Talk:Macrophilia

It's 2022, not 1953.
Can we please finally accept, in the year 2022, that

1. Not everyone is a small straight male into female giants.. ergo: small women exist. Men who are into giant men exist. And women into giant women And 2. Some people prefer being the giant

It's really not difficult to change the language to be more gender neutral and say "people" rather than specifically "men" and it's incredibly excluding. Other articles on fetishes I have seen are neutral it's literally just this 92.40.177.118 (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've only just noticed this but I feel that as an experienced editor I can chime in.
 * First off, welcome to Wikipedia!
 * Second off, unfortunately a wiki article simply having an apparent gendered bias is not in itself a reason to change it, additionally as you can see in the the talk page archives for this page many people have already tried to get this edited to be more gender neutral and have failed because some certain die hard editors want to continue to insist that this article is different from other paraphilia articles and should specifically mention the male lean of the fetish despite it being WP:CONSENSUS that paraphilia's in general are overwhelmingly male to begin with and thus mentioning it specifically in articles is redundant as the reader will assume as much already.
 * I don't know why these editors are like this, but then again, one of die hard editors I spoke off was (prior to her leaving wikipedia) well known in the community for WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and even canvassed off site for editors to campaign against certain transgender editors, so I suppose some people are just *really* passionate about sex and gender related topics. Take from it what you will, I myself previously sought to change the article to be more gender neutral on the above basis but two die harders did not even seem interested in entertaining the idea and it was turning into a flamewar type deal so I reclused myself from the discussion.
 * If you want to try again however, you are welcome to do so but if those die harders come again, your only option might be a WP:RFC to get a resolution, because they wont hear it from anyone else.
 * If you do wish to argue that point, I suggest reading up on wikipedia's policies on WP:CONSENSUS, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG. Also, others may be more receptive if you create an account and not talk as an IP address.
 * Good luck! (Name Blanked for Privacy)
 * Absolutely inappropriate to be making such accusations here.
 * That fact about paraphilias in general doesn't tell us about how to cover this topic; only sources on this topic do. People who read this article may not read a particular other one. The article does not say that it is male-only, so I don't see any problem. Per WP:Due weight, it should be described the way sources do rather than in a misleading gender-neutral way. Crossroads -talk- 03:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't usually edit articles on paraphilias so I'm unfamiliar with this, but where was a consensus established that mentioning a paraphilia being mostly male is redundant? Is that on one of the talk pages for the sex and sexuality wikiproject? Erinius (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It reeks of sexism and homophobia. The (same) people who are undoing every attempt to include the female and/or homosexual side of the topic hide behind false claims that there are no sources of male giants. While multiple references very clearly mention female AND male giants. I also tried to add coiledfist.com, a large if not THE largest organized macrophilia community on the internet which is exclusively about male giants. But the mere mention of it next to giantess websites and artists got removed immediately. I find this scandalous.
 * Wikipedia isn't about majority opinions. It should reflect reality and be a fair and nuanced representation of the sources. But reading the wiki article as is, one could come to the conclusion that macrophilia is synonymous with "Giant women fetish", which it verifiably isn't.
 * Isn't there anything we can do? Szalinskikid (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful with accusations of sexism and homophobia, especially if you're talking about specific editors. As Crossroads said, the article doesn't say it's male-only, and no one here has suggested that there are "no sources of male giants". Instead the article says that it's most commonly giantesses.
 * Wikipedia isn't about majority opinions. It should reflect reality and be a fair and nuanced representation of the sources - agree, and that's what the sources in the lead state. — Czello 09:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they do not. You are cherry-picking, and that's not ok. "Most commonly giantesses" does not mean Macrophilia is SYNONYMOUS with "giant women fetish" only. Reference 2 by an actual psychologist very clearly states that it's about giant males AND females. Reference 5 talks about giant HUMANS. Men are humans. Reference 13 is literally called "Gay Macrophilia".
 * What's the more nuanced take from this? A) macrophilia is about male and female giants or B) macrophilia is about female giants?
 * The entire wikipedia article reads like it's an exclusive heterosexual male fetish. In the "Internet/Community" category, you even removed my mention of coiledfist.org, THE single largest, organized macrophilia forum which happens to be exclusively about male giants. Why do that?
 * This is homophobia. Szalinskikid (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The first source says Simply put, male macrophiles -- and almost all macros are men -- get turned on by giant women and the second says The overwhelming majority of macrophiles are thought to be heterosexual males that are sexually attracted to female giantesses. Again, the article doesn't say it's exclusively this way, just that this is the most common application.
 * However, I need to ask you for clarification - what are you saying is homophobia, exactly? My justification/edits? — Czello 09:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The first source is a single opinion piece in an online newspaper. The second source is actually a psychologist's article in Psychology Today. And again, you're cherry-picking here. The very first paragraph says "Such fantasies may include the macrophiles themselves shrinking in front of a normal-sized person (male or female)."
 * The object of desire for macrophiles are MALE or FEMALE. Of course most macro content is giantess related. Heterosexuality is the majority sexuality. "Most common" does not equal "the only". The problem is not that the wiki article mentions "giantesses" as the most common form of macropholia. The problem is that the article ignores the fact that macrophilia isn't an exclusively heterosexual fetish. Macrophilia does not translate to "female giant fetish", it's not its definition. And yet the entire article reads like it does. The article doesn't allow for diversity and a truthful depiction of the topic.
 * By that logic, we should change the "Human Sexuality" wiki entry and say that "the human sexuality is heterosexuality". The logic: people are most commonly heterosexual.
 * It doesn't work that way though.
 * The homophobia/sexism isn't that the article mentions the "giantess fetish" as the most common form of macrophilia; the homophobia/sexism is that any attempt to include the homosexual/hetero female view (male giants) gets removed completed, even though it's reflected in the sources numerous times (as stated above).
 * Also, as already said, several giantess websites and artists are listed in the article. I added ONE gay/male macro website. The one macro website that is even larger than any single GTS site. You removed it with your edit.
 * If all of this isn't homophobia and sexism then what is it? Szalinskikid (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Doctor Psycho from Harley Quinn
In DC's Harley Quinn TV show, the character Doctor Psycho is portrayed as having Macrophilia, as he is attracted to the character Giganta, as well as Poison Ivy when she grows big at the end of season 1

This is a notable example, and should thus be listed in the examples section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.33.75 (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)