The article should explain that all of these classifications and taxonomies and naming schemes have significant problems. They appeal to wannabes and the "experts" who love them. Jokestress (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. I was just trying to understand what you are saying.  See my talk page and understand the state I am currently in (Basically I had four teeth pulled and I'm on painkillers.  I'm not as sharp as usual.)  So transgender is the preferred term.  That was not made clear before.  You just say things are moving towards a preferred term... then go into the quote.  I would be agreeable to such a turn of events, heck I would like it if our society had a third gender and could understand us in that manner.  But it does not.  Whats more is transgender has under it's umbrella everything from drag queens and cross dressers to transsexuals (pre, post, and non operative).  There are plenty of people under that umberella who like their separate identity as CD DQ or TS and get really defensive about them. I.e. I am sure you have known some post-op transsexuals who think that a transsexual who is non-op is really just a "trangedered" full time drag qeen or something.
 * It is folly to take this psychological theory or that, and take it's taxonomy and make an identity of it. Scientist will theorize and analyse as they will.  Identity cannot depend on the temperments of the scientific establishment. (You may point out tk.us as violating what I just wrote.  But recall they do not take HSTS as a self identity, the repudaite the whole concept of a group self idenity.)
 * The only thing that is important for this article really is this point. Should this article explain every problem there is with taxonomies in general, or is it enough that another article can go into those generalities?  This article disucsses in great detail the problems that all kinds of detractors have with this term.  Which is great.  Making this or any one artilce just a sounding board for all that the TG/TS community thinks is wrong with psychology and sexology wouldn't be inline with WP policies.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And it was a helpful explanation.
 * It seems to me that parents with disabled children were there more than 20 years ago, and settled on 'special needs', and then 'developmental disabilities' as the preferred terms, even if the problems aren't developmental in nature. They liked the group unity, the self-description, and the elimination of words that had been used as insults when they were kids.  ('Special needs', of course, went out the door the minute the first kid cracked a joke about "What are you, specially abled or something?", but it's harder to use DD as an insult, so it's stuck.)
 * If you're in the bigger groups, like Down syndrome, you can benefit politically from creating a big tent: you're helping "all the children" (about one in eight, if you use reasonably nonrestrictive definitions), with particular benefit to your own situation.
 * Unfortunately, it doesn't work in the research world, because a person with, say, Treacher Collins syndrome has remarkably different needs than a kid with, say, congenital rubella syndrome. The result is that common, descriptive, and above all, specific labels that are used among professionals -- I'm thinking here of mental retardation, but there are several terms -- are absolute anathema to parts of the community, and trivially accepted in the professional world.  (I remember telling a newbie physician to find a new word for "retardation" before she spoke to any more patients:  she had no idea that it was seriously offensive to some people.)  Somehow, researchers are supposed to cure "that which cannot be named".
 * So: we have a term used to describe a specific subset of people with gender variance, and it's used by professionals and loathed by some parts of the community (particularly by the other parts of the community, who lose out politically when the group is fragmented and who don't benefit medically from any work that is specific to the one condition).  This situation isn't very surprising, but it's not a sufficient reason to limit this article solely to the use of the two words.  Even the "MR" article does better than that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel where you are coming from. It would be nice if the TS/TG community could let go of the notion that somehow diagnostic slicing, in this day and age, makes a difference.  Historically one slice got better treatment than the other the slice that would meet the heteronormative expectations of the care givers after transition...  But that's not the way things are now.  Blanchard claims in places that he stayed away from the primary/secondary type of taxonomy precisely because of that problem.
 * As for wanting to write of primary transsexual as being somehow equivalent to homosexual transsexual what you need is a source. Someone who Jokestress had argued should be a source thinks the same thing you seem to.  We need to find a WP:V, WP:RS source which will say what Madeline Wyndzen wrote:
 * "The distinction applies to both female-to-male (FtM) and male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals. Primary transsexuals usually behave like their target sex from childhood. They usually feel they are or should be members of the 'opposite' sex before puberty. Primary transsexuals rarely waver in their conviction that they are/should be a member of their target sex. If they do waver and try to conform to their biological sex's gender role, they don't do very well 	(exp: at best a primary MtF transsexual can appear not quite so feminine ... 	but she probably doesn't ever appear masculine). Most often primary transsexuals are sexually attracted to their biological sex 	(exp: a primary FtM transsexual is most likely attracted to women). Primary transsexuals are either living as their target sex (i.e. F for MtF & M for FtM) 	or requesting sex reassignment surgery (SRS) by roughly 25 years old. With very supportive parents they sometimes even have SRS at 18. Primary MtF transsexuals are usually *really* feminine and primary FtM transsexuals are *really* masculine. You can see a prototypical example of a primary MtF transsexual in the movie 'Ma Vie en Rose' 	or a prototypical FtM transsexual in the recent movie 'Boys Don't Cry.' That movie is in English and it's amazingly well done; I think it's still playing at the movie theater by the mall!"
 * "In contrast, secondary transsexuals usually don't 'come out' until almost 40 years old or later. The most striking feature of secondary transsexuals is how, despite a deep conviction of being their target sex, their gender behavior is still quite a lot like that of their biological sex. They say they went into denial (that's why it takes until older ages to 'come out') 	and they often excel in the gender role of their biological sex 		(exp: a MtF transsexual who was captain of their high school football team, 		in the army, marries and has children). Even after transitioning their gender behavior still isn't all that much like their target sex. An example of a secondary transsexual is Kate Borenstein (MtF; author of gender outlaw)."
 * "This distinction might be useful for your debate because secondary transsexuals report greater rates of regret 	and less social adjustment than primary transsexuals do (sorry, I can't recall a good reference at the moment). You should probably also know that some researchers question if the distinction into these two categories is really appropriate. But regardless of how or if you categorize 'types' of transsexuals, 	almost all research on SRS shows very positive outcomes. There was once a major study saying SRS wasn't effective (Meyer and Reter, Arch. Sex. Behav. 9: 451-456) 	but it's *so* methodologically flawed. You can read a reply in IJT, which is available on-line: 	Fleming M, Steinman C, Bocknek G (1980), Methodological Problems in Assessing. Sex-Reassignment Surgery: http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0401.htm . There's also some feminist literature opposing SRS (most notably by Janice Raymond) 	but that line of debate probably isn't so relevant to a psychology class."


 * Interestingly she seems comfortable saying that one type usually attracted to the same sex is all of the things that define a homosexual transssexual, while the other is basically a description of Autogynephilia. Can you Imagine if James Cantor or Bailey wrote that...well we don't have to imagine about Bailey. Other than qualifying a primary transsexual as being usually attracted to the same biological sex she makes the connection solidly.  There has to be a WP:V WP:RS which says basically the same thing, somewhere.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty much an aside, but primary and secondary in medical fields mean "early" and "late", as in the difference between primary amenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea or primary cancer and secondary cancer. These terms have no connection to "favored" and "disfavored" like the phrases "first-class passenger" or "second-class citizens" do -- and given that Docter's classification depends so heavily on age at presentation, there's no plausible reason to suspect that he is not using the term in the typical medical sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be true in other disciplines. But one thing me and jokestress could agree on is that the way the psychological profession relates to transsexuals is strange.


 * The terms primary and secondary have been used as value judgements and in an inconsistent way.


 * "Dr. Wyndzen" describes the most intuitive and dominant use of that term. One other nomenclature used the term primary to describe a sort of transsexual who was totally assexual and therefore not driven by dirty sexual impulses...while those who admitted sexual feelings of any kind were labeled secondary.  That second nomenclature never caught on.


 * One also cannot ignore the fact that many of these researchers were and are male and have male ideas of what an ideal woman should be (Pretty, submissive, compliant, and sexually available...).--Hfarmer (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination template issues
When adding the GAnom template, you are not supposed to create the sub-discussion page. Doing so causes the template to automatically state, An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria., which isn't the case according to the article's nomination entry at Good article nominations. If you are the nominator, all you are supposed to do is add the template to this page and create the nomination entry at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Nothing else, not even creating a sub page. Thanks. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 01:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops Sorry. :blush:  Sometimes these templates make me long for the days when we entered ebverything by hand. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re nomination for GA status
I have renominated this for GA status due to what Allstar Echo pointed out. None of the issues have changed. Though I would say the article has changed for the better due to the changes made inresponse to the last conversations. hopefully we can recognize our good work in this matter. People on either of the "sides" in the controversy attached to this article will find fault with it. IMO that is just a sign of it's neutrality, and fairness, for either side to actually like it too much would certainly mean it was baised. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations for when review starts. -- Banj e  b oi   01:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The article still won't fly with ongoing NPOV disputes.


 * 1) The lead is poorly written, besides any NPOV issues, and needs a grammar check.
 * 2) The term "homosexual transsexual" is not neutral or accepted terminology. The lead does the right thing here - it refers to it as a "term". Referring to "homosexual transsexuals" as if this is an uncontested group is problematic.
 * 3) I am not sure why there is so much time under "development of the concept" dedicated to the DSM and the introduction of GID. Half of this section is not even about the "homosexual transsexual" concept, and absent any linkage as to how the accepted DSM versions segued into this, it feels like an attempt to give added credibility to this thesis
 * 4) Under "terminology debate", we again see the use of severely contested terminology as a given. "The concept that transsexuals with homosexual and non-homosexual sexual orientations are eitologically different has a long history in this field." If there is no agreement as to what "homosexual" and "non-homosexual" mean in this context, then referring to them as a given doesn't make any sense. The concept doesn't have to be neutral, but the article does; either gynephilic/androphilic or standard Wikipedia self-identification guidelines should be applied here
 * 5) The "transsexual community reaction" section is tiny compared to how controversial this thesis is. There is also some bizarre language here - "J. Michael Bailey and Kiira Triea, prominent critics of transsexual activists" - what the heck does that even mean? The proper way to refer to Bailey and Triea is as proponents of this thesis.
 * 6) The article totally lacks any feminist criticism of this thesis, of which there has been plenty. Julia Serano is an obvious critic that isn't mentioned here.
 * 7) The "description" section also uses plenty of disputed terminology without explanation - what do terms like "classically homosexual" as applied to a trans woman? Dig men? Act like Carson Kressley? I have no idea.
 * 8) Under "Androphilic male to female transsexuals", the article delves into original research, by attempting to draw a connection between the ideas of Bailey and those of Benjamin that is not cited to any source.
 * 9) The section under "socioeconomic factors", specifically his ideas about trans women of colour, is one of his most controversial areas. There's nothing about the claims of racism directed towards Bailey over this in the article - it merely regurgitates his claims. It is also unacceptable to have a sentence like "... most homosexual transsexuals learn to live on the streets, resorting to prostitution, or shoplifting..." without some mention of the very strong criticism handed out to his research methods in this area (i.e. that he specifically sought out a sample that was likely to be high on sex workers, and then attempted to generalise to the broader group.)
 * 10) Some of the sourcing in this appears to be highly problematic. Take this sentence from "Fraternal birth order effect" - "Recent research on the causes of homosexual transsexualism, transsexualism, and homosexuality overlap to a large degree." This implies that this is something that is generally accepted, but the three cites are to Bailey and Zucker, Zucker alone, and Green - the three strongest proponents of this thesis.
 * 11) Following on from this, it is unclear to me whether concepts like the "fraternal birth order effect" have any acceptance outside of Bailey et al; the article does not make this clear.
 * 12) Under "Blanchard's theory", it uses "other researchers" without a cite, and suggests that Blanchard et al have asserted "...because some see "homosexual transsexual" as a more socially desirable diagnosis" as a reason for self-reports being incorrect. Homosexual transsexual is not a clinical diagnosis - I think something is being lost in translation here.
 * 13) The text claims some of Blanchard's work to be independently supported by a "Smith". Firstly, who is this person, and is there any evidence for the assertion that the work was independent from Bailey's? Secondly, after dedicating two sentences to how Smith's work supported Blanchard's, the third sentence very succinctly notes that later work has not confirmed Smith's. Considering that it doesn't even mention who did the later work, this feels like an attempt to downplay science that doesn't fit with Blanchard's thesis.
 * 14) There are several typos towards the end of the article - a spell check would be a good idea before renominating it for GA.
 * 15) Under "gynephilic male to female transsexuals", why the reliance on Smith and van Goozen as a sole source?

This article still has a ton of work to do before it's even close to GA status. Rebecca (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hfarmer, I think you should stop nominating this article for GA. While most of Rebecca's issues listed above are trivially explained (e.g., #3, because "transsexual, homosexual subtype" was specifically named in the DSM-III-R, in exactly the same sense that "homosexual transsexual" is used in research papers, and specifically contrasted with non-homosexual transsexuals, in exactly the same way that Blanchard (and company) divide transwomen; #12, it sure the heck isn't a lab diagnosis; #15, why not?  There's not much good research out there, and they're reporting (in part) a novel finding, which by its very nature can't be found in any previous papers), the fact is that Jokestress will always assert POV problems whenever a review is underway, and very, very few reviewers will approve an article when any editor asserts POV problems during the review, no matter how specious those claims might be -- and even if it were approved, then I'm sure that Jokestress would promptly send it off to GAR to have it overturned.  My advice is that you give up:  this article, even if it were "perfect", is not going to receive any formal recognition for it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hfarmer would do well to stop nominating the article until all the issues are resolved, but it would be at least a start to respond to these criticisms. It's not even purely a matter of POV issues; half of this stuff is to do with how the article is written. For instance, WhatamIdoing's explanation for #3 makes sense, but the entire section lacks focus. It meanders awkwardly between a history of homosexuality, history of transsexuality, and history of this thesis, doesn't really tie these together in any coherent way, and spends more time on tangential elements than more important pieces of information. I don't understand your response to #12; if it's not a clinical diagnosis, how would avoiding such a "diagnosis" be seen as a reason to incorrectly self-report? If this is referring to the period when the thesis was in the DSM, then it should so, otherwise this doesn't make any sense as written. As for #15, if it's such a novel area that only one study has ever been done, the article should state this; as it is it's just presenting one study as unchallenged fact. I'd also add a #16 to the above - if it was removed from the DSM, then surely the process of removal and reasoning for doing so would warrant mentioning in the article. Rebecca (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That response does indicate why this article's probably unlikely to see GA status anytime soon though; spelling out a specific list of structural, grammatical, factual, sourcing and neutrality problems - all quite fixable - is dismissed as "trivially explained" without any actual effort to do so. If you think I'm a tough critic, you should try running this article past the grammarians at WP:FA - they'd crucify you for nominating prose like this. Rebecca (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you think I was ignoring your concerns I have just been really busy IRL. Here is what I say to your points
 * the lead is the result of a consensus of enemies if I rewrote it to make it flow better one side or the other would cery foul.
 * That term is the title of the page, it is the subject, and it appears in reliable secondary sources. I understand that people don't like it but it is not reasonabel to demand that I not write the term which is attached to the ideas being discussed. This isn't scategories.
 * See what whatamIdoning wrote. Contrary to popular belife this term was not simply invented at 2AM in a bar in Chicago by a drunk scotsman.
 * The terminology in this article is what is necessary to discuss it. I understand that you find it personally offensive.  WP is an encyclopedia we have to use the terms that appeard in the published sources.
 * The lack of a feminist criticism, the extent of the community response section etc etc are due to the facts that the controversy is covered elsewhere on wikipedia ie. Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. All concerned decided that more than a summary  criticism section in every article was redundant.  Wikipedia discourages that.
 * The sourceing of the matterial to the small number of researchers who do it is appropriate, there are also plenty of sourches which point to other sexologist and psych professionals who do not use this terminology.
 * You mention where I cite "Smith" if you read the citations you would see that I am talking about a researcher from the netherlands.
 * WAID I know what you are saying. It's not that the article is bad it is that so many people don't like it's subject matter that they will come here and try to invent problems with it.  Some of the things rebecca criticised had the hand of people she would agree are NOT "pro Bailey" in them.
 * Rebecca it is obvious that you have massked WP:IDL behind really flimsy points and are simply relying on no one wanting to read all your claims... In hopes that the article will be failed just because you don't like the subject matter. As a matter of principle I cannot back down on this.  Wikipedia has to act in a independent manner on things like this, if it is published elsewhere in reliable sources and it sounds neutral to someone who does not have a horse in the race then it's not the horrible article you have tried to make it look like.  I have seen some real dreck get GA status just because it was uncontroversial and did not suffer the intense scrutiny that every assemblage of words on there does. This article written by a team of enemies is IMO not just good it is likely one of the ten best on WP.  --Hfarmer (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't a single one of these criticisms that can't be fixed; should these be fixed, I think the article would have a pretty straightforward road through WP:GA, and would be well on the way to WP:FA. As for your specific responses:


 * I don't think the content of the lead is the problem; it's that the prose flows poorly and it reads as being awkward. It might be an idea to request that an editor with copyediting skills does a bit of a run through it; this isn't my area either. Shouldn't be hard to find; there's a few of the FA/GA regulars who do this stuff.


 * I'm not disputing that the term is the title or subject of the page, or that it appears in reliable secondary sources; this is why we have this article. I suggest the using of neutral terminology in a number of places here because, since the language is not settled, it leads to some confusing sentences. A sentence like "The concept that transsexuals with homosexual and non-homosexual sexual orientations are eitologically different has a long history in this field" means something totally different to someone who believes in these theories as opposed to most other people in the area. Using language such as "gynephilic"/"androphilic" is much clearer, and eliminates that confusion. In terms of other terminology, if you want an article to be considered a WP:GA you can't use unclear terminology without an explanation of what it's referring to; hence my request for an explanation of what things like "classically homosexual" mean in this context (since I genuinely have no idea). Note also the typo in that quote - nominating an article for GA status before you've done a spell check is probably not a great idea.


 * As for the tiny community response section, and the lack of a feminist criticism section - you mightn't want these, but it's not good enough to say "oh, it's covered elsewhere on WP" if you're claiming good article status. It needs to summarise the issues appropriately here, and link to the article elsewhere if people are interested in more detail. There is no way any article on any controversial topic will get through WP:GA using the "all the criticism is somewhere else" argument (especially with no summary style link. Neutral reviewers will fail you on this alone.


 * If, as WhatamIdoing seemed to note above, the paucity of sources for the last couple of sections of the article is because there hasn't actually been much done in the area, then all I'm suggesting is that they say this. There's a tendency for some of these sentences to more-or-less imply that they're undisputed fact; this should be cleared up, that's all.


 * The days of "real dreck" getting through the good article process are over, and I'm giving you exactly the review you've been asking for for months. These articles are meant to have very high standards, and as such, if you nominate an article, you're going to be picked up on any lingering issues with the article - it's what the nomination process is there for. I'm being a harsh critic here, but it isn't just limited to this article - take a look at my comments on the Lake Burley Griffin FAR, for example. No reviewer is going to pass this article as is, but if you fixed up these criticisms, which might take you a week or so, I doubt anyone would fail it. Rebecca (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * HFarmer: If you know of "real drek" that has GA status, then you should open a good article reassessment on it, as it should not be listed as a good article. That is not a valid argument for this article (or any other) to be given GA status. Rebecca: why not open the good article assessment page and list the problems you see there? Lady  of  Shalott  01:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not using that as an argument for this article to have GA status. I was pointing out that unlike many articles that have the GA staus...good does not seem to be good enough.  Every person that rolls through here has some POV that they think is essential and has to get 1/2 the page devoted to it.  Good does not seem to be good enough apparently it has to make everyone who reads it happy.  Which I am afraid is impossible due to the emotionally sensitive nature of the subject.  It's very presence irks some people. Let alone the ackowledgement of all the work that went into this.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into an argument with you, Hfarmer. You've got your GA review; these are the sorts of things that anyone remotely familiar with the subject is going to pick up on. I might be a harsh critic. All of these things are specific, actionable criticisms, and a fair proportion of them aren't even related to article POV issues, but to prose, sourcing and other issues. Rebecca (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca, I seem to have been unclear about #12: to the extent that HT is a diagnosis at all, it is definitely a clinical diagnosis. There are relatively few proper subtypes of diagnosis. "Clinical diagnosis" is "a condition I identify by looking at you and talking to you". (By their very nature, all psychological conditions are clinical diagnoses.) This concept is contrasted with lab diagnosis, otherwise known as "a condition that I identify by looking at the lab results", and radiological diagnosis, otherwise known as "a condition that I identify by looking at X-rays" (or other images; and so forth, though pathology and surgery and the like).

I do not object to your grammar/form/style complaints, and I wholeheartedly agree with several of them. I do think that they would be trivially resolved, however, if the editing environment at this article weren't hostile. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I get what you're saying here. I guess my concern is that the article currently asserts that trans patients are inaccurately self-reporting on the basis that they don't want to be hit with this diagnosis, when it's not a diagnosis that's actually really in use unless one goes to see Blanchard or Bailey.


 * And - sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes, many of these would be easily fixed. The thing is - the article's stable right now. There's nothing preventing anyone from getting to work on them. Rebecca (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article makes no assertions the sources make the assertions. All the editors who have worked on this, notable people from both sides agreed that the quotes from Blanchard on self report needed to be in.  If I removed them another person would return here and be angry they were removed.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested comments by Moni3
I have been called upon for the third time to read this article to try to do something about its perennial GA nomination. I have avoided it except for a brief review for FA a few months ago. I am not a specialist in transsexual issues, but I write a bit about homosexuality.

Every time I read this article I come away muddier than I arrived. In a sense, that answer is easy. It is nowhere near GA. Some of that is due to the writing, but I'm fearing that more of it is due to the lack of clarity on the overall concepts.

The basic question that should be asked and answered is: Who uses this term and for what purposes?
 * The lead says some sexologists, psychologists, and psychiatrists. Is there a text written by any expert in the field that has a chapter or passage dedicated simply to the concept of homosexual transsexual (using this term)? If so, can Hfarmer provide that? I will go look it up. If not, we should have a discussion about the status of this article. I'm looking at Kurt Freund et al's 1974 article where "homosexual transsexual" is used three times, yet only in lists or descriptions of overall feminine behavior in homosexual males.

Within the last 20 minutes, I have read a bit with some sources I have access to, about the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation. What I learned that can be cited is this:


 * 1) Men who feel they have female personalities is an issue of gender identity (male, female, or in between) and a mode of self-expression. This is not necessarily an issue of sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, in between or beyond).
 * 2) However, when these transmen express their sexual orientation, it can be with men or with women. If they respond more to men their orientation is homosexual. If they respond to women, their orientation is heterosexual. They may also be bisexual if they respond to both sexes.
 * 3) Sexual orientation as a categorization or division of people based upon who they respond to sexually is a recent and Western trend. It is not wise to assign every person throughout time a sexual orientation because many cultures do not have a framework to classify people based on who they are attracted to.
 * 4) Classifying gender identity is even more recent and narrowly applied. Transsexual issues are debated in the LGBT community, at least in my experience, to be considered by some to be a trend. Specifically, the emphasis on surgery for women who identify with masculine behavior and personalities has been criticized by some in the lesbian community for narrowly defining the traits of women. Simply put: women are not considered women unless they are very feminine. Some activists are protesting that women are getting irreversible surgery because they have no social framework and no acceptance to express themselves as masculine women. This is a hotly contested issue within the LGBT community, so it is clear that the psychological framework for categorizing people based on how closely they identify with a gender is still being developed, and is culturally malleable.
 * 5) So what this article appears to describe is an intersection where gender identity meets sexual orientation. However, the background to describe the basic issues of sexual orientation and gender identity is not included in the article. I do not know how anyone would be able to comprehend the issues in this article without this basic understanding. With another however, I am loathe to imagine there are sexologists and mental health workers who would so narrowly further categorize people by using this term, which is why I am very curious to see how this is done.

Just now performing a search on the LGBT Life with full text database, I bring up 4 articles total, the first of which is on South Korean homosexual transsexual men, which is cited in the article. The first page of this article states that the classification of sexual orientation of transsexuals has been well-established (err...ok...that's relative, but a RS says it) and cites that statement to two articles, one of which is also cited much farther down in this article: the 1989 article by Blanchard titled "The classification and labeling of non-homosexual gender dysphoria". The other is Lawrence's 2006 article titled "Clinical and theoretical parallels between desire for limb amputation(!) and gender identity disorder".

The basic point of my post here is that this article either needs to be overhauled to include very basic concepts if reliable sources address the concept as a whole, or it should be merged and generalized in a discussion about the sexual orientations of transsexual people. My absence of AGF, the worse case scenario, is that these issues are being given a prominence that experts do not give them. Related to that is the fear that this article is being deliberately written in an incoherent way to further confusion. Either way, the article is nearly incomprehensible as it is now. If I'm wrong about Hfarmer's intentions, I would be happy to assist in the article's rewrite with sincere apologies, laying the foundations for a basic understanding of the intersection of gender identity and sexual orientation. --Moni3 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes there are passages writen by peopel who are by wikipedia standards experts in the field of sexoloogy which use this term. There are also passages by experts in the field of sexology (sexologist as a group have a diverse academic background from endocrinology, to psychology and psychiatry).
 * Either way when you commented I was int he midst of writing a tell off here saying that ya'll can write what you want. I did not "write this artilce".  Me, Andrea James "Jokestress" and James Cantor "JamesCantor and WhatamIdiong, and others in smaller quantities have fought over every single word.  Every passage every sentence there has been crafted and hamered out to get a form that AJ and Cantor would not scream about.  I can't just re write things to make prose flow, or include this or that or excludie this or that without catching hell from one side or the other.  What I have done and I am damm proud of is try to be neutral inspite of personal attacks froam the so called TG community...or it's self appointed spokespeople, and mediated this dispute here on WP. Trust me Moni, Rebecca and whoever else. An article here that would be neutral to you would not really be neutral it would likely just hurl insults at people and concepts you dont'; liek.


 * As much as people like to bitch about my writing here I am going to go away from this subject forever. There not without the wicked bitch of the west here you can write whatever the fuck you want. Don't complain just WP:SOFIXIT your selves!--Hfarmer (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am very much for the fixit strategy, which is why I write the articles I do, but is also the reason why it is very difficult for me to wade into articles that I know very little about, such as this one. This is not a "tell off" on my part, but my opinion as someone who has written featured articles on topics involving homosexuality, and someone who concentrates on content assessment. I constructed the Lesbian article and trying to explain that, as you may see, takes quite a bit of space to discuss gender role expectations throughout history in multiple cultures.
 * Furthermore, an encyclopedia article is an educational tool. To describe the concept in any article, one must first discuss basic understandings. Transsexualism cannot be discussed without a basic understanding of gender identity. Homosexuality cannot be discussed without a basic understanding of sexual orientation. This is your background section right there. There are two separate concepts based in gender identity and sexual orientation; this article is where the two merge, like a verbal venn diagram.
 * Clearly you are frustrated, but I cannot reconcile the multiple editors who have participated in this article's construction with the fact that there are sentence fragments that mean nothing in the article: Even though homosexuality itself was removed from the DSM II as a mental disorder diagnosis. (lead) and Which was published in the influential book "The Transsexual Phenomenon". (first section, and the book titled should be in italics) To be honest, I could not get past the first section because I could not understand what was being discussed in the article. It sounds like you need a break from it. I don't blame you, especially if you are emotionally vested in the material. I won't fault you for being so because I believe that one should be passionate about what one writes about. When I begin to get angry at other editors who make suggestions on the topics I write about, I must consider very carefully if I also need a break. If I do, when I come back it is much easier to see the problems other editors point out. --Moni3 (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is one of the worst on Wikipedia because changes are not discussed and agreed upon on the talk page before Hfarmer makes them piecemeal in the article. That has led to a sloppy, meandering, error-ridden, confusing article driven entirely by Hfarmer's fixation on getting this mess declared "good." I've probably requested more than a dozen times for Hfarmer to refrain from editing the article, but that's apparently not an option. So here we are. I have recommended a number of clear and concise ways to organize this article and its intro for a lay reader, but I now believe this article will never improve as long as Hfarmer continues to edit the article directly. Jokestress (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. I have proposed making this WP:LGBT's Collaborative Project of the Month, which is a misnomer since the month may turn out to be 2 years, and "collaboration" may also be called into question... At any rate, I agree that it is incoherent and we need to do something about it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Two years. Two years of having one disgruntled TG blogger after the other vetch about this article and how bad I (and I suppose many of them think I alone.) wrote it.  When they could come here, write what the hell they want, and do something marginally useful to someone.  Moni Thankyou for pointing out the sentence fragements and such that is the kind of thing I am looking for but do not always see.  Instead of that I get allot of stuff about how using the term the article is about in the article is not neutral OR how someone or the other want's a feminism section (which could not be neutral.)


 * As for you jokestress and the rest of the TG community I will love seeing what ya'll do with this article without me around to blame for it's woes. You and your drive to simply piss on anything that has the term homosexual transsexual in it because you don't like it has driven what the article is.  Your fixation on Autogynephilia drove the fact that this articel did not exist until I created it. Your inability to see how you are the LAST peron who should write anything and claim that it is neutral is part of this too.  You are as much to blame as anyone.  But I would not expect some salt water drinking west coast yahoo to admit that.  --Hfarmer (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, clearly you are frustrated, but comments should be directed at the content instead of the editors giving the commentary. --Moni3 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) Eight archives.
 * (2) "changes are not discussed"
 * One of these things is not like the others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What does this mean? --Moni3 (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The accumulated discussions about changes made to this article fill eight archives. And yet in this section, an editor asserts that the primary problem is "changes are not discussed".
 * I think that there is substantial room for reasonable doubt about whether the actual problem is lack of discussion. In fact, it's possible that the actual problem is that we have far too much discussion, especially since that discussion tends to delay (all) or prevent possible improvements to the article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has anything to do with the amount of discussion, but rather that the two protagonists who most of that focused on have a conflict of interest here the size of Mount Kilimanjaro. Rebecca (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

a long paragraph about how HSTS is politically incorrect
Why would a scientific term designed to describe etiology ever need to be viewed in the emotional dimension of political correctness? Unless you want to be completely irrelevant.

The article is incoherent to say the least you can read the first three paragraphs and be clueless what exactly is the concept mentioned in the title and going on about how someone said the term is archaic (what do you know it was coined in 80's!) is irrelevant. --Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This happens all the time. People now have Down syndrome rather than Mongolism; mental retardation has superseded moronism, and all of this primarily because of "the emotional dimension of political correctness".  There are many examples of the euphemism treadmill.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your particular comparison with mongolism is not convincing me, it would be a good analogy if being of that ethnic background would actually predispose people to having Downs syndrome (which it does not), being a homosexual male most certainly predisposes an individual to being this specific type of transsexual (what is called HSTS in relevant literature). So that's a little off. The question is whether there should be a wordy discussion of the contrary, and the answer is there shouldn't. So I propose the criticism of the term in terms of political correctness be limited to a couple sentences and the fact that it is an etiology a scientific term be mentioned in yet another sentence similar as I had done it. Unless of course you absolutely want to keep the criticism of the term wordy in which case I feel there should be a similarly wordy explanation of the fact that it is an etiology not an identity and political correctness is irelevant. (P.S. in case of moronism apparently the word "moron" has shifted meanings I don't see how this is an analogy unless "homosexual" is an expletive, yet again this is not an analogy and is irrelevant) --Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * John Langdon Down thought that Trisomy 21 represented Europeans 'degenerating' into the 'inferior' Asian race; he thought that tuberculosis was the predisposing factor.
 * The shift in the 'meanings' is exactly the issue: While 'moron' always refers to below average intelligence (that's what makes it an effective insult in a society that values intelligence), it is no longer a polite/politically correct/simply descriptive term.  HSTS seems to be on the same euphemism treadmill -- and, yes, so is the term 'homosexual':  "Avoid identifying gay people as “homosexuals” an outdated term considered derogatory and offensive to many lesbian and gay people.".
 * Your argument falls apart when we remember that the typical HSTS person defines the self as female, not male. We could equally argue that believing yourself to be a straight female "most certainly predisposes an individual to being this specific type of transsexual".
 * The complaints over the HSTS label are significant in the sources, and therefore WP:DUE requires that we provide similar prominence to the complaints.
 * I do not say that this section is well-written (it is not: no encyclopedia article containing phrases like "One must bear in mind" is well-written), but it probably gives approximately the right amount of attention to the fact that the label is largely rejected by transwomen who are attracted to men.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "homosexual" is a scientific adjective and don't compare it to being used as a noun (almost certainly derogatory), i.e., the homosexuals, a homosexual. Your other analogy fails as well unless people affected by Down's syndrome are actually turning into Asians (or have that background) because straight transsexual women have the background of being a homosexual male, simple as that. All in all if you want a wordy explication about how the term is politically incorrect I want an equally wordy explanation of how it is irrelevant with few references of HSTS women themselves. (and not have it reverted because my edits are supposedly biased which is a very strong thing to say - biased to what?) --Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can produce an equal level of sourcing to support your claims that the term is "irrelevant", then we can include that.
 * However -- purely as a point of fact -- no editor has yet been able to do this, and until the sources are equally split about the name, then this article cannot be equally split about the name. Wikipedia's content policies require us to follow the sources, even when the sources don't treat opposite views of the same term as being equal.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I must agree with WhatamIdoing. Removal of the statements on the "PC ness" of this term would be a disservice to our readers.  Much of the non sexological literature on this term deals with this very issue and this very point.  As you will see in the talk pages above there has been much discussion of this already.  Looking at the intro the only think I would want to remove is "is a term" in the first sentence.  The fact that it's a term is obvious.  However a number of Wikipedians feel it's imporant to emphasize that this term is not what Androphilic transwomen are. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:09, 18 March 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. Please see the discussion page at Talk:Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. As this is a work in progress, I highly encourage editors to be bold and take part in editing and to join the discussion. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)