Talk:Ray Blanchard

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ray Blanchard. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=186

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Why doesn't this page have a "criticism" section?
The articles on many known researchers and thinkers have a section dedicated to criticisms of their ideas, as are many other articles on things with a certain stance. And even this article says WPATH reject Blanchard's work and trans people criticise it, so there is some mention of this here, this doesn't even create an image that his position is well beloved and accepted. The "criticism", section is standard, why isn't it here? Tomer 070 (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources that criticize him?CycoMa (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Bettcher, T. M. (2008). Pretenders to the Throne. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(3), 430–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9326-0

And all the research Serano cites here http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-real-autogynephilia-deniers.html Tomer 070 (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I do believe the first source may be useful but I doubt that the second one is reliable. Blogs in general aren’t reliable.CycoMa (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * FWIW, although Julia Serano is an expert in some areas, I think Tomer wasn't saying to cite her site (SELFPUB shouldn't be cited for criticisms of another BLP), but rather to cite the references her page lists. (I'm reminded of Timothy Messer-Kruse pointing to a list of RS on his site and being similarly, understandably, misunderstood.) However (@Tomer), reading the excerpts, I want to note that if the papers "merely" found results inconsistent with Blanchard but don't(?) say "this is in contrast to what Blanchard / his model would predict", citing them as criticisms of Blanchard would be WP:OR. If there are RS that discuss Blanchard or his theories, they'd appropriate to look at for inclusion either in this article or the articles on his theories. But as Crossroads says, it's better not to make a "Criticism" section. It simultaneously increases the prominence of "Criticism!" in the TOC in a way that's not great for the BLP, and also isolates criticism into one section that's separated from the places where the article discusses the controversial things, which is not great for the reader. (It's better to present relevant critical responses to things in the same areas of the article as the things are being discussed in.) -sche (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Bettcher, 2008 can also be read here https://www.academia.edu/2593138/Pretenders_to_the_Throne Tomer 070 (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Please read in on WP:TPG. But anyway I think that is reliable enough.
 * Although I’m not sure a criticism section on for this guy is appropriate because your sources appear to actually criticize autogynephilia isn’t of Ray himself.CycoMa (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am against criticism sections in WP:BLPs. Academic criticism of his academic work belongs, but in headings about his research. These shouldn't be presented as criticisms of Ray Blanchard personally, which is unprofessional. Crossroads -talk- 03:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CSECTION gives reasons why criticism sections should be avoided. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Sentence suggestion for a small sentence in Work, Typology of Transsexualism
Hello, there's a sentence, "Within the transgender community the idea has been criticized," is missing a comma, as in "Within the transgender community, the idea has been criticized;" however, I fell changing to "The idea has been criticized by the transgender community." feels more direct and slightly more clear.

Should this edit (A) just correct the missing comma, or (B) should it be changed?


 * A. "Within the transgender community, the idea has been criticized."


 * B. "The idea has been criticized by the transgender community."

Also, both edits removed an extra space in two sentences, as shown below.

Danny, JumboSizedFish (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ If somebody prefers the second edit, please let me know!

January 2024 edits
can we talk about the recent edits? I'm with Zenomonoz, in that it makes no sense to put content that has nothing about Blanchard's views on transgender people into §Views on transgender people. The rewrite of the 4thWaveNow is a clear worsening: it's both longer and less specific to say "has included the 4thWaveNow article in its 'Roundup of Anti-LGBT Activities rather than the well-supported "described as an anti-trans website". Hooky, you claimed in an edit summary that you are not edit warring, and I posted at templated warning about edit warring at your talk page. Please read the associated policy links, as the behavior you've engaged in is 100% edit warring. I encourage you to self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree, should self revert their most recent undo. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I waited 24 hours since the self-revert request, and Hooky6 has not been active in that time. This change is problematic enough in terms of NPOV and general accuracy that I'm uncomfortable with waiting longer, and I've reverted. Hooky6, I'd still like to hear your thoughts on why you think your changes were improvements. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with this article as written, is that it does not adhere to WP:NPV, specifically when referring to claims made by the SPLC. It gives the SPLC's viewpoint tacit endorsement, instead of adhering to a neutral viewpoint.
 * My rewrite was attempting to move all the claims made by the SPLC into their own paragraph to separate them from other unrelated citations, as what the SPLC says about those citations is a separate viewpoint from those of the other citations. By separating these claims, it removes the implication that Wikipedia is endorsing the views of the SPLC, and instead merely reports them neutrally.
 * I didn't think this would be such a controversial change to make - you people really are highly biased toward left-wing views if you can't handle some minor content adjustments that improve content neutrality.
 * Also, you have accused me of "edit warring," but it takes two to tango. If I cared more I could just as easily pursue moderation actions against you. Hooky6 (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to me? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)