Talk:Homosexual transsexual/Archive 8

Ongoing issues
Phenomenon vs. term was the first of several issues here. This article still needs a lot of work, starting with the lede. It needs to have wikilinks for gender identity and the four new articles for groups to which this term has been applied. Jokestress (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No doubt, as the "good article" criteria make clear a "good article" needs to only be "good" not perfect. As for the wikilinks in the lede.  I see no problem with transwomen attracted to men, and transmen attracted to women being worked in there.  I don't see how transwomen attracted to women or transmen attracted to men work in the lede...  Perhaps a see also for those?  --Hfarmer (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What points of view are precisely in dispute now, aside from the issue you brought up just above? As for the world wide view thing.... I thought we agreed the article was about a term used in western modern science, not a phenomena.  That would obviate a "world wide view". --Hfarmer (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing the NPOV tag. This article is full of misinformation and NPOV violations. We will address them one at a time. The lede says Harry Benjamin coined the term "transsexual." This is not correct. Jokestress (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? I did not know.  Is that really an NPOV violation? That is an error...a common and understandable error.  Who did coin the term "transsexual"?  Would it have been Hirshfeld?
 * As for removing the tag this is what I am going to do. Every time you tag it and list a problem I wil fix the problem and remove the tag.  You find another problem kindly tag it again.  Or you can stop playing games and simply name all of your griviences so that I can fix them in short order. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An interesting tidbit on that point google "transsexual coined the term" (no quotes) and some pages say Benjamin others say Hirschfeld. Like I said that was an honest mistake. Not a slanting of facts to make one side or the other look more credible, hence NPOV violation.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing the NPOV tag. This article is full of misinformation and NPOV violations. We will address them one at a time. This term is used by some researchers, not all. Jokestress (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Ill change it.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you point out where the article says all reserachers use this term. The article says right now it is used in sexology... which it is, and what it is used for.  I don't see any assertion that all researchers use the term anywhere. In fact there are many many places where reserchers are quoted for the various reasons not to like this term. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made a small change in the lead paragraph. From "Sexologist and psychologist who use this term use it to describe..."  To "Sexologist ans psychologist who use this term use it to describe..."  Better? (Frankly I did not see the assertion ALL or implication ALL there in the first place.)--Hfarmer (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever you tried to use to correct this missed a number of errors and introduced new ones. For instance, "self-feminization" and "crossdressing" were correct before. The "correction" mentioned above is still grammatically wrong (both terms take the plural), but that is moot because it's inaccurate, anyway (we should use "proponents" for reasons discussed in the past). So we'll do a sentence at a time till all these problems are resolved. Here's what I propose for the first sentence:
 * Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some sexologists and psychologists to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation, defined by their sex assignment at birth.
 * Rather than claiming everything is fixed when it isn't, let's do this methodically, agreeing here before things get put in the article. Jokestress (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is what I have done. Let me explain why this is better than what you suggested.

Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used in sexology and psychology to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation, defined by their sex assignment at birth.[1] Some sexologist and psychologist use this term to describe transwomen who are attracted to men,[2] though occasionally they use it to describe transmen who are attracted to women.[3] Other sexologist have criticized this type of terminology as being confusing, ignoring the psyche of those it is used to describe, and scientifically questionable.[4][5][6] They to describe such transpersons as heterosexual.[4][5][6] It is also used in a controversial theory due to Ray Blanchard. The term "homosexual transsexual" is controversial because it defines transsexual sexuality based on a person's birth sex.[7]
 * The first sentence provides a good definition for the term. It is a term used in sexology and psychology to describe transsexuals in reference to sex at birth.   That's what it is.  Totally neutral.  Some sexologist use the term to describe....  Again SOME use it stated there explicitly.  In the third sentence other sexologist criticize it.  Even though Benjamin and Bagemhil etc do not have "sexologist" in their job title..  Arguably since they worked on sexological problems the word is close enough.  This is common when a academic does interdisciplinary studies.  I think this first paragraph would tell someone looking for a quick hit all they need to know to understand seeing this word around the net. I am not sure what you want to do with this other than that. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's why that's worse. It's inaccurate to say the term is used in sexology and psychology, which implies it's widely used. It is not widely used and is only used by some (not all) psychologists and sexologists. The second sentence is inaccurate, because it is not just some psychologists and sexologists (again, please note these words have a plural form) use it. That's why proponents is more accurate. It doesn't describe you, but you use "homosexual transsexual." That's why proponents is more accurate. In the next sentence, it's not just other sexologists (again, please note these words have a plural form), which is why critics is more accurate. "Psyche" should say "gender identity" instead, because that's a key element of this debate. After we get consensus on these issues, we can address the other NPOV violations. Jokestress (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the first sentence is acceptable as it stands. It is used, and in those fields.  The sentence doesn't say, or necessary even imply, that it is widely used.  Reading "widely" into is your personal interpretation.  More importantly, we haven't got any reliable sources that say whether it's widely used or not (only that some people use it and some people refuse to use it), so we can't really say that it is either "widely" or "rarely" used.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jokestress... The word psyche appears in the quote from Harry Benjamin that I am paraphrasing in that sentence. That's the word he used and I don't see how it's POV to keep that there.  As a matter of fact look at the source for that sentence, putting "gender identity" in that instance would violate WP:V. As for reading in that the word is widley used by saying it is used in psychology...If we put in that the word is rarely or widely used either way it would requier a source.  If you have a source within sexology that says it is rarely used I will gladly put it in.  Everytime you presented a source for a claim have I not done this? Until then what is there now is all we can say that is neutral, and verifiable.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outendenting) This is the actual passage that I paraphrased.

From all that has been said, it seems evident that the question "Is the    transsexual homosexual?" must be answered "yes" and " no." "Yes," if his anatomy is considered; "no" if his psyche is given    preference.

What would be the situation after corrective surgery has been performed and the sex    anatomy now resembles that of a woman? Is the "new woman" still a homosexual    man? "Yes," if pedantry and technicalities prevail. "No" if reason and    common sense are applied and if the respective patient is treated as an individual and not     as a rubber stamp.

Again the thought clearly emerges that what we call "sex" is of a very    dubious nature and has no accurate scientific meaning. Between "male" and    "female," "sex" is a continuum with many "in betweens."[16]

To bring the discussion regarding the three deviations of the title of this chapter to    a close, a nutshell characterization would be this:

The transvestite has a social problem. The transsexual has a gender problem. The homosexual has a sex problem. As you can see it is not all that progressive. The word I have as pedantic comes from "pedantry" and "psyche" comes from "no" if his psych is given preference." The only place where gender appears is in that last little hit "the transsexual has a gender problem".  That is the closest the passage comes to gender identity.  On balance given the use of words here it would not be a faithful paraphrase to insert our contemporary PC terms into this very un PC by our standards composition.  Dare I say if he wrote this now he would catch more hell than Bailey...what with using the word "his" and "him" in reference to transexual females.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot has been written in 40 years, so Benjamin isn't really the be-all and end-all on this topic. It's more accurate to say this terminology conflict is whether to describe trans people based on sex assignment vs. gender identity. The article should reflect that. Jokestress (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * True but it's a matter of sourcing an verifiability. Furthermore I think that the very conflict is made perfectly clear further down in the article where we quote Benjamin and Bagemihl at length and paraphrase three or four other verifiably sources making the point you want made.  My problem with what you are saying is that the term "Gender Identity" VS sex assignment as you just put it don't appear in any source I know of.  If you know of one that put's it quite that way please point me to it.  --Hfarmer (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The sourced Bagemihl quotation says, "These labels thereby ignore the individual's personal sense of gender identity taking precedence over biological sex, rather than the other way around." We should include the term gender identity in the lede, as an overview of the controversy. This debate centers on whether sex assignment or gender identity should prevail in a naming scheme, and the summary at the top should explain that clearly. This isn't about psyche, it's about gender identity. Is that unclear? Jokestress (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We have to go with what the sources say. One source uses psyche the other uses gender identity. It's not a matter of what is clear to us. So to represent the known sources faithfully I'll have to combine these two sentiments.  I'm trying to keep the direct verbatim quotations out of the lede, it's kind of hard to have them in the lede and make it a summary of the whole article.
 * IMHO in websters dictionary the word psyche is defined in this sense as soul, personality, or mind. Arguably those are three places where gender identity has been said to reside.  So to be precise I will use gender identity in the lede. This is for the benefit of anyone who may object to this change in the future.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, you are committed to keeping the term gender identity out of the introductory paragraphs, even though it's more relevant and specific than psyche? Jokestress (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(outendenting)Uhh no. Look at the last edit I made to the article before you wrote the above comment. What I have done is re arrange the last paragraph of the lede in to sort of chronological order. Which places what Bagemihl wrote into some context and by being the last impression in the lede gives it added emphasis. The Benjamin paraphrase is still there, I feel it makes the issue very plain. I hope this is good enough now. Suppose I had been comitted to that then what? :-| Look like I said it's all about sources and verifiability. I don't have what this person or that person wrote on top of my mind right now. I did not recall all of what Bagemihl wrote. Had I remembered it I would have added it when you first brought up this issue.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, I am going to request that you not make changes to the article until consensus is reached. It's unproductive, and you often create new problems each time you edit. Jokestress (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again I am going to ask that you not give me vaguge guidance and be specific about what problems you have so I can fix them. I massaged that Bageihl quote into place.  The lede now ways gender identity.  Only you and I are editing and one you showed me a source I agreed' with you. That is consensus. (Shesh it's like I can't even agree with this person when I agree with this person.)--Hfarmer (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

About the POV tag
Jokestress, can you tell us why you want the POV tag at the top of the article until every issue is resolved to your satisfaction? Is it to warn readers that the article is imperfect? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * She hasn't done that lately. I think she realized that many of her problems are grammar and stylistic and not POV.  The article is as neutral as Switzerland.  The wrong word one way or the other and it will not be anymore. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I would say the things she has come up with in the last couple of days have been totally good faith and valid. I just wish she would list them all so that I can just sit down and work on them all in short order.  I do have other things to do, contrary to some peoples beliefe.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is to warn readers that the article is not neutral. Jokestress (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And you're aware that such a purpose is not an acceptable use of the template? (That's exactly what the documentation is talking about when it says not to use it as a badge of shame.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just repeating your phrasing. This article has significant NPOV issues, especially WP:UNDUE. Now, we can have a long discussion about misuse of tags, and you can run over there to try to change policy to help win your argument here, but that standard m.o. of yours is really not improving the neutrality of this article. Jokestress (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jokestress plese do not take this the wrong way, you are a fine wikipedia editor. However as it also says in the NPOV dispute doccumentation it is possible for a article or passage to be totally neutral, yet look non neutral to someone with a strong entrenched opinion (the word used in the doccumentation is "ideologue").  Take a deep breath and think about why the sentence "Homosexual transsexual is a word used in sexology and psychology..."  Sounds like it says "all sexologist" or "widely" to you.  Is it the same reason you have quite responsibly abstained from any actual editing (aside from the taging).
 * Let me make it perfectly clear your cooperation has been invaluable in making this article as good as it is. Thankyou. :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, since I wrote most of the existing docs on that template (after several unrelated discussions in different contexts) on their application and other editors' frustrations (usually with drive-by tagging), I'm confident that I know how the larger community wants it used. It appears that your purpose is not consistent with the community's goals.  I think that it could therefore be removed as violating the larger consensus for the use of such tags.
 * I'm also unconvinced that the article is actually biased. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outendenting) Now you say it has WP undue issues. Just what part has undue weight in your opinion? Is is Blanchard's theory? Is it... just what is the problem. Instead of WP:JUSTA tell me what the freaking problems are so I can fix them. Or do you just want the article to appear to have problems to prevent it's promotion as a good article because in your words that would somehow "legitimate" that term? I suppose then that Hitler has been "legitimated" by the fact his Bio waas a featured article... oh wait OF COURSE NOT! :-| --Hfarmer (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress's idea or Minor tweaks.
Is there anyone else who thinks this article needs to be totally reorganized as User:Jokestress says?

As discussed here, I believe the best way to organize this article is an introduction that describes the term and controversy, a section on use by proponents of the term, and a section on criticism of the term. The lede should reflect this organization: description, proponents, critics. If we can get back to working on the article rather than all of these distractions, we can keep making progress.

Anyone at all.

Or does the article need at most minor tweaks. Which is all I could see being wrong with the article. i.e. if there is some bad syntax somewhere, fix it. If there is a word mispelled somewhere fix it. But not a total rewrite (more or less simply to make it reflect Jokestress's way of thinking of this topic.)--Hfarmer (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I ask because Jokestress's personal idea that this article needs a total rewrite is her only justification for the cleanup tag, and hodling up the good article nomination. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the article needs only minor tweaks.— James Cantor (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I frankly don't understand how Jokestress's proposal is materially different from what's already here. It already leads with a description, followed by a section on how it is used, and ends with criticism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The key words to her is that she want's it broke up into a sections which would focus on "proponents" and "opponents", then sum up the controversey. She has written that the way it is now makes this look like a scientific dispute and thereby legitimates it etc. etc. Basically she want's this written about like it's pure politics.  Which it is not.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm GA reviewing it and will judge on NPOV. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction of the term
The section heading "Introduction of the term" is kind of weird. For one thing, the section isn't primarily about the introduction of the term itself: it's about sexologists deciding that transwomen could usefully be classified according to their sexual orientation. About all we can say about the "introduction of the term" is that it was first mentioned in print in a given year, that the words chosen were socially acceptable back then, and they aren't any longer.

In the bigger picture, this seems to be symptomatic of an ongoing effort to make this be about "we hate the two words he chose" instead of the idea. This article really needs to be about more than just the name of this idea; it needs to be about the idea that there are two types of transwomen (which idea, in turn, is apparently just one small part of a much larger "unified field theory" of human sexuality). Even if the two types were labeled "Perfectly normal women" and "Amazing ideal women", we'd still need to have articles about the ideas instead of about the words.

Perhaps this section should be recast as "Concept in modern sexology". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "Origin of the Concept" or "History of the term"?
 * Yes there is an ongoing effort to make the entire article about how much the terms are hated. Which I would oppose. However I would also oppose removal of all criticism.  There is a robust section on the criticism of the term.  In the context of the GA review Jokestress provided actual ref's to quotes she wanted in and I either put them in or paraphrased them in.  I don't know what more they want? It is as if some part of the article neutrally describing the term as it has been used by sexologist therefore legitimates it?  This is just WP it can't legitimate anything.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This strikes me as unnecessarily beating around the bush about Jokestress' POV on this article. If there existed much high quality research showing that Blanchard was wrong in his taxonometric ideas about transsexuality, then those findings would be the subject of this discussion. The reason folks are discussing opinions of the term is that there is no actual research showing that Blanchard was wrong about the idea, leaving the anti-science activists no strategy other than to distract editors (and readers) with the political correctness of the terminology and to declare the science as irrelevant or subservient to that.

Moreover, it is an error to say that "we hate the two words." There are transsexual folks who hate the term (as Jokestress details on her off-wiki sites), and there are groups of transsexuals who are perfectly fine with the term (e.g., www.transkids.us), making even these other transsexual folks the target of Jokestress' and Lynn Conway's off-wiki attacks. I believe discussion of the term is getting undue weight only because an off-wiki opponent of the term is pushing for it on this talk page to distract from the evidence for the actual idea. There is a reason that the better regarded the RS, the more frequent the acceptance of the term; it's the term's opponents who have to keep asking "Is this one good enough to be an RS?" The sources that use the term are rarely in question.

I think the whole page should be about the idea, and there need be only a section about language to indicate that some people have an issue with the political correctness of the term, whereas other transsexual folks do not.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "Description" or "Overview" or "History" or something boring like that? "Development" is fine, but then I expect it to say something about how one notion led to another.
 * Also, I'm not sure that the 'history' is well-explained: It appears that transwomen that weren't attracted to men were classified back then as not being transwomen at all, which means that there weren't 'two types' at that stage (unless you count "transsexuals that are told they're transvestites" as the second type).  It might be worth making that somewhat clearer.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * @JamesCantor. I understand where you are coming from.  Not to worry to my experience the only people that give a damm about what the anti-sexology group writes is other members of that group.  They read their own press so to speak.  As for the nature of the criticism on this article can you see that it is fair to mention that various scientist who have studied transsexuals have pointed out the deficiencies of the term "homosexual transsexual".  I know the argument for it... to stress the etiological similarity of that brand of transsexualism and homosexual maleness.  That said, it gives the wrong impression to many that homosexual transsexuals are men, male identified, and perhaps even ashamed of being gay.  i.e. think of anything you have seen in the pink media about transsexualism in Iran.  The theme is that those ladies, are all in fact homosexual males, who are merely changing to escape stigma and persecution.  This terminology could reasonably be said to reinforce such thinking.  That criticism of the term by sexologist is valid IMHO.  I say that as a supposed member of the "Clark-Northwestern Clique"  :-? LOL.


 * @WhatamIdoing. I agree, I always thought Description, was the best word. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add... Yes back in those days non-androphillic transsexuals were classed as transvestites, and denied transtition medical care.  That hetero normative thinking was on both sides, caregivers, and transwomen for a long time.  The information that you want stated explicitly is as far as I know not sourceable to anywhere, and if it is may be better placed in Autogynephilia.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no beef if someone wants to restructure and rename this section. However, it should remain seperate from the criticism section. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposing the taxonomy
About this statement:"This term and the concept of a taxonomy based on transsexual sexuality was first proposed by Magnus Hirschfeld in 1923,[4]"

The ref is a 1923 paper in German. Did any editor here actually read the ref? Because you must WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, not read someone else's work and copy their footnotes.

Can we confirm that Hirschfeld actually proposed "a taxonomy based on transsexual sexuality" instead of a simple definition of transsexuality that demanded a specific sexual orientation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Blanchard's 1985 article, Typology of male-to-female transsexualism provides a history of taxonometric thinking. In it, he writes:
 * "Other investigators have distinguished more or fewer than three types. Hirschfeld (1922, p. 144) distinguished four types of gender disturbance in males: heterosexual, homosexual, automonosexual (or narcissistic), and bisexual. As opposed to asexuality, which demonstrates a lack of sexual drive, automonosexualism refers to a strong sexual interest in one's own person, with a concomitant lack of interest in others" (italics in original).
 * The reference is: Blanchard, R. (1985). Typology of male-to-female transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 247-261. I'm happy to email you a copy, if you like.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I've ordered the book and can check it in a few days. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit I never read the german book. I think it would be acceptable To place both the reference to the book, and to blanchards staement there.  Waldalstouring tahnks for that.  I cant wait to see what it actually says. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Hfarmer's approach is a good one. I point out, however, that Blanchard's article cited Hirschfeld's 1922 book (Sexualpathologie), not Hirschfeld's 1923 book, as the mainpage currently contains.— James Cantor (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll make the change. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually we all screwed up a bit. According to Google books Sexualpathologie is from 1918. Unless there were two books with the same exact name?  --Hfarmer (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's always possible, of course, but books published in those days weren't as "fixed" as we are now accustomed to. For example, changes would sometimes be made between editions or printings even though the book itself remained indexed to the original year; and, sometimes, a verbatim reprint was indexed to the year of the printing instead of to the year of original publication.  The Hirschfeld books are a particular problem, since he himself published in German but his students re-published exerpts and summaries in English under Hirschfeld's name.  The 1922 and 1923 books, however, were different books entirely, which is why I thought it worth pointing out.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Really... :-, that will make finding an online reference for it that much harder. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, I'm afraid so. It's the same problem with Havelock Ellis and Krafft-Ebing.
 * A detail about the lede: Freund and Bancroft are missing wikilinks.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yikes
Wow. I'm really not sure what to say at this point. I'm really opposed to adding voluminous fact tags but if I didn't know better I sure would. This is relatively uncharted territory and quite unique for the vast majority of our readers. Unfortunately it remains convoluted still. I've added a tag to the "Controversy and Criticism" section. These sections are inherently POV and generally a sign of bad writing. I'm pretty sure the article would do better if the content was integrated appropriately. -- Banj e b oi   12:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of sweeping statements and random tags, could you please point out what POV problem there exists with the criticism section. It presents a few scientists critical of this term compared to a lot of scientists using it. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the article, IMHO, has sweeping problems but the tag itself is hardly random. As I understand it the term and concept themselves are controversial and being promoted to further a few scientist's agendas - whatever those might be - with many other scientists, activists and others finding the term misleading and offensive. Putting all that aside, labeling any section "Controversy and Criticism" in an article on this subject is simply inviting conflict rather than simply outlining the history of it's usages including events and, perhaps, redefinitions and simply explaining if there are notable controversies. I think having "Controversy and Criticism" causes two main problems; it decontextualizes the controversies in regards to the development of the subject and it throws the article out of balance, depending on ones personal view either adding too much "controversy and criticism" or not enough. Better to do away with the heading altogether and integrate material into the larger text. In an article about a film, for example, we avoid "Criticism" and instead present a more NPOV overview under "Public reception" with both positive and negative feedback as well as volume of box office sales. To me this section is just more problems waiting to happen so reworking the delivery would seem more appropriate. -- Banj e  b oi   14:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article has sweeping problems that have been going on for years, but User:Wandalstouring is threatening to declare it "good" unless these ongoing issues are all resolved next week. The article still has typos and a raft of unsubstantiated statements, but User:Wandalstouring has removed the cleanup tag, thus declaring it cleaned up. It's a most interesting editorial policy: if this article is still this bad in seven days, it will be officially declared good. Jokestress (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jokestress, you should try harder at reading. If you don't do sourced contributions within one week I'll declare it stable. Please point out several unsubstantiated statements before making such unsubstantiated claims. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @Banjeboi: I accept that you have a differing opinion, but that's IDL. However, you're cordially invited to write a sandbox version how it could be implemented without undue weight issues. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wandalstouring, you should try harder at reading. As others have pointed out on your talk page, "The only reason the article itself isn't the subject of an edit war is that one of the editors has decided to refrain from editing the article itself at all. I still don't feel that this article qualifies as stable." Your low standards for what constitutes "stable" and "cleaned up" and "good" appear to differ from other editors. Those of us who have higher standards still have concerns despite your rush to close this out and declare your work done here. Jokestress (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, two editors said they would refrain from editing this article, but only one is following through on the promise. — James Cantor (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Benjiboi: about your statement (As I understand it the term and concept themselves are controversial and being promoted to further a few scientist's agendas - whatever those might be - with many other scientists, activists and others finding the term misleading and offensive.)

I don't think that's a reasonable description of the actual state of opinion about the concept in academia. The concept has been (sometimes quietly) embraced by nearly all experts. It's clearly loathed by certain vocal TS activists, including our own Jokestress, but the idea that (for example) a transwoman who is attracted to men is less likely to 'de-transition' than other transwomen is pretty well established. The concept (but not the term) is also embraced by some TS people that fall into this category. (What TS person wouldn't appreciate being voted "most likely to have a successful transition"?)

I also don't think that it's appropriate to attribute the goal of "further[ing] a few scientist's agendas" to this idea. It really is widely accepted among sexologists. So unless "a few" means "nearly all" in your books, then this is incorrect.

That the term is offensive to clients is widely acknowledged, but (1) the term isn't the idea and (2) terms can change. You may recall that Down syndrome used to have an offensively racist name. In a few years, we'll probably be moving the page to androphilic transsexual or some such label, with a section describing the "historical" name. We shouldn't do that now, but this page is really about the idea, not about the two words chosen decades ago as a convenient handle for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly. The idea the notion of transsexuals who are attracted to men, being different in non-trivial ways from those who are not.  The concept that there is a progression from feminine boy who may or may not turn out gay or trans, to either a gay man or a transwoman. Not a new idea or one that is likely to leave us no matter what sexologist write in the future.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I notice there is no bisexual transsexual, heterosexual transsexual and asexual transsexual articles. I guess I share Jokestress' concerns that a clean-up tag was removed before cleaning up finished. And I shared my POV upfront but my main concern is this is a convoluted article about a controversial subject which adds to the confusion rather than providing good information to clarify what this term is and its history. IMHO, it's mucked up with POV material. My initial concern is that this is a complicated subject that has seen much controversy and having a "Controversy and Criticism" section engenders more problems than solutions. I shouldn't have to rewrite and reorganize the whole article to try and fix that. In most cases when this is pointed out the lead editors see the editing issue for what it is and fix it. Here it seems a different response was employed. I would hope to see a clear and clean lede followed by origin and usages with the rest of the present content moved, as appropriate, to transsexual sexuality. Ultimately I think that will serve our readers best. If this article is to remain with so much, IMHO, unneeded (for this article) content, then pushing it towards NPOV would help. -- Banj e  b oi   02:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently what you and I would assume are three separate groups (bi-/het-/a-) all have highly similar psychological issues, behaviors, outcomes, etc., according to sexologists  -- and that article certainly does exist:  it's autogynephilia.
 * The information about HT people should not be moved to the main TS sexuality article because it simply does not apply to all, or even most, TS people. (The fact that HT people are different from other TS people is exactly why the HT concept exists.)  There should certainly be a Main summary style synopsis with a link to this article, but we can't move everything there and pretend that it's really relevant to transsexuality in general.
 * Jokestress pushed very hard to split this subject into two articles; what used to be here is now divided between HT and Transwomen attracted to men. There was some talk about making Transwomen attracted to women (etc.), but I don't know how much progress has/hasn't been made.  (It will be more difficult, as there are no good scientific sources to support it, but then I believe a major goal in splitting the articles was to have less "scientific POV" in them, so perhaps that's a feature instead of a bug.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Continued after thread closed?

 * @ Benjiboi: If you critize something you must have an actual idea how it can be done better and show it to your less brilliant surroundings on a plan or in a sandbox. That's called constructive criticism. If you're not able to do that you can easily be dismissed as a bellyacher. However, you're lucky, this morning I invented an all-wheel bicycle(I still have to work on the differential) and a concept for merging the criticism section.
 * @Jokestress: You're running out of time. Kvetching doesn't improve articles, sourced contributions do. Once again, show with new referenced content that you have something to add to the article or I'll declare it stable (stable≠GA). Wandalstouring (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @Banjeboi, I agree with you perhaps there should be articles on the way those other taxonomic terms and the concepts the represent have been used as well. There is nothing stopping you from hunting down the few sources which do not lump them together in some fashion and creating such articles. As you can see I have had my hands full of fire with this one hot potato.  Whatamidoing is right about the way these are treated in the literature.  In research from Hirschfeld 1922,to Benjamin1966, to Johnson 2005, the main thrust seems to be that there is a difference between homosexual/androphilic transsexuals and non-androphilic transsexuals. During that span it's been more than a few sexologist/psychologist who have noted or researched the differences.
 * @WhatamIdoing, the transwoman/transman attracted to men/women articles were created. Then Banjeboi suggested that they all be merged/redirected to somewhere else. That merger has not occured because there is not a real hard consensus on where to merge that information to.
 * I missed where did all the controversy go? Is there just not going to be a controversy section?  I am not sure how I feel about that, it's like the articles legs have been choped off. (Are we waiting for Jokestress to post her version of a controversy section?  I am sure it would be prosaically good, but neutral........ :-? )--Hfarmer (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Perhaps I missed something but ... no. It's not my job to fix problems although I certainly do also often do that. Characterizing me, or anyone as a bellyacher seems completely unhelpful. As the editor who added the tag I immediately posted my concern here and was met by trenched opposition. This is not terribly surprising but perhaps a bit disappointing. I expanded my comments and the tag itself has handy links that explain the issues better than but I still offered constructive criticism. Not one iota of my concerns were about WP:I DON'T LIKE IT, they were, and continue to be, about making this subject clear to our readers. I think we are falling way short on this point but WP:TLDR is likely part of the problem. This thread is evidence of the voluminous ability to write yet the skill of communicating is still not translating effectively enough to the article content. To Hfarmer, I was pointing out - admittedly rather poorly - that this article doesn't cover a compare and contrast. It sounds like we really shouldn't have those articles but instead summarize relevant content in this and the transsexual sexuality article. I will note that less than 24 hours after tagging the section it has been completely migrated. I hope this helps the article improve but I may have to avoid this for another few months and return then to see the progress. -- Banj e b oi   13:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Migrated but to where? I did not moveit.  IMHO some criticism section is better than none and it is warranted. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your (The article's) GA reviewer, who also removed the clean-up tag, merged all the content. -- Banj e  b oi   03:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My GA reviewer? I don't own them, they do as they please.--Hfarmer (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I even wrote that I did it. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not notice. Sorry. This thing just exploded into such a big big mess of multiple independant conversations...  I lost track. :oops: --Hfarmer (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, if the amount of talkpage activity was equivalent to article content contributions it would be the best of wikipedia. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)