Talk:Transgender/Archive 2

Please use Androphilic/Gynephilic terminology, AT LEAST as an introduction!
To James Cantor et. al.:

Please, use objective androphilic/gynephilic terminology to describe sexual attraction in transsexuals. Characterizing the relationship between a post-op transsexual woman with a man as "homosexual" is just as confusing as it can be! (Besides being interpreted as derogatory and insensitive by androphilic, heterosexually-oriented transsexuals, such as myself.)

It just occurred to me that it's rather bizarre that the Blanchardian category employs the term autogynephilic for sexual self-regard as a woman in natal males, but does NOT use the terms gynephilic or androphilic for attraction to others ... that's... a weird inconsistency in terminological usage. -- bonze blayk (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have any preference for using gynephilic/androphilic or heterosexual/homosexual, but it did the page no good at all to create a page that used some terms in some places and other terms in other places. I have now made the page consistent in its use of androphilic/gynephilic.
 * The word for "attraction to others" is "alloerotic": Blanchard, R., Kuban, M. E., Blak, T., Klassen, P. E., Dickey R., & Cantor, J. M. (in press). Sexual attraction to others: A comparison of two models of alloerotic responding in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior. DOI 10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3. For free PDF, click here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/l2v8761372637p15/
 * — James Cantor (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, James!
 * -- bonze blayk (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only should we use objective terminology here, but I believe that also applies to all mentions of the phrases sex assignment or gender assignment because: A) sex is a personal decision and therefore does not meet any of the definitions of an assignment which as far as I can understand include that someone else gave it to the person instead of the person choosing for themselves and B) gender is a social construct however it is sometimes defined as the genetic or biological sex which according to some is incorrect C) Genotype that makes reference to what an individual that starts out as female and may turn to male is determined by the encoding of a genetic expression in the human genome and therefore is neither assigned nor chosen but a genetic result, and as far as I know, genetic sex reversal is impossible only the appearance of what is bio-morphologically identified as sex is changeable, which is to say hairline, jaw structure, breasts, body and facial hair, penis or vagina, hips and I'm not entirely sure but I believe muscle grafts or reductions are also possible, for the purpose of having a larger or smaller contour, but these are only generalizations that women tend to have smaller leg and inter-torso profiles and men tend to have larger leg and inter-torso profiles. -- Benjamin D Richards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.215.226.34 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 3 June 2011

Published evidence showed, demonstrated, or what?
On the mainpage, there is discussion of how best describe scientific findings. The page, thus far, uses words such as "show" to describe findings, such as:
 * In 1997, J.N. Zhou, M.A. Hofman, L.J. Gooren and D.F. Swaab conducted tests on the brains of transgender individuals. Their tests showed that...
 * Their study was the first to show a female brain structure...
 * Their study shows male to female transsexuals are...

I am of the opinion that to maintain NPOV, one would also described Blanchard's original taxonomic finding as:
 * Blanchard showed that there were...

or similar. I am sure that other acceptible phrases can be found for describing research findings accurately, but describing a desired finding as "shown" but undesired findings as dubious is pretty much the definition of failing NPOV. What other NPOV options for phrasing can folks suggest? — James Cantor (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * James, as an academic, you should know the difference between observed phenomenon (such as the size of a brain structure) and the result of a correlation between self-reported factors that are used as a proxy for the operationalization of a concept. So, what Blanchard has done is showing a correlation, which is still not causation. Hence, he has NOT demonstrated that there are two types, but only shown that it is possible to subdivide the group in two subgroups using his criteria suggesting that maybe his idea is correct. Furthermore, in line with your pledge not to edit autogynephilia and related articles, I am surprised to see you popping up here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kim, 1. You appear to be addressing the wrong debate. Blanchard was making a taxonomic statement (i.e., what goes with what); he did not make and his data did not show either a correlation or a causation.  He merely showed that the homosexual group was very distinct from all the other groups.  As a postdoc, you should be able to recognize both correlations and their absence.
 * 2. Blanchard did not take a group and divide it. Either you didn't read his papers or you are willfully ignoring their contents.  Blanchard did the very opposite of dividing.  He took what was then believed to be a multiplicity of phenomena and showed that they were reduceable to two.  The lay literature usually gets this wrong, but the professional literature does a better job.
 * So, to get back to the mainpage: The discussion relevant here is how to describe Blanchard's (and any other) findings for readers in a way unpolluted from the views of the editor providing them. So, what exactly are you suggesting to use as text?
 * — James Cantor (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you're surprised...Actually, I'm not surprised at all. Throughout our interactions, I have had the consistent impression that you react to what you think I am saying because I am a researcher, for example, rather than react to what I am actually writing.  In fact, I have found myself wondering at your hostile tone towards me when your next edit was to express (to someone else) the very same idea I had just pointed out.
 * The pages I pledged not to edit were specifically to end a long series of edit wars with specific other editors (and my invitation that they join me in that self-imposed ban stands). This page was never wrapped up in the problem my pledge was meant to help solve.  No mystery.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "In order to prevent whatever COI I might be perceived to have from affecting Wikipedia, I pledge not to edit article space of the pages listed below, and I invite both Dicklyon, Jokestress to do the same.... Autogynephilia ... " User:James_Cantor
 * Your phrasing here appears to acknowledge the (arguable) existence of a COI which may lead to an appearance of impropriety, rather than a temporary truce in edit wars on certain topics... which you will resume on another front.
 * Do you believe that editing a section on Autogynephilia in the Transgender article is somehow not (by analogy) a part of the "article space" on Autogynephilia?
 * Also, with respect to my earlier edit which you reverted: when I stated "Autogynephilia - deleted ULTRA-controversial minority claim by Anne Lawrence of relationship to aptemnophilia - THIS DOESN'T BELONG AT THE TOP!" in my edit summary, I meant to imply:  Transgender is at a higher level conceptually than Transsexualism, and again that is at a higher level than Autogynephilia or the subject of "Similarities postulated between transsexualism and apotemnophilia".  I don't see why such (admittedly interesting, yet recondite) arguments have found their way to the "top level" relating to "transgenderism" in general.
 * Just to note: I find that the organization of gender-related topics in Wikipedia is a wretched mess, and the articles themselves foci of partisan contention, so this topic creep isn't really surprising to me.
 * — bonze blayk (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes.
 * 1. I gave my pledge in response to a series of edit wars on the pages I listed. Of the three of editors involved, only I made such a pledge.  It was to specific pages, not a topic.  To insinuate that I am somehow at fault for not going farther, when no other editor would go as far as I, is a bit silly.
 * 2. We are now going back years since I gave that pledge, and have held to it, without exception. To call that temporary in wikipedia time is, again, a bit silly.
 * 3. I'm not the one who put "autogynephilia" here, nor am I the one who put the neurological data here. I merely updated it with more recent RS's.
 * 4. I agree entirely with the poor state of this family of topics and that the articles themselves are a series of scars from edit wars with community activists who do not like the picture emerging from the research, and so scapegoat and discount the researchers. Indeed, the extent of the activists' war against science has itself become a notable topic.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No. I address the right debate. No, Blanchard first made an artificial grouping using two continuous variables (degree of attraction to men and women) in a cluster analysis dividing them in four groups by using the four corners of the square as reference points. The data are quite uneven positioned across the square. Anyway, he then uses this artificial grouping to see how they scored on certain factors:
 * Fisher Exact tests were used to compare the frequency with which subjects in the four clusters reported a history of erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing. As predicted, there were no differences among the asexual, bisexual, and heterosexual transsexuals, and all three groups included a much higher proportion of fetishistic cases than the homosexual group (p .0001, two-tailed).
 * This is a correlation between sexual orientation group and whether or not they have a history of erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing. So, now that we have that issue out of the way, we can find proper words for the correlation he found on which he based his topology. Words like suggest. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're still not understanding your own point. You said "what Blanchard has done is showing a correlation, which is still not causation", meaning that Blanchard was not able to make any causal statements.  You are entirely correct that one cannot draw a causal conclusion from correlational data, but what I seem to be having trouble getting across is that Blanchard didn't make a causal statement in the first place!


 * More to the point (that you are arguing from WP:IDONTLIKEIT): The specific paper you are talking about above is Blanchard (1985), an RS which does not even appear on the mainpage. Rather, statements about it are in the secondary sources that are on the mainpage (specifically, Bailey, 2003 and Smith et al., 2005).  That you happen todisagree with Blanchard (1985)'s typology doesn't mean you get to change what the RS's say.


 * Next, you expressed in the above that you take neurological evidence over self-report evidence. For the record (and as a person who has published both neurological and behavioral/self-report research), I believe it is a grave intellectual error to hold neurological evidence to be automatically superior.  Nonetheless, the typological question has been answered neurologically as well as on the basis of self-report.  (Incidentally, very many transsexuals would not appreciate having their self-reports disregarded.)  I have added to the mainpage two recent neurological studies (entirely independent of Blanchard) that show exactly the typology Blanchard predicted.
 * Rametti, G., Carrillo, B., Gómez-Gil, E., Junque, C., Zubiarre-Elorza, L., Segovia, S., Gomez, Á, & Guillamon, A. (2011). The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A DTI study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45, 199-204. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.05.006
 * Savic, I., & Arver, S. (2011). Sex dimorphism of the brain in male-to-female transsexuals. Cerebral Cortex. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr032


 * Next, we have two neurological articles showing that the Zhou finding, for which you express favor, was in error. (One demonstrated that the BNST difference doesn't emerge until adulthood, and the other showed that the BNST changes in response to the hormone therapy that transsexuals take, thus indicating that the BNST difference prevously reported was due to hormonal therapy, no due to being the cause transsexualism.
 * Chung. W., De Vries, G., & Swaab, D. (2002). Sexual differentiation of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in humans may extend into adulthood. Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 1027–1033.
 * Hulshoff Pol, H. E., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Van Haren, N. E., Peper, J. S., Brans, R. G., Cahn, W., et al. (2006). Changing your sex changes your brain: Influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure. European Journal of Endocrinology, 155(Suppl. 1), S107-S114.


 * So, whether you use neurological vs. self-report as your criterion or independent replicability as your criterion (or anything else other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT) the same conclusion emerges. It is a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV (and probably WP:OR) to say Blanchard's (repeatedly verified) finding suggests but Zhou's (repeatedly disproven) finding shows.


 * Perhaps you might bring this issue up at the neuroscience project for input?


 * — James Cantor (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry James, but your flood of words does not change things as they are. If someone finds a difference in the size of a specific part of the brain, that is a direct observation and the word show is appropriate. The interpretation of that is correlative, and show is not appropriate.
 * I am glad we agree that Blanchard didn't make a causal statement in the first place!. I agree. Hence, he has not shown that autogynephilia explains gynephilic transwomen. Therefore, the word is inappropriate. It is his inference of the data.
 * Contrary to your impression, I do not hold neuroanatomical evidence to a higher standard, to the contrary, I believe that they both have their value in the appropriate study. I find you statement Incidentally, very many transsexuals would not appreciate having their self-reports disregarded. curious, as self-reports of non-autogynephilic gynephilic transwoman and autogynephilic androphylic transwomen are routinely disregarded by proponents of the Blanchard dichotomy. But I guess I should read that as that you disagree with disregarding those self-reports.
 * Now for the suggested demolition of the Zhou et al papers. The Hulshoff Pol et al paper does not address the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST or BSTc) part at all, just general brain volume and hypothalamus volume. The latter, where the BSTc is located, incidentally changes in the same way between MtF subjects and female controls. ZHpou et al also looked at one MtF who had not yet started hormone theray, and that person was square in the middle of the other MtF's. If you hypothesis would be correct, that person whould have been an outlier among the MtF's. So, the Hulshoff Pol et al paper does NOT invalidate Zhou et al.
 * The Chung et al paper essentially demonstrates that the differentiation of the BSTc occurs in late puberty, but that does not invalidate Zhou et al, it just pinpoints when the differentiation occurs.
 * So, now that we have dismantled your 'evidence' that you molded in what was obvious original research, we can go back to fixing the unwarranted strong support that you want to give your boss' hypothesis. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(Outdenting) 1. It was never clear to me how or why you are so angry. Regardless of your emotions, I recommend replacing phrases such as "your flood of words" etc. with more AGF language.

2. It is still not clear why you are fighting against the idea that Blanchard said (or believes) that autogynephilia explains anything. He never provided it as an explanation. All Blanchard showed was that the multiple phenomena that were being described in those days could actually be described accurately as only two phenomena. There has not been an article in the many years since showing otherwise.

3. I never said you held neuro data to a higher standard.

4. There is nothing relevant to the mainpage about "curious, as self-reports of non-autogynephilic gynephilic transwoman and autogynephilic androphylic transwomen are routinely disregarded by proponents of the Blanchard dichotomy" and I have no need to join a war of sneers and to call it a discussion. I merely point out the danger, and what you "read" into what I say is not under my control. Your mind is clearly well made up.

5. I cannot describe Hulshoff Pol better than Hulshoff Pol, who directly addressed the Zhou data:
 * "The bed nucleus of the stria terminalis of the hypothalamus, larger in males than in females, was found to be of female size in six MFs and of male size in one FM. All these transsexuals had received cross-sex hormone treatment before their brains were studied. Therefore, the altered size of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis could have been due to the exposure of cross-sex hormones in adult life" (p. S108).

You are free to your OR, but that's neither here nor there for the mainpage.

6. Your interpretation of Chung is also incorrect. Zhou et al. wrote that "the small size of the BSTc in male-to-female transsexuals...is established during development by an organzing action of sex hormones" (p. 70). Because Chung found that the BSTc difference does not exist during development, it cannot be the cause. As Chung wrote:
 * "Late sexual differentiation of the human BSTc volume also affects our perception about the relationship between BSTs [sic] volume and transsexuality....Epidemiological studies show that the awareness of gender problems is generally present much earlier. Indeed, [about] 67-78% of transsexuals in adulthood report having strong feelings of being born in the wrong body from childhood onward" (p. 1032).

You are free to your OR, but that's neither here nor there for the mainpage.

Clearly, we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this any time soon. So, I repeat my earlier suggestion that input be sought from folks, such as at the neuroscience project, who can readily read the neurological data but have no stake in the topic itself.

(7. Blanchard is not my boss.  In fact, he's retired.) — James Cantor (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * About and, perhaps a solution would be to include the material in that paragraph, but to move it to another part of the page (not in the scientific studies section) and/or to rewrite it to include sources that disagree with it. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A possibility, of course. But could you flesh out your thinking for me a bit?  We have the best known scientist on the topic, writing in the best known scientific journal in the relelvant field, providing an hypothesis for what the scientific studies would show.  What's the logic for moving that outside the science section?...especially when it can be followed by what the scientific studies do show?— James Cantor (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I may not have that much thinking to flesh out! As you know, I came to this page as someone who knows little about the subject matter here, but who is comfortable with neuroscience and who can look at the page with fresh eyes. What I see here is discussion about Blanchard being indeed well known but apparently, um, controversial, and the editor who wanted to remove the paragraph saying that it was a prediction, rather than a research finding. What I'm suggesting really does not come from any particular insight into the source material (I don't have such an insight), but from my sense of what is good editing practice on Wikipedia, and how the consensus process works. Based on what you say here, is there a way to present this in a single paragraph (so as to make the relationship clearer to the non-specialist reader) as (1) here is Blanchard's prediction, and (2, same paragraph) here is what the science actually found? Or, would it be better to delete the "predictions" paragraph, keep the description of the scientific findings, and instead put a summary sentence at the end of the scientific findings paragraph that points out how the results fit with the prediction that had been made by Blanchard? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL Humility is a rare find on WP. (I think that makes me a Trypofan?)
 * Yes, Blanchard is well-known, and any discussion from WP would indeed suggest he is controversial. It's more accurate to say that his research led to a conclusion about the nature of transsexualism that some (prolifically vocal) transsexuals found un-flattering and attempt to discredit.  (The big explosions started in 2003 when The Man Who Would Be Queen was published by J. Michael Bailey, bringing Blanchard's ideas to wider attention.)  That's why I often seek external input rather than to repeat the same arguments with the same WP editors.
 * So, although our explicit conversation here is about good editing, the implicit conversation is the expectable one: Everything that agrees with Blanchard must be shot down, and everything that criticizes Blanchard must be included and emphasized, no matter how low the WP:RS bar must go. You'll notice, for example, that the Zhou finding is based on the smallest dataset ever reported, each aspect of that study failed to replicate, but it still receives the greatest mainpage attention even though the data repeatedly agree with Blanchard's prediction instead of Zhou's n of 6.
 * My personal opinion is that the Blanchard quote gives obvious context for the rest of the neuroanatomy section, but rather than take another ride on the edit war wagon, I'd likely follow your thus far uninvolved opinion.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! OK, then, what are the data that "repeatedly agree with Blanchard's prediction instead of Zhou's n of 6"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, again. Sorry for the delay.
 * For reference, these are Blanchard's prediction(s): "The brains of both homosexual [androphilic] and heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals probably differ from the brains of typical heterosexual men, but in different ways. In homosexual male-to-female transsexuals, the difference does involve sex-dimorphic structures, and the nature of the difference is a shift in the female-typical direction. If there is any neuroanatomic intersexuality, it is in the homosexual [androphilic] group. In heterosexual [gynephilic] male-to-female transsexuals, the difference may not involve sex-dimorphic structures at all, and the nature of the structural difference is not necessarily along the male–female dimension."
 * The data for the first part of the prediction are in Gizewski et al. (Gizewski, E. R., Krause, E., Schlamann, M., Happich, F., Ladd, M. E., Forsting, M., & Senf, W. (2009). Specific cerebral activation due to visual erotic stimuli in male-to-female transsexuals compared with male and female controls: An fMRI study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 440–448.] and in Rametti et al. [Rametti, G., Carrillo, B., Gómez-Gil, E., Junque, C., Zubiarre-Elorza, L., Segovia, S., Gomez, Á. & Guillamon, A., (2010). The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment: A DTI study. Journal of Psychiatric Research. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.11.007.]. Both studies scanned homosexual male-to-females and found that they were shifted towards the female direction in sexually dimorphic brain areas (only).  The data for the second part of the prediction are in Savic & Arver [Savic, I., & Arver, S. (2011). Sex dimorphism of the brain in male-to-female transsexuals. Cerebral Cortex. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr032.]  They scanned heterosexual male-to-females and found that they were not different from controls in any sexually dimorphic region, but were different from the controls in several non- sexually dimorphic resions.  Other neurological studies of transsexuality have been conducted (and are on the mainpage), but did not record or report whether the samples were homosexual or heterosexual, so they are not informative on this aspect.
 * Each of studies I cite above were several times the size of the Zhou study. Although Blanchard's idea is unpopular in some quarters, that is neither here nor there for WP purposes.  I think Blanchard's prediction is more than germaine to any discussion of the neurological discussion of transsexuality.  Input?
 * — James Cantor (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. What I'm going to do by way of response is to adopt the position of someone who is neutral and non-expert in the editing dispute, and to try to mediate the issue according to my understanding of the consensus process.
 * Anyone: My reading, on face value, of what James said immediately above is that there are three published studies—Gizewski et al., 2009; Rametti et al., 2010; and Savic & Arver, 2011—that, taken together, provide experimental support for Blanchard's predictions, and are peer-reviewed reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. There is also the Zhou study, which provides evidence that contradicts Blanchard's predictions. Zhou is, similarly, a reliable source per WP:MEDRS, but was a smaller study than any of the other three. Those four papers constitute the principal scientific literature that experimentally tests Blanchard's hypothesis. Is that correct, or is that incorrect?
 * James: Why not simply cite those three studies, and note briefly that they support Blanchard's predictions, instead of devoting a paragraph to an extensive quote of the prediction? In other words, focus on the empirical data (since it's a section about science), instead of the theorizing?
 * Anyone: Why not present the information as: Blanchard predicted such-and-such, and there is not yet a clear scientific answer as to whether the hypothesis is correct. Three studies, constituting the bulk of the literature, seem to support the predictions, whereas one study calls them into question.
 * --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tryptofish; I think that's a very productive suggestion.
 * Re 1: Yes, those three articles are the most direct neurological tests of Blanchard's prediction. (There have long been indirect studies suggesting those findings, but these three articles are the most directly neurological.)
 * Re 2: I have no problem at all summarizing instead of quoting Blanchard's prediction. (If I can trouble you to do so, my experience is that anything I write quickly gets diverted into OR or COI debates, so a summary from you instead of me would be of great help.
 * Re 3: Although that summary would indeed capture those four studies, I would not put Zhou on the same footing as the other three: In addition to the sample size issue, Zhou's test that transsexuality per se shows sex reversal in sex dimorphic brain anatomy has failed to replicate multiple times. Already on the mainpage: Emery et al (1991); Haraldsen et al. (2003); Wisniewski et al. (2005); and Luders et al. (2009).  All failed to find the sex reversal the Zhou hypothesis would predict.  So, the overall picture is not only 3:1 in favor of Blanchard's prediction.  It is also that the alternative has repeatedly failed.  I am not saying that Zhou should be ignored, but as you can see from the mainpage, it's getting quite the WP:UNDUE treatment despite being the very clear outlier of the relevant literature.  The finding is very popular in some circles, not because it is a reliable finding, but because the finding has a political implication that many people espouse.  (Hence the difficulty achieving consensus.)
 * — James Cantor (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you James. Now, the ball is in the other editors' court. Editors who see things differently than James does, please indicate what you think about his answers to questions 1 and 3. Please weigh in: what do you think? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Now, the ball is in the other editors' court." Tryptofish, I don't think you're going to find many editors eager to engage with User:James Cantor and his abusive tactics in an effort to try to reign in his WP:COI and POV/Truth™ -driven crusade to cleanse Wikipedia of all references to viewpoints on trans* issues which do not agree with his own through WikiLawyering, badgering, and just plain persistence.  (Here he's trying to enlist you to certify his WP:OR/WP:SYNTH interpretation of primary sources!  WOW!)
 * His recent activities on the Transgender article here are just another instance; you would need to go over his history on these issues, beginning with his anonymous exploits as User:MarionTheLibrarian beginning in July 2008, to get it. Read his own characterizations of others just on this Talk page; go over the history on his Talk page; perhaps you'll see what I mean.
 * I would go over this in detail... including my assessments of his interpretations, made in his recent edit spree here, of the details related in the source articles cited; but I think it's a waste of my time... see YouTube: Professor Wikipedia... I will suggest that a good secondary source on this subject, appropriate for citation in Wikipedia, is Deborah Rudacille's excellent "The Riddle of Gender: Science, Activism, and Transgender Rights"..
 * ... and hey, do I have a COI myself? SURE DO! - Sincerely, bonze blayk (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bonze, thank you for your comments here. I'd like to assure you that I've had a lot experience with content disputes, agendas, and COIs, and it isn't easy to fool me. I haven't taken anyone's "side" here. I'm aware of James' recent block and the issues on both sides of it. I'm asking questions, to which there should be reasonably objective answers, in the hopes of reaching a good, encyclopedic outcome for the content of this page. I find that it's usually a good idea to approach these kinds of discussions thinking about how one's comments would appear to an objective reader unfamiliar with the case, and your response to me sounds, on the face of it, an awful lot like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Perhaps that's an unfair assessment, and perhaps you speak out of genuine frustration, but that's how it comes across. I asked about some specifics of the scientific literature. Telling me instead to look at Professor Wikipedia insults my intelligence. Instead of focusing on COIs, whether James' or your own, let's focus on the sources. You draw attention to Rudacille's book, which is a good start. Please point me to specific passages or chapters in that book, that speak directly to my questions 1 and 3. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Tryptofish, I'll take what's behind Door Number Three! — I.e., "It's not proven." (In my scans from The Riddle of Gender, I can find no directly relevant citations.)
 * ... but please note: when you ask editors to decide how they'd like to see James Cantor's WP:SYNTH presented here, you're asking the wrong question. To begin with, this material on brain research relevant to issues of the classification and etiology of transsexualism does not belong in this particular article, and the editors who would take an interest in summarizing these findings would most likely be observing posts in Causes of transsexualism.
 * Transgender deals with a MUCH higher level of generalization about variations in gender identity and/or presentation than Transsexualism, and in turn that subject has a broader scope than Causes of transsexualism. ALL THESE POSTS by James Cantor are... miscategorized.  A naive reader interested in finding out more about the "transgender spectrum" is going to find this article VERY misleading!  E.g.:  "I found my husband crossdressing... he says he's just a bit transgendered, it's OK, he's not... one of those... OH NO! OMG! In Wikipedia, "Transgender" is mostly about transsexualism!"  (Which is kind of amusing, since Victoria Prince coined the term "transgender" to distinguish HER class of feminine but non-surgery-seeking males from "transsexuals" ... language is not just a virus; it's a rapidly-mutating one ... *sigh*)
 * To address the claim I'm making that James Cantor's edits here comprise WP:SYNTH, here's a relevant citation from a WP:RS :
 * Luders et al, Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism (2009)
 * "Moreover, a highly controversial line of research has suggested that homosexual and non-homosexual MTF transsexualism are etiologically heterogeneous (Blanchard, 1989a; Blanchard, 1989b), which may be associated with differences in neuroanatomy."
 * Blanchard's transsexualism typology is described here as highly controversial. OK?  If James Cantor could cite an article linking all this research together and describing it as sufficient proof that the BAT is correct, I'd have no problem.
 * WP:SYNTH might well be correct, but is inherently problematic; I'll give one further example why: James Cantor cites Rametti et al. 2010 "The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment" as supporting the BAT with respect to HSTS subjects...
 * "Studies have consistently shown that specifically homosexual male-to-female transsexuals, like gay men, show a shift towards the female direction in brain anatomy." - James Cantor, similar text first appearing at ... (first, note that as of yet there has been no response to the Citation Needed I posted on the "like gay men" claim...)
 * However, that study states "The etiology of transsexualism is unknown but biological variables could play a role in its development (Cohen-Kettenis and Gooren, 1999; Gooren, 2006; Swaab, 2004)." ... and "Sexual orientation of transsexual subjects was determined by asking what partner (a man, a woman, both or neither) the subjects would prefer or feel sexual attraction to if their body did not interfere."
 * Please note that this is not Blanchardian "homosexual transsexualism": I qualify, even though I'm a once-married fashion-mad trans-geek with offspring.  (And here I am, active on the Internet, to boot!  Lawrence & Bailey ("Transsexual Groups in Veale et al. (2008) are 'Autogynephilic' and 'Even More Autogynephilic'"):  "MtF transsexuals who are active on the Internet appear overwhelmingly to be autogynephilic.")  (NB:  prudence forbids more than this remark:  this self-knowledge is not based on fantasy, OK?)
 * And in closing: Tryptofish, you note that an "objective reader" might not be impressed with the tone of my Talk post... since I'm a comedienne, and not a scholar, I tend to avoid striking poses of "objectivity" in Talk, which suit my temperament and style of expression... not.  The "Professor Wikipedia" YouTube video I linked was not intended as an insult to you or any other editors here:  I myself started patrolling various articles in order to delete vandalism, well, just because I happen to rely on Wikipedia for initial impressions and relevant external links on many subjects, and like to see it kept free of the worst detritus.  The video is outrageously funny; there's a KILLER punch line:  wait for it!
 * It may even make you feel happy about becoming involved with the trans* edit wars... if you think about it ;-) -- "Am I WP:N yet?" - b.a.r.blayk —— bonze blayk (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A neuroscientist and a comedienne walk into a bar... I, in turn, got interested in Wikipedia because I enjoy interacting with a wide variety of people. I'm impressed that there seems to be a lack of edit warring at Causes of transsexualism, but I think that it's reasonable to have some sort of section about science here, at Transgender. And I think that it is abundantly clear that, however this page presents Blanchard, it is essential to do so in a way that makes clear that his hypotheses are controversial, and not to imply that they are generally accepted in the scientific literature. Anyway, please allow me to continue to focus rather narrowly on the scientific questions here.
 * 1) With regard to my question number one, I asked whether there is further scientific literature calling Blanchard into question. James basically said that there are not other studies that directly test the hypothesis. Bonze points to Luders et al., who, I'm guessing, James will say does not directly test the hypothesis, but which I think can be considered to be a reliable source examining the anatomical issues and finding something, but something different than what Blanchard predicted, and who seem to express the opinion that Blanchard was "controversial". James: is that fair? Bonze also points out that the Rametti paper, cited by James, has issues about how the subjects of the study were categorized, and makes the statement that the etiology is unknown. James: do Rametti et al. actually state that their results support Blanchard's hypothesis—I'm looking for a verbatim quote here, saying something like "we conclude that our results are consistent with Blanchard's hypothesis" or words to that effect!—or is it your own interpretation of their results that the results support the hypothesis? Or is Bonze doing WP:SYNTH about how the subjects in that study were defined?
 * 2) With regard to my question number two, James' agreement means we have consensus against a lengthy quote.
 * 3) With regard to my question number three, I think we are going to agree that, as Bonze says, it is not proven, but, beyond that, I think we need to settle what we think about my question number one.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: Yes, just about. To emphasize a minor point that is hard to communicate via typing: It is not it that no one else has directly tested Blanchard's model (which several others successfully have), it is that no one other than these three teams have tested Blanchard's model using directly neurological techniques.
 * Regarding the exact terms in each text; I'd need to go back and re-read how which one phrased what. However, I have no problem telling you up front that not all three said that they were testing Blanchard's hypothesis and that calling that set of papers an explicit confirmation of Blanchard could indeed be a WP:SYNTH problem.  My goal in coming to this page was simply to add all the other neuro-relevant findings pertinant to that section.  (It contained only the exceptional finding rather than the predominant finding.)
 * — James Cantor (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, James. I think that answer is very helpful, and it suggests to me a way forward. First, let me say to James that I can readily understand how you feel about the issue. As an academic scientist, I too would sometimes like to see my own best judgment about issues that are currently unresolved in my own areas of expertise more clearly reflected in Wikipedia content. But Wikipedia simply isn't the place to work those issues out. That has to happen in the primary literature, and Wikipedia, as tertiary literature, can only follow. And my editing experience is that SYNTH can be interpreted strictly or loosely, but on pages where editors have strong opinions, as is clearly the case here, it is best to apply it strictly.


 * So I want to propose the following way forward, and I'd like to know what all editors here think about it.
 * Transgender should be sourced to, and discuss, only sources that are looking at biological aspects of brain structure, using neurological or neuroscientific techniques, and should generally refrain from discussing these findings in terms of Blanchard's typology. As for how you write the section of the page just above it, about that typology, I leave that to the rest of you, since it is above my pay grade!
 * The brain-based studies should be discussed in terms of what the authors of those studies say, explicitly, that they concluded, and not include anything that Wikipedia editors might infer from those studies. It will be a lot of "this part of the brain was larger", "that part of the brain was smaller", and "this other part of the brain was the same". There may be three studies that said a particular part of the brain was larger, and two studies that said the same brain part was smaller; they should all be cited, and no attempt by Wikipedia editors should be made to say which was wrong and which was right (unless there was subsequent consensus in the scientific literature).
 * The only time that Blanchard's typology should be mentioned is when the authors of the cited study said, explicitly, that they were testing Blanchard's hypothesis and concluded that it was either true or false. Commenting parenthetically that it is controversial does not count; rather, the authors must say themselves that their evidence has direct bearing on it.
 * This probably means that the section will not have any sweeping conclusions, instead treating the subject as one that is currently unresolved. That's OK.
 * It is unacceptable for editors to refuse to allow some reliable sources to be included, and doing so may give the appearance of POV-pushing. If there are various studies, some pointing one way, and others pointing the opposite way, they should all be included, at least briefly, so long as they are presented as above.
 * Would that be acceptable to everyone? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. Although I am happy to write a sentence summarizing instead of quoting Blanchard's idea, I would first like to invite any of the other folks who previously expressed an interest here to propose one/some.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If, and I'm just saying "if", we agree on what I suggested, do we really still need that sentence (at least in this part of the article) at all? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To my eye, it's rather bizarre without it. That is, there are a string of studies all testing the same prediction, but the prediction itself would be missing.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please carefully re-read what I proposed. Do those sources actually say that they were testing it? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I've misread you (wouldn't be my first time).
 * The original articles vary in their explicitness. Some articles seem to have accidentally tripped upon the androphilic/gynephilic distinction just by luck whereas others cite Blanchard explicitly as the reason for the research design they chose.  I don't think that either Blanchard (or anyone else) has said or used the neurological data as an explicit test of the Blanchard typology.  Rather, there have been predictions made on the basis of the Blanchard typology (and those predictions have, thus far, been correct).  Thus, I believe the predictions are very relevant here, but should be cast either as proof or disproof.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then, to repeat what I suggested: "The only time that Blanchard's typology should be mentioned is when the authors of the cited study said, explicitly, that they were testing Blanchard's hypothesis and concluded that it was either true or false." In this case, I don't necessarily see a need for a summary sentence; instead, I would just state what the authors concluded. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To close the loop then, you're saying you think the current mainpage should stay as is?
 * — James Cantor (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with further edits. I made a suggestion with five bullet points just above, and those five points are what I suggest. I would advise against writing the section as though it were a literature in which various investigators have tested Blanchard's predictions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please use Androphilic/Gynephilic terminology, AT LEAST as an introduction!
To James Cantor et. al.:

Please, use objective androphilic/gynephilic terminology to describe sexual attraction in transsexuals. Characterizing the relationship between a post-op transsexual woman with a man as "homosexual" is just as confusing as it can be! (Besides being interpreted as derogatory and insensitive by androphilic, heterosexually-oriented transsexuals, such as myself.)

It just occurred to me that it's rather bizarre that the Blanchardian category employs the term autogynephilic for sexual self-regard as a woman in natal males, but does NOT use the terms gynephilic or androphilic for attraction to others ... that's... a weird inconsistency in terminological usage. -- bonze blayk (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have any preference for using gynephilic/androphilic or heterosexual/homosexual, but it did the page no good at all to create a page that used some terms in some places and other terms in other places. I have now made the page consistent in its use of androphilic/gynephilic.
 * The word for "attraction to others" is "alloerotic": Blanchard, R., Kuban, M. E., Blak, T., Klassen, P. E., Dickey R., & Cantor, J. M. (in press). Sexual attraction to others: A comparison of two models of alloerotic responding in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior. DOI 10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3. For free PDF, click here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/l2v8761372637p15/
 * — James Cantor (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, James!
 * -- bonze blayk (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only should we use objective terminology here, but I believe that also applies to all mentions of the phrases sex assignment or gender assignment because: A) sex is a personal decision and therefore does not meet any of the definitions of an assignment which as far as I can understand include that someone else gave it to the person instead of the person choosing for themselves and B) gender is a social construct however it is sometimes defined as the genetic or biological sex which according to some is incorrect C) Genotype that makes reference to what an individual that starts out as female and may turn to male is determined by the encoding of a genetic expression in the human genome and therefore is neither assigned nor chosen but a genetic result, and as far as I know, genetic sex reversal is impossible only the appearance of what is bio-morphologically identified as sex is changeable, which is to say hairline, jaw structure, breasts, body and facial hair, penis or vagina, hips and I'm not entirely sure but I believe muscle grafts or reductions are also possible, for the purpose of having a larger or smaller contour, but these are only generalizations that women tend to have smaller leg and inter-torso profiles and men tend to have larger leg and inter-torso profiles. -- Benjamin D Richards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.215.226.34 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 3 June 2011

Please use Androphilic/Gynephilic terminology, AT LEAST as an introduction!
To James Cantor et. al.:

Please, use objective androphilic/gynephilic terminology to describe sexual attraction in transsexuals. Characterizing the relationship between a post-op transsexual woman with a man as "homosexual" is just as confusing as it can be! (Besides being interpreted as derogatory and insensitive by androphilic, heterosexually-oriented transsexuals, such as myself.)

It just occurred to me that it's rather bizarre that the Blanchardian category employs the term autogynephilic for sexual self-regard as a woman in natal males, but does NOT use the terms gynephilic or androphilic for attraction to others ... that's... a weird inconsistency in terminological usage. -- bonze blayk (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have any preference for using gynephilic/androphilic or heterosexual/homosexual, but it did the page no good at all to create a page that used some terms in some places and other terms in other places. I have now made the page consistent in its use of androphilic/gynephilic.
 * The word for "attraction to others" is "alloerotic": Blanchard, R., Kuban, M. E., Blak, T., Klassen, P. E., Dickey R., & Cantor, J. M. (in press). Sexual attraction to others: A comparison of two models of alloerotic responding in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior. DOI 10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3. For free PDF, click here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/l2v8761372637p15/
 * — James Cantor (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, James!
 * -- bonze blayk (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only should we use objective terminology here, but I believe that also applies to all mentions of the phrases sex assignment or gender assignment because: A) sex is a personal decision and therefore does not meet any of the definitions of an assignment which as far as I can understand include that someone else gave it to the person instead of the person choosing for themselves and B) gender is a social construct however it is sometimes defined as the genetic or biological sex which according to some is incorrect C) Genotype that makes reference to what an individual that starts out as female and may turn to male is determined by the encoding of a genetic expression in the human genome and therefore is neither assigned nor chosen but a genetic result, and as far as I know, genetic sex reversal is impossible only the appearance of what is bio-morphologically identified as sex is changeable, which is to say hairline, jaw structure, breasts, body and facial hair, penis or vagina, hips and I'm not entirely sure but I believe muscle grafts or reductions are also possible, for the purpose of having a larger or smaller contour, but these are only generalizations that women tend to have smaller leg and inter-torso profiles and men tend to have larger leg and inter-torso profiles. -- Benjamin D Richards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.215.226.34 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 3 June 2011

Blatant violation of WP:RS
James Cantor has now tried multiple times to insert a self-published piece by Anne Lawrence in conflict with WP:RS:
 * Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.
 * Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

As far as I have seen, Anne Lawrence has NOTHING published on neuroanatomy. Furthermore, she is a well recognized activist with a obvious agenda regarding autogynephilia. As such, claiming that this self-published critique is RS is absurd. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Anne Lawrence is an internationally recognized expert on transsexuality as well as an M.D. She is entirely able to provide an expert opinion on the biological basis of transsexuality.  In fact, I can think of only a few other people in the world better qualified.  (And I have published in neuroanatomy.) But...an activist?  Really?  Lawrence has published several papers expressing her agreement with the concept of autogynephilia, but an activist?  This isn't about any activism on her part, this is about WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part.
 * Obviously, outside opinion would be helpful here. I have already posted at RS/N, asking for input.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dr. Lawrence did her internship and practiced as an anesthesiologist; I personally don't believe that anesthesiologists are especially well-qualified to assess the nature of neurological syndromes which [ins. 5/1/11] may (or may not) be relevant to gender identity and may (or may not) be related to the development of endocrinological systems, either one of which is a subject of specialized study in its own right.
 * Dr. Lawrence is indubitably an activist... she has chosen, as the form of her activism, to specialize in sexology, to publish articles in support of "autogynephilia", and advocate for the acceptance by trans women of the concepts related to autogynephilia.
 * As you yourself wrote, she is a "an openly autogynephilic transsexual": a public proponent of this theory, with a prominent website (no longer maintained) where she has published numerous testimonies sent to her of trans women's personal perceptions on the subject.  (I should also note:  I greatly appreciate the fact that Dr. Lawrence made the information on her website available, and has also made her published research papers available on it.)
 * My take on this particular citation is: it's a WP:SPS from a source who is not an expert in this specialty:  as was commented regarding Madeline Wyndzen's WP:SPS writings:  if this is really worthwhile work, why has she not had it published?  And in Dr. Lawrence's case, there is obviously no felt need to preserve her anonymity!
 * And finally: any out transsexual person is an activist... in some sense or another.  If you are confronted with The Bathroom Problem... either way you choose... you're an activist .-)
 * — bonze blayk (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I've been asked to weigh in as an editor with a neuroscience background, I have to agree with Kim and Bonze about this. If, instead, there is a peer-reviewed scholarly paper that mentions and assesses this hypothesis, then that would be the way to go. Absent that, I think the most that one could do would be to present it as part of a discussion of a controversy, not as part of the scientific knowledge base on the topic, and present it from both sides of the controversy; however, I'm not convinced that such a treatment would pass WP:UNDUE in this particular case. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I can't say I agree, but I am happy to follow the consensus.— James Cantor (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's OK to cite her for her opinion, but not in a context where it pretends to be science. In a similar vein, I just removed a "prediction" attributed to Blanchard; it was from an opinion paper, but Cantor had stuck it into a science section.  And I add a few words and a source in the bit about Blanchard's typology, which again was mostly opinion masquerading as science, and sourced to a controversial book that has science in the title but which nobody actually claims is scientific, if I remember correctly.  Some more POV balancing in this area is probably in order.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

We are definitely going to need to reduce the role of "Blanchard's sexual typology" on this page. Reading this page and the flawed way the few studies are characterized (not to mention all the other studies that are not even mentioned), it is clear that the Blanchard position is vastly overrepresented. Blanchard's decades-old hypothesis in deprecated area of a non-influential field (sexology), rates barely the smallest whisper in the growing study of human biodiversity. His pathological view of neutral phenomena clearly shows his bias and anything that mentions his outdated work, which he "borrowed" from Fruend apparently without attribution, needs to be tagged as such so that readers get a clear picture. What we have now is naked propaganda presenting itself as "the scientific position".

We need more than the sexological view in discussing the hard science, and the role of the sexologists such as Blanchard and his associates needs to be reduced, if not altogether removed, from discussions about neurology and other sciences which they do not have any particular expertise in. This page already borders on the ridiculous and having it read like a propaganda piece for the Blanchard group isn't doing it any favors. Boredtwotears (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about section titles
Should "transgender people" be repeated in the section titles? For example, should "Transgender people and the law" just be "Legal aspects" or "Law?" --Aronoel (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to decrease the repetition. That doesn't mean that it has to be removed at every instance, but yes, style guidelines do discourage repeating a page title in the section titles. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Published evidence showed, demonstrated, or what?
On the mainpage, there is discussion of how best describe scientific findings. The page, thus far, uses words such as "show" to describe findings, such as:
 * In 1997, J.N. Zhou, M.A. Hofman, L.J. Gooren and D.F. Swaab conducted tests on the brains of transgender individuals. Their tests showed that...
 * Their study was the first to show a female brain structure...
 * Their study shows male to female transsexuals are...

I am of the opinion that to maintain NPOV, one would also described Blanchard's original taxonomic finding as:
 * Blanchard showed that there were...

or similar. I am sure that other acceptible phrases can be found for describing research findings accurately, but describing a desired finding as "shown" but undesired findings as dubious is pretty much the definition of failing NPOV. What other NPOV options for phrasing can folks suggest? — James Cantor (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * James, as an academic, you should know the difference between observed phenomenon (such as the size of a brain structure) and the result of a correlation between self-reported factors that are used as a proxy for the operationalization of a concept. So, what Blanchard has done is showing a correlation, which is still not causation. Hence, he has NOT demonstrated that there are two types, but only shown that it is possible to subdivide the group in two subgroups using his criteria suggesting that maybe his idea is correct. Furthermore, in line with your pledge not to edit autogynephilia and related articles, I am surprised to see you popping up here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kim, 1. You appear to be addressing the wrong debate. Blanchard was making a taxonomic statement (i.e., what goes with what); he did not make and his data did not show either a correlation or a causation.  He merely showed that the homosexual group was very distinct from all the other groups.  As a postdoc, you should be able to recognize both correlations and their absence.
 * 2. Blanchard did not take a group and divide it. Either you didn't read his papers or you are willfully ignoring their contents.  Blanchard did the very opposite of dividing.  He took what was then believed to be a multiplicity of phenomena and showed that they were reduceable to two.  The lay literature usually gets this wrong, but the professional literature does a better job.
 * So, to get back to the mainpage: The discussion relevant here is how to describe Blanchard's (and any other) findings for readers in a way unpolluted from the views of the editor providing them. So, what exactly are you suggesting to use as text?
 * — James Cantor (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you're surprised...Actually, I'm not surprised at all. Throughout our interactions, I have had the consistent impression that you react to what you think I am saying because I am a researcher, for example, rather than react to what I am actually writing.  In fact, I have found myself wondering at your hostile tone towards me when your next edit was to express (to someone else) the very same idea I had just pointed out.
 * The pages I pledged not to edit were specifically to end a long series of edit wars with specific other editors (and my invitation that they join me in that self-imposed ban stands). This page was never wrapped up in the problem my pledge was meant to help solve.  No mystery.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "In order to prevent whatever COI I might be perceived to have from affecting Wikipedia, I pledge not to edit article space of the pages listed below, and I invite both Dicklyon, Jokestress to do the same.... Autogynephilia ... " User:James_Cantor
 * Your phrasing here appears to acknowledge the (arguable) existence of a COI which may lead to an appearance of impropriety, rather than a temporary truce in edit wars on certain topics... which you will resume on another front.
 * Do you believe that editing a section on Autogynephilia in the Transgender article is somehow not (by analogy) a part of the "article space" on Autogynephilia?
 * Also, with respect to my earlier edit which you reverted: when I stated "Autogynephilia - deleted ULTRA-controversial minority claim by Anne Lawrence of relationship to aptemnophilia - THIS DOESN'T BELONG AT THE TOP!" in my edit summary, I meant to imply:  Transgender is at a higher level conceptually than Transsexualism, and again that is at a higher level than Autogynephilia or the subject of "Similarities postulated between transsexualism and apotemnophilia".  I don't see why such (admittedly interesting, yet recondite) arguments have found their way to the "top level" relating to "transgenderism" in general.
 * Just to note: I find that the organization of gender-related topics in Wikipedia is a wretched mess, and the articles themselves foci of partisan contention, so this topic creep isn't really surprising to me.
 * — bonze blayk (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes.
 * 1. I gave my pledge in response to a series of edit wars on the pages I listed. Of the three of editors involved, only I made such a pledge.  It was to specific pages, not a topic.  To insinuate that I am somehow at fault for not going farther, when no other editor would go as far as I, is a bit silly.
 * 2. We are now going back years since I gave that pledge, and have held to it, without exception. To call that temporary in wikipedia time is, again, a bit silly.
 * 3. I'm not the one who put "autogynephilia" here, nor am I the one who put the neurological data here. I merely updated it with more recent RS's.
 * 4. I agree entirely with the poor state of this family of topics and that the articles themselves are a series of scars from edit wars with community activists who do not like the picture emerging from the research, and so scapegoat and discount the researchers. Indeed, the extent of the activists' war against science has itself become a notable topic.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No. I address the right debate. No, Blanchard first made an artificial grouping using two continuous variables (degree of attraction to men and women) in a cluster analysis dividing them in four groups by using the four corners of the square as reference points. The data are quite uneven positioned across the square. Anyway, he then uses this artificial grouping to see how they scored on certain factors:
 * Fisher Exact tests were used to compare the frequency with which subjects in the four clusters reported a history of erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing. As predicted, there were no differences among the asexual, bisexual, and heterosexual transsexuals, and all three groups included a much higher proportion of fetishistic cases than the homosexual group (p .0001, two-tailed).
 * This is a correlation between sexual orientation group and whether or not they have a history of erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing. So, now that we have that issue out of the way, we can find proper words for the correlation he found on which he based his topology. Words like suggest. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're still not understanding your own point. You said "what Blanchard has done is showing a correlation, which is still not causation", meaning that Blanchard was not able to make any causal statements.  You are entirely correct that one cannot draw a causal conclusion from correlational data, but what I seem to be having trouble getting across is that Blanchard didn't make a causal statement in the first place!


 * More to the point (that you are arguing from WP:IDONTLIKEIT): The specific paper you are talking about above is Blanchard (1985), an RS which does not even appear on the mainpage. Rather, statements about it are in the secondary sources that are on the mainpage (specifically, Bailey, 2003 and Smith et al., 2005).  That you happen todisagree with Blanchard (1985)'s typology doesn't mean you get to change what the RS's say.


 * Next, you expressed in the above that you take neurological evidence over self-report evidence. For the record (and as a person who has published both neurological and behavioral/self-report research), I believe it is a grave intellectual error to hold neurological evidence to be automatically superior.  Nonetheless, the typological question has been answered neurologically as well as on the basis of self-report.  (Incidentally, very many transsexuals would not appreciate having their self-reports disregarded.)  I have added to the mainpage two recent neurological studies (entirely independent of Blanchard) that show exactly the typology Blanchard predicted.
 * Rametti, G., Carrillo, B., Gómez-Gil, E., Junque, C., Zubiarre-Elorza, L., Segovia, S., Gomez, Á, & Guillamon, A. (2011). The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A DTI study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45, 199-204. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.05.006
 * Savic, I., & Arver, S. (2011). Sex dimorphism of the brain in male-to-female transsexuals. Cerebral Cortex. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr032


 * Next, we have two neurological articles showing that the Zhou finding, for which you express favor, was in error. (One demonstrated that the BNST difference doesn't emerge until adulthood, and the other showed that the BNST changes in response to the hormone therapy that transsexuals take, thus indicating that the BNST difference prevously reported was due to hormonal therapy, no due to being the cause transsexualism.
 * Chung. W., De Vries, G., & Swaab, D. (2002). Sexual differentiation of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in humans may extend into adulthood. Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 1027–1033.
 * Hulshoff Pol, H. E., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Van Haren, N. E., Peper, J. S., Brans, R. G., Cahn, W., et al. (2006). Changing your sex changes your brain: Influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure. European Journal of Endocrinology, 155(Suppl. 1), S107-S114.


 * So, whether you use neurological vs. self-report as your criterion or independent replicability as your criterion (or anything else other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT) the same conclusion emerges. It is a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV (and probably WP:OR) to say Blanchard's (repeatedly verified) finding suggests but Zhou's (repeatedly disproven) finding shows.


 * Perhaps you might bring this issue up at the neuroscience project for input?


 * — James Cantor (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry James, but your flood of words does not change things as they are. If someone finds a difference in the size of a specific part of the brain, that is a direct observation and the word show is appropriate. The interpretation of that is correlative, and show is not appropriate.
 * I am glad we agree that Blanchard didn't make a causal statement in the first place!. I agree. Hence, he has not shown that autogynephilia explains gynephilic transwomen. Therefore, the word is inappropriate. It is his inference of the data.
 * Contrary to your impression, I do not hold neuroanatomical evidence to a higher standard, to the contrary, I believe that they both have their value in the appropriate study. I find you statement Incidentally, very many transsexuals would not appreciate having their self-reports disregarded. curious, as self-reports of non-autogynephilic gynephilic transwoman and autogynephilic androphylic transwomen are routinely disregarded by proponents of the Blanchard dichotomy. But I guess I should read that as that you disagree with disregarding those self-reports.
 * Now for the suggested demolition of the Zhou et al papers. The Hulshoff Pol et al paper does not address the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST or BSTc) part at all, just general brain volume and hypothalamus volume. The latter, where the BSTc is located, incidentally changes in the same way between MtF subjects and female controls. ZHpou et al also looked at one MtF who had not yet started hormone theray, and that person was square in the middle of the other MtF's. If you hypothesis would be correct, that person whould have been an outlier among the MtF's. So, the Hulshoff Pol et al paper does NOT invalidate Zhou et al.
 * The Chung et al paper essentially demonstrates that the differentiation of the BSTc occurs in late puberty, but that does not invalidate Zhou et al, it just pinpoints when the differentiation occurs.
 * So, now that we have dismantled your 'evidence' that you molded in what was obvious original research, we can go back to fixing the unwarranted strong support that you want to give your boss' hypothesis. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(Outdenting) 1. It was never clear to me how or why you are so angry. Regardless of your emotions, I recommend replacing phrases such as "your flood of words" etc. with more AGF language.

2. It is still not clear why you are fighting against the idea that Blanchard said (or believes) that autogynephilia explains anything. He never provided it as an explanation. All Blanchard showed was that the multiple phenomena that were being described in those days could actually be described accurately as only two phenomena. There has not been an article in the many years since showing otherwise.

3. I never said you held neuro data to a higher standard.

4. There is nothing relevant to the mainpage about "curious, as self-reports of non-autogynephilic gynephilic transwoman and autogynephilic androphylic transwomen are routinely disregarded by proponents of the Blanchard dichotomy" and I have no need to join a war of sneers and to call it a discussion. I merely point out the danger, and what you "read" into what I say is not under my control. Your mind is clearly well made up.

5. I cannot describe Hulshoff Pol better than Hulshoff Pol, who directly addressed the Zhou data:
 * "The bed nucleus of the stria terminalis of the hypothalamus, larger in males than in females, was found to be of female size in six MFs and of male size in one FM. All these transsexuals had received cross-sex hormone treatment before their brains were studied. Therefore, the altered size of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis could have been due to the exposure of cross-sex hormones in adult life" (p. S108).

You are free to your OR, but that's neither here nor there for the mainpage.

6. Your interpretation of Chung is also incorrect. Zhou et al. wrote that "the small size of the BSTc in male-to-female transsexuals...is established during development by an organzing action of sex hormones" (p. 70). Because Chung found that the BSTc difference does not exist during development, it cannot be the cause. As Chung wrote:
 * "Late sexual differentiation of the human BSTc volume also affects our perception about the relationship between BSTs [sic] volume and transsexuality....Epidemiological studies show that the awareness of gender problems is generally present much earlier. Indeed, [about] 67-78% of transsexuals in adulthood report having strong feelings of being born in the wrong body from childhood onward" (p. 1032).

You are free to your OR, but that's neither here nor there for the mainpage.

Clearly, we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this any time soon. So, I repeat my earlier suggestion that input be sought from folks, such as at the neuroscience project, who can readily read the neurological data but have no stake in the topic itself.

(7. Blanchard is not my boss.  In fact, he's retired.) — James Cantor (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * About and, perhaps a solution would be to include the material in that paragraph, but to move it to another part of the page (not in the scientific studies section) and/or to rewrite it to include sources that disagree with it. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A possibility, of course. But could you flesh out your thinking for me a bit?  We have the best known scientist on the topic, writing in the best known scientific journal in the relelvant field, providing an hypothesis for what the scientific studies would show.  What's the logic for moving that outside the science section?...especially when it can be followed by what the scientific studies do show?— James Cantor (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I may not have that much thinking to flesh out! As you know, I came to this page as someone who knows little about the subject matter here, but who is comfortable with neuroscience and who can look at the page with fresh eyes. What I see here is discussion about Blanchard being indeed well known but apparently, um, controversial, and the editor who wanted to remove the paragraph saying that it was a prediction, rather than a research finding. What I'm suggesting really does not come from any particular insight into the source material (I don't have such an insight), but from my sense of what is good editing practice on Wikipedia, and how the consensus process works. Based on what you say here, is there a way to present this in a single paragraph (so as to make the relationship clearer to the non-specialist reader) as (1) here is Blanchard's prediction, and (2, same paragraph) here is what the science actually found? Or, would it be better to delete the "predictions" paragraph, keep the description of the scientific findings, and instead put a summary sentence at the end of the scientific findings paragraph that points out how the results fit with the prediction that had been made by Blanchard? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL Humility is a rare find on WP. (I think that makes me a Trypofan?)
 * Yes, Blanchard is well-known, and any discussion from WP would indeed suggest he is controversial. It's more accurate to say that his research led to a conclusion about the nature of transsexualism that some (prolifically vocal) transsexuals found un-flattering and attempt to discredit.  (The big explosions started in 2003 when The Man Who Would Be Queen was published by J. Michael Bailey, bringing Blanchard's ideas to wider attention.)  That's why I often seek external input rather than to repeat the same arguments with the same WP editors.
 * So, although our explicit conversation here is about good editing, the implicit conversation is the expectable one: Everything that agrees with Blanchard must be shot down, and everything that criticizes Blanchard must be included and emphasized, no matter how low the WP:RS bar must go. You'll notice, for example, that the Zhou finding is based on the smallest dataset ever reported, each aspect of that study failed to replicate, but it still receives the greatest mainpage attention even though the data repeatedly agree with Blanchard's prediction instead of Zhou's n of 6.
 * My personal opinion is that the Blanchard quote gives obvious context for the rest of the neuroanatomy section, but rather than take another ride on the edit war wagon, I'd likely follow your thus far uninvolved opinion.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! OK, then, what are the data that "repeatedly agree with Blanchard's prediction instead of Zhou's n of 6"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, again. Sorry for the delay.
 * For reference, these are Blanchard's prediction(s): "The brains of both homosexual [androphilic] and heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals probably differ from the brains of typical heterosexual men, but in different ways. In homosexual male-to-female transsexuals, the difference does involve sex-dimorphic structures, and the nature of the difference is a shift in the female-typical direction. If there is any neuroanatomic intersexuality, it is in the homosexual [androphilic] group. In heterosexual [gynephilic] male-to-female transsexuals, the difference may not involve sex-dimorphic structures at all, and the nature of the structural difference is not necessarily along the male–female dimension."
 * The data for the first part of the prediction are in Gizewski et al. (Gizewski, E. R., Krause, E., Schlamann, M., Happich, F., Ladd, M. E., Forsting, M., & Senf, W. (2009). Specific cerebral activation due to visual erotic stimuli in male-to-female transsexuals compared with male and female controls: An fMRI study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 440–448.] and in Rametti et al. [Rametti, G., Carrillo, B., Gómez-Gil, E., Junque, C., Zubiarre-Elorza, L., Segovia, S., Gomez, Á. & Guillamon, A., (2010). The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment: A DTI study. Journal of Psychiatric Research. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.11.007.]. Both studies scanned homosexual male-to-females and found that they were shifted towards the female direction in sexually dimorphic brain areas (only).  The data for the second part of the prediction are in Savic & Arver [Savic, I., & Arver, S. (2011). Sex dimorphism of the brain in male-to-female transsexuals. Cerebral Cortex. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr032.]  They scanned heterosexual male-to-females and found that they were not different from controls in any sexually dimorphic region, but were different from the controls in several non- sexually dimorphic resions.  Other neurological studies of transsexuality have been conducted (and are on the mainpage), but did not record or report whether the samples were homosexual or heterosexual, so they are not informative on this aspect.
 * Each of studies I cite above were several times the size of the Zhou study. Although Blanchard's idea is unpopular in some quarters, that is neither here nor there for WP purposes.  I think Blanchard's prediction is more than germaine to any discussion of the neurological discussion of transsexuality.  Input?
 * — James Cantor (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. What I'm going to do by way of response is to adopt the position of someone who is neutral and non-expert in the editing dispute, and to try to mediate the issue according to my understanding of the consensus process.
 * Anyone: My reading, on face value, of what James said immediately above is that there are three published studies—Gizewski et al., 2009; Rametti et al., 2010; and Savic & Arver, 2011—that, taken together, provide experimental support for Blanchard's predictions, and are peer-reviewed reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. There is also the Zhou study, which provides evidence that contradicts Blanchard's predictions. Zhou is, similarly, a reliable source per WP:MEDRS, but was a smaller study than any of the other three. Those four papers constitute the principal scientific literature that experimentally tests Blanchard's hypothesis. Is that correct, or is that incorrect?
 * James: Why not simply cite those three studies, and note briefly that they support Blanchard's predictions, instead of devoting a paragraph to an extensive quote of the prediction? In other words, focus on the empirical data (since it's a section about science), instead of the theorizing?
 * Anyone: Why not present the information as: Blanchard predicted such-and-such, and there is not yet a clear scientific answer as to whether the hypothesis is correct. Three studies, constituting the bulk of the literature, seem to support the predictions, whereas one study calls them into question.
 * --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tryptofish; I think that's a very productive suggestion.
 * Re 1: Yes, those three articles are the most direct neurological tests of Blanchard's prediction. (There have long been indirect studies suggesting those findings, but these three articles are the most directly neurological.)
 * Re 2: I have no problem at all summarizing instead of quoting Blanchard's prediction. (If I can trouble you to do so, my experience is that anything I write quickly gets diverted into OR or COI debates, so a summary from you instead of me would be of great help.
 * Re 3: Although that summary would indeed capture those four studies, I would not put Zhou on the same footing as the other three: In addition to the sample size issue, Zhou's test that transsexuality per se shows sex reversal in sex dimorphic brain anatomy has failed to replicate multiple times. Already on the mainpage: Emery et al (1991); Haraldsen et al. (2003); Wisniewski et al. (2005); and Luders et al. (2009).  All failed to find the sex reversal the Zhou hypothesis would predict.  So, the overall picture is not only 3:1 in favor of Blanchard's prediction.  It is also that the alternative has repeatedly failed.  I am not saying that Zhou should be ignored, but as you can see from the mainpage, it's getting quite the WP:UNDUE treatment despite being the very clear outlier of the relevant literature.  The finding is very popular in some circles, not because it is a reliable finding, but because the finding has a political implication that many people espouse.  (Hence the difficulty achieving consensus.)
 * — James Cantor (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you James. Now, the ball is in the other editors' court. Editors who see things differently than James does, please indicate what you think about his answers to questions 1 and 3. Please weigh in: what do you think? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Now, the ball is in the other editors' court." Tryptofish, I don't think you're going to find many editors eager to engage with User:James Cantor and his abusive tactics in an effort to try to reign in his WP:COI and POV/Truth™ -driven crusade to cleanse Wikipedia of all references to viewpoints on trans* issues which do not agree with his own through WikiLawyering, badgering, and just plain persistence.  (Here he's trying to enlist you to certify his WP:OR/WP:SYNTH interpretation of primary sources!  WOW!)
 * His recent activities on the Transgender article here are just another instance; you would need to go over his history on these issues, beginning with his anonymous exploits as User:MarionTheLibrarian beginning in July 2008, to get it. Read his own characterizations of others just on this Talk page; go over the history on his Talk page; perhaps you'll see what I mean.
 * I would go over this in detail... including my assessments of his interpretations, made in his recent edit spree here, of the details related in the source articles cited; but I think it's a waste of my time... see YouTube: Professor Wikipedia... I will suggest that a good secondary source on this subject, appropriate for citation in Wikipedia, is Deborah Rudacille's excellent "The Riddle of Gender: Science, Activism, and Transgender Rights"..
 * ... and hey, do I have a COI myself? SURE DO! - Sincerely, bonze blayk (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bonze, thank you for your comments here. I'd like to assure you that I've had a lot experience with content disputes, agendas, and COIs, and it isn't easy to fool me. I haven't taken anyone's "side" here. I'm aware of James' recent block and the issues on both sides of it. I'm asking questions, to which there should be reasonably objective answers, in the hopes of reaching a good, encyclopedic outcome for the content of this page. I find that it's usually a good idea to approach these kinds of discussions thinking about how one's comments would appear to an objective reader unfamiliar with the case, and your response to me sounds, on the face of it, an awful lot like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Perhaps that's an unfair assessment, and perhaps you speak out of genuine frustration, but that's how it comes across. I asked about some specifics of the scientific literature. Telling me instead to look at Professor Wikipedia insults my intelligence. Instead of focusing on COIs, whether James' or your own, let's focus on the sources. You draw attention to Rudacille's book, which is a good start. Please point me to specific passages or chapters in that book, that speak directly to my questions 1 and 3. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Tryptofish, I'll take what's behind Door Number Three! — I.e., "It's not proven." (In my scans from The Riddle of Gender, I can find no directly relevant citations.)
 * ... but please note: when you ask editors to decide how they'd like to see James Cantor's WP:SYNTH presented here, you're asking the wrong question. To begin with, this material on brain research relevant to issues of the classification and etiology of transsexualism does not belong in this particular article, and the editors who would take an interest in summarizing these findings would most likely be observing posts in Causes of transsexualism.
 * Transgender deals with a MUCH higher level of generalization about variations in gender identity and/or presentation than Transsexualism, and in turn that subject has a broader scope than Causes of transsexualism. ALL THESE POSTS by James Cantor are... miscategorized.  A naive reader interested in finding out more about the "transgender spectrum" is going to find this article VERY misleading!  E.g.:  "I found my husband crossdressing... he says he's just a bit transgendered, it's OK, he's not... one of those... OH NO! OMG! In Wikipedia, "Transgender" is mostly about transsexualism!"  (Which is kind of amusing, since Victoria Prince coined the term "transgender" to distinguish HER class of feminine but non-surgery-seeking males from "transsexuals" ... language is not just a virus; it's a rapidly-mutating one ... *sigh*)
 * To address the claim I'm making that James Cantor's edits here comprise WP:SYNTH, here's a relevant citation from a WP:RS :
 * Luders et al, Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism (2009)
 * "Moreover, a highly controversial line of research has suggested that homosexual and non-homosexual MTF transsexualism are etiologically heterogeneous (Blanchard, 1989a; Blanchard, 1989b), which may be associated with differences in neuroanatomy."
 * Blanchard's transsexualism typology is described here as highly controversial. OK?  If James Cantor could cite an article linking all this research together and describing it as sufficient proof that the BAT is correct, I'd have no problem.
 * WP:SYNTH might well be correct, but is inherently problematic; I'll give one further example why: James Cantor cites Rametti et al. 2010 "The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment" as supporting the BAT with respect to HSTS subjects...
 * "Studies have consistently shown that specifically homosexual male-to-female transsexuals, like gay men, show a shift towards the female direction in brain anatomy." - James Cantor, similar text first appearing at ... (first, note that as of yet there has been no response to the Citation Needed I posted on the "like gay men" claim...)
 * However, that study states "The etiology of transsexualism is unknown but biological variables could play a role in its development (Cohen-Kettenis and Gooren, 1999; Gooren, 2006; Swaab, 2004)." ... and "Sexual orientation of transsexual subjects was determined by asking what partner (a man, a woman, both or neither) the subjects would prefer or feel sexual attraction to if their body did not interfere."
 * Please note that this is not Blanchardian "homosexual transsexualism": I qualify, even though I'm a once-married fashion-mad trans-geek with offspring.  (And here I am, active on the Internet, to boot!  Lawrence & Bailey ("Transsexual Groups in Veale et al. (2008) are 'Autogynephilic' and 'Even More Autogynephilic'"):  "MtF transsexuals who are active on the Internet appear overwhelmingly to be autogynephilic.")  (NB:  prudence forbids more than this remark:  this self-knowledge is not based on fantasy, OK?)
 * And in closing: Tryptofish, you note that an "objective reader" might not be impressed with the tone of my Talk post... since I'm a comedienne, and not a scholar, I tend to avoid striking poses of "objectivity" in Talk, which suit my temperament and style of expression... not.  The "Professor Wikipedia" YouTube video I linked was not intended as an insult to you or any other editors here:  I myself started patrolling various articles in order to delete vandalism, well, just because I happen to rely on Wikipedia for initial impressions and relevant external links on many subjects, and like to see it kept free of the worst detritus.  The video is outrageously funny; there's a KILLER punch line:  wait for it!
 * It may even make you feel happy about becoming involved with the trans* edit wars... if you think about it ;-) -- "Am I WP:N yet?" - b.a.r.blayk —— bonze blayk (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A neuroscientist and a comedienne walk into a bar... I, in turn, got interested in Wikipedia because I enjoy interacting with a wide variety of people. I'm impressed that there seems to be a lack of edit warring at Causes of transsexualism, but I think that it's reasonable to have some sort of section about science here, at Transgender. And I think that it is abundantly clear that, however this page presents Blanchard, it is essential to do so in a way that makes clear that his hypotheses are controversial, and not to imply that they are generally accepted in the scientific literature. Anyway, please allow me to continue to focus rather narrowly on the scientific questions here.
 * 1) With regard to my question number one, I asked whether there is further scientific literature calling Blanchard into question. James basically said that there are not other studies that directly test the hypothesis. Bonze points to Luders et al., who, I'm guessing, James will say does not directly test the hypothesis, but which I think can be considered to be a reliable source examining the anatomical issues and finding something, but something different than what Blanchard predicted, and who seem to express the opinion that Blanchard was "controversial". James: is that fair? Bonze also points out that the Rametti paper, cited by James, has issues about how the subjects of the study were categorized, and makes the statement that the etiology is unknown. James: do Rametti et al. actually state that their results support Blanchard's hypothesis—I'm looking for a verbatim quote here, saying something like "we conclude that our results are consistent with Blanchard's hypothesis" or words to that effect!—or is it your own interpretation of their results that the results support the hypothesis? Or is Bonze doing WP:SYNTH about how the subjects in that study were defined?
 * 2) With regard to my question number two, James' agreement means we have consensus against a lengthy quote.
 * 3) With regard to my question number three, I think we are going to agree that, as Bonze says, it is not proven, but, beyond that, I think we need to settle what we think about my question number one.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: Yes, just about. To emphasize a minor point that is hard to communicate via typing: It is not it that no one else has directly tested Blanchard's model (which several others successfully have), it is that no one other than these three teams have tested Blanchard's model using directly neurological techniques.
 * Regarding the exact terms in each text; I'd need to go back and re-read how which one phrased what. However, I have no problem telling you up front that not all three said that they were testing Blanchard's hypothesis and that calling that set of papers an explicit confirmation of Blanchard could indeed be a WP:SYNTH problem.  My goal in coming to this page was simply to add all the other neuro-relevant findings pertinant to that section.  (It contained only the exceptional finding rather than the predominant finding.)
 * — James Cantor (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, James. I think that answer is very helpful, and it suggests to me a way forward. First, let me say to James that I can readily understand how you feel about the issue. As an academic scientist, I too would sometimes like to see my own best judgment about issues that are currently unresolved in my own areas of expertise more clearly reflected in Wikipedia content. But Wikipedia simply isn't the place to work those issues out. That has to happen in the primary literature, and Wikipedia, as tertiary literature, can only follow. And my editing experience is that SYNTH can be interpreted strictly or loosely, but on pages where editors have strong opinions, as is clearly the case here, it is best to apply it strictly.


 * So I want to propose the following way forward, and I'd like to know what all editors here think about it.
 * Transgender should be sourced to, and discuss, only sources that are looking at biological aspects of brain structure, using neurological or neuroscientific techniques, and should generally refrain from discussing these findings in terms of Blanchard's typology. As for how you write the section of the page just above it, about that typology, I leave that to the rest of you, since it is above my pay grade!
 * The brain-based studies should be discussed in terms of what the authors of those studies say, explicitly, that they concluded, and not include anything that Wikipedia editors might infer from those studies. It will be a lot of "this part of the brain was larger", "that part of the brain was smaller", and "this other part of the brain was the same". There may be three studies that said a particular part of the brain was larger, and two studies that said the same brain part was smaller; they should all be cited, and no attempt by Wikipedia editors should be made to say which was wrong and which was right (unless there was subsequent consensus in the scientific literature).
 * The only time that Blanchard's typology should be mentioned is when the authors of the cited study said, explicitly, that they were testing Blanchard's hypothesis and concluded that it was either true or false. Commenting parenthetically that it is controversial does not count; rather, the authors must say themselves that their evidence has direct bearing on it.
 * This probably means that the section will not have any sweeping conclusions, instead treating the subject as one that is currently unresolved. That's OK.
 * It is unacceptable for editors to refuse to allow some reliable sources to be included, and doing so may give the appearance of POV-pushing. If there are various studies, some pointing one way, and others pointing the opposite way, they should all be included, at least briefly, so long as they are presented as above.
 * Would that be acceptable to everyone? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. Although I am happy to write a sentence summarizing instead of quoting Blanchard's idea, I would first like to invite any of the other folks who previously expressed an interest here to propose one/some.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If, and I'm just saying "if", we agree on what I suggested, do we really still need that sentence (at least in this part of the article) at all? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To my eye, it's rather bizarre without it. That is, there are a string of studies all testing the same prediction, but the prediction itself would be missing.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please carefully re-read what I proposed. Do those sources actually say that they were testing it? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I've misread you (wouldn't be my first time).
 * The original articles vary in their explicitness. Some articles seem to have accidentally tripped upon the androphilic/gynephilic distinction just by luck whereas others cite Blanchard explicitly as the reason for the research design they chose.  I don't think that either Blanchard (or anyone else) has said or used the neurological data as an explicit test of the Blanchard typology.  Rather, there have been predictions made on the basis of the Blanchard typology (and those predictions have, thus far, been correct).  Thus, I believe the predictions are very relevant here, but should be cast either as proof or disproof.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then, to repeat what I suggested: "The only time that Blanchard's typology should be mentioned is when the authors of the cited study said, explicitly, that they were testing Blanchard's hypothesis and concluded that it was either true or false." In this case, I don't necessarily see a need for a summary sentence; instead, I would just state what the authors concluded. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To close the loop then, you're saying you think the current mainpage should stay as is?
 * — James Cantor (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with further edits. I made a suggestion with five bullet points just above, and those five points are what I suggest. I would advise against writing the section as though it were a literature in which various investigators have tested Blanchard's predictions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Keeping stupid User:MiszaBot bot-archiver at bay: I will be returning to this topic, and the preceding discussion is relevant. - bonze blayk (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

_____

Tryptofish, I think your approach to incorporating James Cantor's edits here is good... except I think that they don't belong in the Transgender article at this level of detail. Where do they belong? As I commented earlier, "I find that the organization of gender-related topics in Wikipedia is a wretched mess"... and I believe that's because it's a challenge to sort out appropriate categories when working alone... much moreso when trying to form an consensus on the issue.

E.g., some of the research now in this section doesn't fit into the Causes of transsexualism article; there is currently not an article such as Scientific research on transsexualism which could serve to gather research in different areas into one article. ???

A couple of weeks ago, I assessed the current character count in a number of articles which seem to me to relate to gender and trans* issues as a part of trying to figure out how they all relate to each other; currently, Transgender totals 10,739 characters, while Causes of transsexualism, the "main" article linked, contains 10,137 characters! Naturally, there is duplicated content; also, it's arranged in a different fashion (by category sexual preference, rather than date), so a straight merge is difficult (I have no stong preference either way; chronological cites are easier to update; I think James' organization here makes more sense in interpreting the findings). (One thing to note: Lawrence's apotemnophilia article is not included in Causes of transsexualism; it seems like it should be incorporated in the section with Ramachandran's "phantom limb" research.)

Reference sections are not included in these counts; I made no attempt to consider articles on sexuality which may be related, and of course, feel free to criticize how I categorize the articles.

 - Articles relating to categorization of types of transsexuals Blanchard's transsexualism typology - 28,417 Classification of transsexuals - 5,461 Feminine essence concept of transsexuality - 8,919 Transgender sexuality - 10,582 	Total 53,379 

 - Articles relating to GID and transsexualism in general Causes of transsexualism - 10,137 Gender identity disorder - 10,407 Transsexualism - 36,000 - Transsexualism - 1,628 -> Causes of transsexualism Transitioning (transgender) - 4,677 	Total 61,221 </dl>

<dl> <dd>Shemale - 9,290 <dd>Trans woman - 4,113 <dd>	Total 13,403 </dl>

<dl> <dt>- Articles relating explicitly to transgender topics, which are much broader than transsexualism <dd>Cross-dressing - 10,084 <dd>Transgender - 44,613 Total <dd>- Transgender - 10,739 -> Causes of transsexualism <dd>- Transgender - 9,628 <dd>- Transgender - 6,223 <dd>- Transgender - 1,994 <dd>Transgender youth - 8,821 <dd>Transvestism - 3,913 <dd>Transvestic fetishism - 1,621 <dd>	Total 69,052 </dl>

<dl> <dt>- Articles relating to types of gender role, orientation, and presentation <dd>Androgyny - 9,263 <dd>Bigender - 2,362 <dd>Cisgender - 3,042 <dd>Cissexual - 2,163 <dd>Cogender - 2,231 <dd>Masculinity - 17,396 <dd>Effeminacy - 14,876 <dd>Femininity - 8,557 <dd>Genderqueer - 2,395 <dd>Gender binary - 2,453 <dd>Third Gender - 40,227 <dd>Two-spirit - 10,947 <dd>Two-Spirit Identity Theory - 19,956 </dl>

<dl> <dt>- Articles relating to gender at the highest level of conceptualization <dd>Gender role - 55,399 <dd>Gender - 63,906 <dd> Total - 126,963 </dl>

<dl> <dt>- Miscellaneous <dd>Sociology of gender - 2,274

<dd>Asexuality - 19,833 <dd>Androphilia and gynephilia - 5,687

<dd>Intersex - 33,468 </dl>

And I just found recently that there is an article on Trigender... some 5,693 characters in length. I'm not sure I want to know what that's about, but am reassured to see that "Trigenderism" "does not equate to Multiple Personality Disorder" .-)

-- bonze blayk (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow reply. I guess what you say here is fine with me. I came to this page in response to James' request for some fresh eyes to deal with the disagreements, but it now looks to me like the page has quieted down. I'll look in from time to time to see if there's any way I can be helpful, but for now I'm happy to defer to editors who understand the issues better than I do. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Keeping stupid User:MiszaBot bot-archiver at bay: my discussion of why all this material does not belong in this article is important. -- bonze blayk (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

hermaphrodite
I was very suprised to see absoltely no mention of hermphrodites, which is a natural phenomonon whereas people are born with a combination of sexual organs, somwtimes, even two complete sets. It would seem to me that this is an incredibly key part of "transgender." It should really be in the lead, with a key distinction made between a biological hermaphrodite and a transvestite who has surgically altered their genetils to appear of the opposite sex 68.188.25.170 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the term is intersex rather than hermaphrodite. However, I think transgender relates to people who have a mismatch (great or small) between their genetic sex and gender identity. Intersex people may or may not have this mismatch. If you read on it says "Intersex people have genitalia or other physical sexual characteristics that do not conform to strict definitions of male and/or female, but intersex people are not necessarily transgender, since they do not all disagree with their assigned sex at birth. Transgender and intersex issues often overlap, however, because they both challenge the notion of rigid definitions of sex and gender." LillianLomas (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have actually never heard the term intersex before. Perhaps it is used in Europe? Either way, it still seems to me that it is a very key part of what transgender is68.188.25.170 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hermaphrodite is generally used in these parts when talking about snails and such. Where are you from? Would be interesting to know how this kind of language differs over the world. But the point still stands I think, that transgender is about your gender identity - ie. how you feel - as opposed to what bits you happen to possess between your legs LillianLomas (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care what you call it, I just have never heard the term before. But it just seems to me that if we are trying to have an encyclopedia page about people who consider themselves in-between sexes, certainly some mention should be made of people who are actually in-between the sexes in a medical sense should be made. Current medical theory as to the nature of the transgender population would also seem to need to be discussed, IE hormone level and genetic studies, physcological and socioligical explanations ect. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerns regarding this document. In the section... "Androphilic MtF transsexuals
Hello I have some concerns regarding this document. In the section... "Androphilic MtF transsexuals

Studies have consistently shown that specifically androphilic male-to-female transsexuals (sometimes called homosexual MtF transsexuals) show a shift towards the female direction in brain anatomy."

The wording "(sometimes called homosexual MtF transsexuals)" should be removed... transgender is about Gender and Gender Identity if someone has a female gender identity they are not homosexual. That word is clearly defined as Men that love other Men. To effectively label a transsexual woman "homosexual MtF Transsexual" is effectively calling her a "Gay male, male to female, person whom has transitioned." This could be seen as violating (NPOV) by asserting/labeling the MtF as homosexual and making a value judgement / assumption as to her "true" gender and "sex". Androphilic is sufficient and descriptive to stand on it's own.

This is redundant in the extreme and completely invalidating of the transsexual woman gender. Not to mention such references used in that way are antiquated and possibly even discriminatory. If some way to educate the reader what Anrophilic means it should read... "...studies have consistently shown that specifically androphilic ((Greek for man-loving) MtF transsexuals...) or androphilia should link to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androphilia_and_gynephilia

From Ariel (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your feelings, User:From Ariel, because I also feel that using "homosexual" as a label for androphilic MtF transsexuals is invalidating... but it is the case that many researchers in the field, neuroscientists and others as well as sexologists, use "homosexual MtF transsexual" "for a variety of reasons" (according to Kenneth J. Zucker, who did not explain what those reasons are when he made this statement in this source...), so some explanation is required. NPOV requires including all notable, reliable sources... -- bonze blayk (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * User:bonze blayk The fact remains that it is inaccurate confusing and is imposing a label on a class of people. A homosexual male to female transsexual would be someone that sexually desires their same sex so if your going to label someone homosexual then you by proxy must know their sex. If a MTF that sleeps with males is being called homosexual then you are effectively saying she is a male even if she no longer has any male reproductive organs nor primary and secondary male characteristics. That is neither neutral point of view nor is it respecting of the individuals Gender and even possibly Legal Sex. Are you going to then label MTF's that sleep with women as "straight" MTF transsexuals even though they may have female primary and secondary sexual characteristics? You create the further problem... If a man is sleeping with a "Homosexual MtF Transsexual" are you not by proxy labeling him as homosexual as well? Are women that are sleeping with MtF Transsexuals straight even if the transsexual has no male traits and has been living a a female legally for years?


 * This wording and labeling seems very inappropriate, outdated and not neutral or free of bias. Using androphilic or gynephilic should be sufficient. I also quote and reference from the DSM 5 The Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group of which your cited source Mr. Zucker is a part of and chairman.


 * http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=482#
 * "Home / Proposed Revisions / Gender Dysphoria / / P 01 Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents or Adults"


 * "Rationale"
 * "18. In contemporary clinical practice, sexual orientation per se plays only a minor role in treatment protocols or decisions. Also, changes as to the preferred gender of sex partner occur during or after treatment (DeCuypere, Janes, & Rubens, 2005; Lawrence, 2005; Schroder & Carroll, 1999). It can be difficult to assess sexual orientation in individuals with a GI diagnosis, as they preoperatively might give incorrect information in order to be approved for hormonal and surgical treatment (Lawrence, 1999). Because sexual orientation subtyping is of interest to researchers in the field, it is recommended that reference to it be addressed in the text, but not as a specifier. It should also be assessed as a dimensional construct."


 * The key to that being.... "...it is recommended that reference to it be addressed in the text, but not as a specifier." Wikipedia's use of it more is as a specifier categorizing based upon orientation and further using a confusing term.


 * If someone is a homosexual male to female transsexual are you saying they are attracted to men or women? Are you saying "they are men who desire men" thus homosexual or are you saying they are "women who desire women" thus homosexual?


 * If you have to break it down to androphillic or gynophillic anyhow then skip the homosexual term because it is confusing and adds nothing to the discussion. My suggestion is use the clearest most concise manner of description androphillic / gynophillic and then create a sidebar mention of the nature of categorizing orientation for Transsexuals / transgender is not uniform and is full of much confusion and controversy giving "Homosexual MtF Transsexual" as an example amongst many and indicating it could be used to describe both MtF's that prefer women (lesbian) or as the other way around.

From Ariel (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * User:From Ariel, I'm in agreement with you here; I myself have complained about this issue before, see my previous post here in Talk:Transgender.  In my opinion, all the material recently added to this article about brain research on transsexualism, which is where those phrases appear, belongs in some other article dealing specifically with such research, an opinion I've expressed here earlier.  Unfortunately, that's the terminology Blanchard and some others use, and changing it to conform to more objective terminology when discussing it makes a hash of their theoretical perspective, besides the fact that direct quotations must use their exact language.  Note:  I am in disagreement with that theoretical perspective, but it's still a matter open to research and debate.  Thank you... -- bonze blayk (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay given what you said User:bonze blayk then perhaps the article should be brought into line with a more neutral classification yet preserve the research terms by moving the terms such as homosexual MtF Transsexual and the entire section of Blanchards theories to a sub-heading below the actual more inclusive sections that discuss brain sex as shown from numerous sources and studies. This heading could be labeled "Terminology used in categorizing gender research, associated criticism and confusion." The entirety of the Blanchard subheading could go there as it almost exclusively deals with that subject and a brief discussion of the fact that such terms used as Homosexual MtF Transsexual can be confusing as the question of what exactly comprises a "homosexual" MtF Transsexual as the term could also apply to a MtF that identifies as lesbian.

Also the Blanchard section specifically states

"Whereas previous descriptions of transgenderism included very many combinations of sexual orientation, gender identity, and the desire to cross-dress, Blanchard interprets his evidence as suggesting that there were only two basic phenomena."

If this is the case then why is Blanchard's view being placed at the head of the articles section on science? Why are the "previous theories" not discussed or cited? Does his binary concept show some fundamental leap in science? I think not. There is much criticism of his terminology and theory by colleges and experts in the field, let alone controversy by "activists". Should this not go in it's own section based on terminology used and other researchers along with their various concepts of terminology be discussed and described so as not to put any one theory/categorization ahead of others.

To put the Blanchard section at the top of the science section seems to highlight his views as being more authoritative then others. Why is Blanchard's theories put ahead of other researchers in the field, even ones predating him? This would also seem to violate NPOV.

Putting this section below the rest of the more inclusive discussions of science would seem more logical and neutral in general and putting discussions of terminology under their own subheading would both preserve the content of research by those such as Blanchard using this kind of terminology without forwarding any specific research as "more relevant" then others. The suggestion of the dsm v's work group mentioned above on categorizing orientation could also be cited.

My example of how this could be formatted and then placed below the current section "9.3 Genetic studies". ___________________
 * Terminology used in categorizing gender research, associated criticism and confusion.


 * General description of various combinations of orientation etc used in research and to what groupings they reference.


 * ↓Sub headings↓
 * (the section on Blanchard's categories / theories moved from it's current place)
 * (sections / paragraphs of other researchers theories / classifications)
 * (criticism/controversy of terminologies used)
 * (emerging trends and/or standard conventions of categorizing)

___________________

Does anyone have any thoughts on how such a section could be formatted and/or referenced/cited? Or any thoughts on good references and cites?

From Ariel (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My two cents (moved to the relevant discussion)—while transsexualism is a contentious issue, I'm really in favour of bringing in more neutral phrasing. Perhaps medical literature on the matter may refer to transsexuals first and foremost by their birth/perceived gender, but to leave in wording which basically flat-out calls androphilic transwomen gay men can only serve to offend those transwomen who happen upon the article, I would imagine. Within the trans community itself, transwomen who are interested in women are universally accepted to be lesbians, likewise transmen interested in men are recognised as gay—regardless of their motives for transition.

Blanchard's categorisation is problematic because it assumes that a transwoman's gender identity is, at least in some cases, irrelevant when her sex is taken into account. If a transwoman identifies as such, it doesn't much matter if her motivations for transition were that of a gay man—she loses the gay male identity when she takes up female pronouns and so on. In the article itself, the section on Blanchard's typology precedes that of brain-based studies—that is to say, the latter is not a subheading of the former. If one were to make reference in the brain-based studies section to Blanchard's typology ('referred to as homosexual MtF transsexuals in Blanchard's typology', for example) I think it would resolve some of the potential for offence that may arise from leaving the wording as it is now, however the fact that Blanchard's typology is referred to at all outside its specific section implies that there's some sort of universal merit to it—as though it should be taken as gospel.

From Ariel, I'd personally be happy with the formatting you've suggested. It lessens the possibility of Blanchard's typology being presented as the standard for categorisation, which in itself is problematic as the article is right now. I think the biggest issue is using any of Blanchard's terminology to refer to trans individuals in unrelated parts of the article, however, and the page could benefit greatly simply from utilising more neutral wording. --Omgneroli (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to repeat what I have stated before: regardless of the terminology used... 90% of the section on Transgender was added very recently to this article rather than where it more properly belongs, which is in the article Causes of transsexualism, and I believe this content should be merged into that article.
 * The reason this material seems so strongly wedded to Blanchard's typology and terminology is because it was all added by User:James Cantor, an associate of Blanchard's who strongly believes that it is Truth™, as opposed to an hypothesis which has been challenged on a number of fronts. -- Thank you!  bonze blayk (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there's alot of consensus by those that have responded that the article needs to be changed. However I have personally only ever made a few edits to Wikipedia and currently don't have the ability to edit this document so I either need to find some stuff to edit and do the edits myself after I have ( i have been a member for a while just few edits) or someone needs to do them for me. Personally I would prefer if a neutral party edited the article to make it more neutral in context and terminology and some communication of the concepts could be retained but they should be balanced by competing (and more modern) theories.


 * One persons theories should not head up the entire section of the science it can be placed along with the other information regarding science and theories but it has no place at the head of the section. It is after all only one terminology and theory not any kind of universal standard. (Blanchard theories are antiquated and do not hold to the standard of more modern research. As a matter of fact there's such critiques such as the fact that 30-70% of natal females classify as autogynophiles under Blanchard standards and tests.) critique of blanchards terms can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_transsexual#Scientific_criticism_of_the_terminology & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_transsexual#Scientific_criticism_of_the_theory
 * From Ariel (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In any case i suggest the following from the causes of transsexualism be added to the Blanchard section, if someone is capable of doing such....


 * Scientific criticism of the theory includes papers from Veale, Nuttbrock, Moser, and others who argue that the theory is poorly representative of MTF transsexuals, non-instructive, the experiments poorly controlled, or contradicted by other data.   Many sources, including some supporters of the theory, criticize Blanchard's choice of wording as confusing or degrading. Though it has supporters, the transsexual community has for the most part vehemently rejected the theory.

From Ariel (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As I finally have the ability to edit the section I made the above edits as there has been no negative feedback to the suggestions and there has been some positive feedback and all of the changes can be supported and verifiable. If I messed up my references and how to format them anyone that could fix that would be appreciated I have not done ref / cites of this kind before and was not sure how much to cite, exact formatting, etc. From Ariel (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * From Ariel, please do not import any more material from other articles into this article: it is supposed to be about TRANSGENDER, not TRANSSEXUAL.  Transgender is generally understood to be an umbrella term for all those exhibiting gender variance; Transsexual specifically refers to those those who transition from one sex to another... which is what ALL the new material is about.  Transsexuals are a rather small minority among those who are transgender(ed)...
 * This is exactly what I could have predicted would happen when User:James Cantor decided this article was, for reasons of his own no doubt compelling to him, the place to add a lot of text relating to Causes of transsexualism. It is a very bad idea to add everything relevant to the Blanchard controversy and terminological controversies and etc etc here... there are other articles covering those topics:  they should noted and WikiLinked as REFERENCES, not incorporated wholesale, which approach leaves Wikipedia as an incoherent mess of parallel texts after later edits are performed on each separate article ... a maintenance nightmare.
 * I'm a software professional, which may help explain to you why I strongly favor the approach to editing of keeping article topics separated cleanly, incorporated by reference with a brief introduction within articles covering a more general concept, when a more specific area of interest needs to be noted... so that articles will be organized coherently and that conflicting "information" will not develop over time.
 * Thank you, -- bonze blayk (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The controversies re Blanchards theories was not added wholesale, blanchards theory was only summarized and I added a concise summary of the controversy. The entire controversies of it was not added only the counterpoints. Just as the brain based studies section already had referenced and described both supporting and non supporting research for example.


 * The section involving brain based studies is not imho completely without merit to the topic transgender because although it connects to causes of transsexualism it also deals more broadly with the concept of where does gender and gender identity itself come from and what science supports the development of Gender identity. In that sense ESPECIALLY with the edits I made the article now represents not just the transsexual but all gender identities. It is now more balanced. Could the edits I made be compressed a bit, likely yes, but at least it is now more comprehensive and does not expose ONE theory above others. Also it no longer exposes that theory without also mentioning the controversies of it. Either remove it all or tell it in a neutral and broad manner. I was uncomfortable removing another contribution in entirety but I have no issue with improving it.


 * I for one think the concepts of the science related to gender identity is not out of place in the transgender article and further the concept of terminology especially given that research in the field is still ongoing and confusion of terms still exists across the transgender umbrella especially, it's a valid point to make clear any time your discussing brain and gender identity. IMHO. Should someone want to compress the terms and typology section and maintain the references and cites, go for it.


 * Also bonze blayk you made no remarks against these edits above when I initially suggested both making blanchards section more neutral by adding the counterpoints of it, and suggested adding a section on terms and typology and putting blanchards stuff as a part of it. I did ask for input before I made these edits. Maybe I'll try to compress the section myself later.

From Ariel (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay so I was thinking and here is a suggestion in line with Bonzes suggestion of merging... We could just wipe out the entirety of the science section and replace it with this... especially given that all of the information in that section can be found elsewhere as bonze blayk points out. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to word/frame this better then I have below? We need to have a solid summary and then allow people to goto the related articles for more information as needed. I feel what I came up with is almost too lean... :/
 * ___________
 * ==Transgender people and science==


 * The science relating to the study of transgender, gender identity, brain and genetic studies is a highly controversial and complicated area of research with many competing and contradictory studies emerging. Research has found indications of sex / gender linked brain structure differences and also possibly genetic traits linked to gender variance.(cites from existing article and elsewise) Additionally brain morphology would seem to be influenced by hormonal influences during prenatal, pre and post puberty and as a result of cross-sex hormonal therapy. (cites from existing article and elsewise) However the scientific research in this area has not yet provided a clear understanding or consensus on the methods of gender identity formation.
 * ___________

From Ariel (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Meh if no one wants to comment then I guess I'll just leave it as is at least it's now balanced. Also IMHO the brain based studies section is not out of place in trans gender because its a fair question to ask and reference where does gender itself come from what causes it and saying the brain based studies isn't transgender because it was re: transsexuals is oversimplifying as most of these studies involved males and females that don't deviate in their self identified gender. Fact is if your going to discuss something as broad as expanding beyond gender bounds then it's fair to ask what does science know of this and where does this come from. The only thing it would need to be more inclusive of the term transgender more would maybe be some info on brain based studies of crossdressers. I originally suggested removing the "homosexual transsexuals" part but given that some of the research does reference that term it needs to stay fine but at least now the section is balanced and properly reflects the reality that transgender people do suffer significantly because people don't know what box to put them in. Also imho if its a transgender people document and we agree that transsexual is a part of transgender and we don't disagree that science and a discussion of it can help inform of the bigger picture then we should not be relabeling something as transsexual just in the hopes of dismissing it entirely. From Ariel (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Evolution of the term transgender
The word Transgender, Transgenderist, Transgendered, and other plural forms was invented by Renée Chevalier. She was running “The Transgenderest Independence Club” of Albany New York in the early 1970’s when she invented the word and started using it in all correspondence and in a newsletter circulated throughout the country. Because she was an educator and would educate Doctors and others who counseled Transgendered individuals. The word was never meant to replace the other words used to describe peoples conditions but it was meant to put an umbrella word in place so that all individuals were covered with one word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renee1423 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This section begins "The term transgender (TG) was popularised in the 1970s[6] (but implied in the 1960s[7][8]) describing people who wanted to live cross-gender without sex reassignment surgery.[9]" and cites:

"^ Stryker, S. (2004), "... lived full-time in a social role not typically associated with their natal sex, but who did not resort to genital surgery as a means of supporting their gender presentation ..." in Transgender from the GLBTQ: an encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer culture. Retrieved on 2007-04-10."

Prince was very clear about what transgenderal meant. However, only one year after transgenderal was invented (1970), the term "transgendered" was used in mass media in reference to the supposed transsexual movie “Myra Breckinridge”: http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/TVguide-TGa.png http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/TVguide-TG.png

A few years later in 1974, two separate sources use the word transgender in reference to transsexual people: http://research.cristanwilliams.com/2011/08/15/transgender-1974-transgender-research/ http://research.cristanwilliams.com/2011/08/15/transgender-1974-transgender-surgery/

In 1979, Christine Jorgensen publicly identified as being a transgender woman: http://research.cristanwilliams.com/2011/08/21/christine-jorgensen-transgender-woman/

It is clear that this term was in use around the same time that Price coined "transgenderal" (1969) and had been in use for almost a decade by the time she coined the term "transgenderist" in 1978.

Claiming that the term was " popularised in the 1970s... describing people who wanted to live cross-gender without sex reassignment surgery." is simply not factual.

Additionally, the term was in the 1970s, a conceptual tool non-trans people used to describe gender variant behavior or concepts. See:

1971, the term is used in theatrical circles: http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/2011/07/10/transgender-some-cultural-context/

1975, the term is used to refer to rock star Alice Cooper: http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/AC-tg.png

1975, linguist uses the term in reference to non-gender specific pronouns http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/1975.png

I strongly urge that this section be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.34.255 (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the introduction to this section is poorly written, and almost certainly inaccurate, as written.
 * However, I find the terminology with respect to "transgender" to be a horrible muddle of controversy, misunderstandings, acrimony, and at root... confusion, because the word has in fact been used in a variety of ways, including being used as a synomym for "transsexual". !!!  And so frankly I do not know how to approach this problem...
 * For example... "horrible muddle"... I was just looking over the document that's currently being used as a source, "Rethinking 'Who put the "Trans" in Transgender?'"... and see...

Approach 3 - transgender as transgression - entails a redefining and a going beyond existing formulations of the binary gender divide. Elsewhere, we have referred to this approach in terms of 'transcending'. The strengths of the approach stem from this. ——— The future of approach 3 is inevitably tied up with the future of postmodernity. If the postmodern esthetic - simulation, prefabrication, intertextuality, and bricolage - continue to take root, we might expect that the views of sex, sexuality and gender being developed within Approach 3 will gain increasing prominence.
 * So... am I reading this right? "Transgender" identity is all about... an esthetic?  !!!
 * (facepalm)
 * Sorry, but for me, this is a zone of grave aggravation... so much so that last time I saw my therapist, I told her I want to stay far, far away from it ;-) Thanks! -- bonze blayk (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You do present some interesting references and sources. It's unsurprising that the word would have a convoluted history as all language is in constant flux and change. Just look at the Oxford English Dictionary and look at examples of use of even common everyday words and you will see how they have changed. It could be said that the word is still deeply in flux but it's current meaning is more as an umbrella then any specific term. Gay was once a happy joyful and carefree state but now people would probably have odd thoughts seeing little gay johnny brand of bean and other canned goods that was once a widely sold brand with a little farm boy on each can in overalls. http://www.greatcratelabels.com/images/labels_large/johnny270_270.jpg
 * From Ariel (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone following this discussion may be interested in watching Portal:Transgender/Intro. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Renee1423, 12 September 2011
The word TRANSGENDER was invented in the early 1970's by Renée Chevalier of Albany New York. She was a pioneer in the Gender movement during that time period. The 70's were tough times for all people but very hard for Gender people. So with that said she started an organization in Albany New York and people came from all parts of the country to attend meetings and events in Albany. She called the organization The TRANSGENDERIST Independence Club and had membership of people who were TRANSGENDERED as she called them. She saw a need for a word to cover a larger group of people some simple cross dressers only wearing underwear of the opposite gender. While others were TRANSSEXUALS at the opposite end of the spectrum. The people in between were many but they also needed a voice. With the umbrella word TRANSGENDER this would be accomplished. She pioneered the movement to include the word and the people covered by it into the DSM manual. This was accomplished by using one word to cover all people who were considered gender people. So an actual definition of the word should be: TRANSGENDER pronounced TRANS GEN DER is a word used to umbrella all gender people under one word. From the simple cross dresser, to the much more complex Intersexed, hermaphrodite, to the Transsexual both heterosexual and homosexual.

Renee1423 (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Help
My name is John, but I go by the name Alicia, I'm a transgender Male to Female and my Sister CArol does not accept my lifestyle no matter how much I try to talk to her about it. I'm in between Therapists and I have noone I can turn to, some of my friends understand and some don't, my friend Pamela says I can't come over her house dressed like Alicia, or get into her car for that matter, I need help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.129.6 (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this page is for discussing improvements to the Transgender encyclopedia article. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to get advice from a trans forum. as John says, this is an encyclopedia, not a discussion/help group. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Neuroskeptic article
Via http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/11/transexual-brain.html it has come to my attention that this article has been edited with less regard toward http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/85/5/2034.long, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21094885 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1292983 as would be best. Thank you. 69.12.216.122 (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I know. The section in question looks like it has been edited to push Blanchard's theory and give the impression that androphilic trans women have feminine brains while gynecophilic trans women have masculine brains. Cornince (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Alas, the article at http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/11/transexual-brain.html gets the Savic paper wrong… differences were found in gynephilic MtF transsexuals from both normal male and female brains…. just not the ordinary differences between the male and female sexes.
 * See my edit on this article correcting a mistake I found when James Cantor added all these TS brain-sex variation studies to this article… in relating the results of exactly this same study by Savic et al. "[The] gynephilic transsexuals 'displayed also singular features and differed from both control groups by having reduced thalamus and putamen volumes and elevated GM volumes in the right insular and inferior frontal cortex and an area covering the right angular gyrus.'"
 * Also, even though James might well be suspected of pushing a POV here, this research does support Blanchard's speculation. FWIW.  (I find all the brain research intriguing, but inconclusive. YMWV:  I am a comedienne, not a neuroscientist!  Also:  Note the response to this blog post from "Collaterly", who identifies herself as a an MtF transsexual and "researcher" and characterizes Savic, Blanchard, et al as "idiots" ?-)
 * PS: And once again I shall reiterate:  I believe that most of the discussion of research findings on TS belongs in some other article.  Besides being overlong in this context… transsexuals are a tiny minority within the category of "transgender/ed" folk, and this research, however interesting, should not dominate the article on Transgender.  -- bonze blayk (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think these studies support the two-type typology because they may not necessarily be referring to one of the two specific types, requiring us to guess if they meant that the subjects were of one type or another; and if a study does reference a population, with there being a lack of controls from the other type, it seems that the studies say nothing about the other type.


 * I do wonder why this hasn't been moved to the Causes of transsexualism article. --Cornince (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of _non-autogynephilic_
On "Specific cerebral activation due to visual erotic stimuli in male-to-female transsexuals compared with male and female controls":

Though I am unable to read the full text of the study itself, from a third source I am told that the transsexual participants were described as non-autogynephilic. It may be that James Cantor interpreted that to mean androphilic, but does it really? Did the authors assume for the purposes of the study that there were only two types of transsexual women, homosexual and autogynephilic? If so, then why didn't they just say homosexual? --Cornince (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Origin of word transgender...
"Some transsexuals also take issue with the term because Charles "Virginia" Prince, the founder of the cross-dressing organization Tri-Ess and coiner of the term "transgender"

READ THIS: http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/tracking-transgender-the-historical-truth/

In summary...


 * The dispute seems to focus on a few points.
 * Is the mention in TV guide a significant source and or use of the word / was it widely circulated enough to have cultural impact?
 * Princes use is often cited as the coining of the word as "Transgenderal". Is it noteworthy that the word "transgendered" is used to describe a character that had a complete sex change only months after Prince used a similar word "transgenderal" a play on the word "Transsexual" intended to refrence crossdressers only. re: complete sex change -> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066115
 * Was the character transsexual or not? Does the dream sequence effect this? (in the movie at the end it turns out the whole movie was a dream. For the whole of the movie prior to the end though Myra Breckinridge was presented to the audience to be a post-op transsexual. The entire sex change surgery and the plot of the movie except for the last few minutes were a dream.. / This should possibly be compared to wizard of OZ does the implied dream state of the story of OZ somehow disqualify any cultural impact of the story and characters?) Quotes from the movie show the character had a complete sex change. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066115/quotes
 * Is this indicative that the word may have been used interchangeably as an umbrella term from the start?
 * Allegations of OR and Synth have been made.
 * The original reversion stated in the reason "deleting references to "Myra Breckinridge" Gore Vidal's bizarro-world satire with hostile depictions of TS - DISCUSS FIRST PLEASE!"
 * Subsequent re-reversion stated "Undid revision 465457063 by From Ariel (talk) - please cease these ridiculous Myra Breckinridge edits"
 * Is the edit being disallowed due to opinion / dislike on the movie itself not on the merit of the words use and significance of this early use culturally?
 * Is the use by TV Guide less significant then the other cited use by Virginia Prince in a far more limited distribution publication? Why would TV Guide a nationally syndicated publication to a wide demographic on the topic of TV and movies be less significant then Princes use?

Sorry to butt in... In the wiki entry, it says "In the 1980s the term was expanded to an umbrella term" - the term was being used as an umbrella term in 1974: http://research.cristanwilliams.com/2012/02/25/1974-transgender-as-umbrella-term/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.34.255 (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

From Ariel (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC) ________

I am more then a little upset that my revisions to the section origin of the word transgender were removed and in the comments of such undo I was told to "discuss first". I see nowhere in wikipedia where cited, referenced, provable, facts must be discussed before adding them. Had the person that undid my edits read the references and cites it would be obvious they are valid. Here is all of the discussion you will get. My changes were cited confirmable and referenceable. All of the required references and proofs were provided with the edits and this is a gross abuse to remove my changes. If you wanted discussion you should have requested it and left my edits intact.

I expect I will be asking for a review and an inquiry into my edits being undone and being TOLD, no ORDERED to discuss, factually provable, referenced and cited content before editing.

Further Booze your notes where you labeled The movie Myra Breckinridge as "bizarro" clearly shows your edit does not come from npov. You don't have to like the movie or it's content. When discussing the origin of the word Transgender the fact that TV Guide used the term "transgender" to refer to a transsexual in april 26 of 1970 clearly calls into question it's use and shows that from the very beginning it was an umbrella term. Prince was using a similar term "transgenderal" a play on "Transsexual" in 1969 and TV Guide was using "Transgender" before any written record of prince using the exact word.

Fact: Prince did not use Transgenderal in any confirmable source prior to her writing in 1969. To not clarify that she used Transgenderal not transgender is misleading.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#cite_note-ekinskingone-6
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#cite_note-princevone-7

Fact: in April 1970 in TV guide a nationally circulated paper. Raquel Welches character "Myra Breckinridge" was referred to as Transgender.
 * "Raquel Welch (left), moviedom's sex queen soon to be seen as the heroine/hero star of Gore Vidal's transgendered "Myra Breckinridge," will be featured..."
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transgender&oldid=463478507#cite_note-TV_guide_april_1970-9

Fact: Myra Breckinridge was a Post-op Transsexual.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transgender&oldid=463478507#cite_note-IMDB-10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myra_Breckinridge_%28film%29

From Ariel (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you're upset, From Ariel, but please note:
 * First, having an edit reverted on Wikipedia is not at all unusual, is a normal part of the Wikipedia "BOLD, revert, discuss" cycle - WP:BRD - which many employ, and you're editing an article in a set of topics - trans* related topics - which are hyper-controversial.
 * The evolution of the term "transgender" is subject to a great deal of controversy among transgendered, transsexual, trans-whatever folk. E.g., please look over Cristan Williams' articles on the history of the term (The Rise of "Transgender") and the controversy (Transsexual not Transgender: A Paroxysm of Histrionics); the application of the term transgender to transsexuals and the implications thereof, in particular, has now become the focus of vociferous disputes in what some would call "the transgender community", from which others subsumed into that category ("separatist" transsexuals) wish to be freed.
 * The note that Victoria Prince used "transgenderal" is fine by me; referencing a TV Guide article using the term "transgender" in a vague TV-CRITIC style of expression to segue into a statement that the wholly fictional character (and IMO an obscene one, and I'm not hung up about sexual matters) "Myra Breckinridge whom -sic- was clearly a post-op transsexual" is wholly inappropriate, in my view, because it is 1) a citation of a non-notable source in this instance, because it was not historically influential in itself, and is irrelevant to the current use of the term, and 2) the novel and film portrayal of the character "Myra Breckinridge" is a really, really, appalling misrepresentation of the nature of transsexualism and motivations for transitioning (hint:  this story is all about sex, sex, sex and revenge on men!).  "Myra Breckinridge" is not "a Post-op Transsexual":  "Myra Breckinridge" is a purely a product of the frenzied imagination of Gore Vidal - the story is advertised as a "satire", right?
 * To underscore this point, I'll quote from the Wikipedia article on Myra Breckinridge: "'It is tempting to argue that Vidal said more to subvert the dominant rules of sex and gender in Myra than is contained in a shelf of queer theory treatises,' wrote Dennis Altman."  To my way of thinking, genuine transsexuality is not about "subverting" the dominant rules of gender… it's about a compelling desire to conform to the gender rules which are applied to the opposite sex, and so Vidal is engaging in a full-frontal assault on the very nature of the phenomenon, in my opinion.
 * Disclaimer: I'm TS, myself, and don't mind being referred to as "transgendered" though I tend to cavil at being labelled "transgender". Picky, no?  (Typically picky:  yes!)  And yes, this is my legal name now: "Bonze Anne Rose Blayk" -- bonze blayk (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

______________________________
 * Again your reasons for disagreeing are completely opinion based and do not fall under NPOV. This is entirely because you do not like the film as was made clear in your reverts which call the film "bizaroo". You say that this film is not significant but even poorly written and executed it was significant because it breached and parodied several concepts that in the 70's were considered taboo. Keep in mind back then it was considered revolutionary that the Brady parents shared the same bed. It was courageous enough to make such a movie we can't expect it to be upto modern standards of understanding.


 * To quote from a persons comments on IMDB I think he neatly sums up why it was a movie that shook foundations especially because it parodied things often considered taboo at the time..
 * "by HarlowMGM (Sun May 13 2007 21:14:07) '...A woman raping a man via a 'strap on' - an old woman with a huge sexual appetite for young beefcake - an attractive transsexual able to seduce whom she pleases - an all-american girl flirting with bisexuality - an old white man who sleeps with black chicks and lusts after his nephew's widow (who turns out to be his nephew!)...'"


 * Again I don't care if you like the movie or not it is a fact the actual word "transgender" was used only months after princes use of a similar word in a nationally syndicated publication read by millions of people. Myra Breckinridge was not CD she was TS. The dramatization of being transsexual may not have been correct or polite or made you happy but it does not change the fact that the word was used in an environ that exposed millions of people to the term in relation to a transsexual.


 * As far as significant source. We are talking about possibly the first actual use of transgender in a nationally published anything when describing a post-op transsexual. Whether you liked how they portrayed her or not, Myra was a post-op TS not CD hence this is significant showing it was already falling into parlance as a term for transsexuals. You expose millions of people to the word in that use it IS significant. A sideline blurb or not it was in the hands of millions in print. Add to that it was used to describe the picture of a Celebrity whom was on the cover of that issue. That is significant.


 * Prince didn't use "transgender" till far later (80's?) only sporadically using...
 * Transgenderal - A play on word - Transsexual - hence the - "al" in 69 through the 70's.


 * In the 70's black-sploitation movies were common too that does not mean you censor one of those movies from a wikipedia article because you don't like the light it casts people of color in either. If something significant and of note related to the movie happened you present it in a neutral point of view irregardless of your personal dislikes.
 * From Ariel (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From Ariel (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * From Ariel - Please take note of the Wikipedia article on the movie Myra Breckinridge (film), rather than the reference to the book Myra Breckinridge that you wikilinked in your recent edits. It makes quite a difference, since it's clear that the passing use in a TV Guide blurb (which you seek to promote as causing some kind of profoundly influential Culture Shift! in the public's perception of "transsexuals" as being "transgender") is for a movie characterized as a "BOMB" (by Leonard Maltin), cited in The Fifty Worst Films of All Time, and which bombed with the public as well as with critics?
 * Your efforts here to apply WP:OR "Original Research" to claim this blurb is worth noting - because the movie itself is somehow "revolutionary"? (Huh?) - in this context are not at all persuasive.
 * And, in this movie almost no-one watched, thus revolutionizing… nothing? … ultimately?
 * "In 2004, Myra Breckinridge was released on DVD with minor changes—to make the film's ending (that Myra never had her sex change) clearer…" (from the Wikipedia article; italics mine).
 * — So: Myra Breckinridge is… ???  A fictional character… and not a "post-op TS". —
 * And… "Gore Vidal has disowned the film calling it 'an awful joke'". (FWIW:  The book was a hit; also, I think Vidal is a great writer:  YMWV.)
 * AND FINALLY in your edit you claim incorrectly that "in the April 1970 issue of TV guide 'transgender' was used to refer to the character Myra Breckinridge" - the blurb which you linked states: "Raquel Welch… star of Gore Vidal's transgendered 'Myra Breckinridge'".  (Seriously:  "transgendered", not "transgender":  these terms are not the same.)
 * Anyway, I see no good reason to go into detail in this article on the convoluted history of the term "transgender", which did not evolve in any sense that makes sense, but has been one of those terms that's been used by different people with drastically different definitions. As Cristan Williams' articles show (cited above), this would comprise an entire article in and of itself… if it were actually notable?  (And I don't even believe that it is.) - Sincerely, -- bonze blayk (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * bonze blayk your entire argument still comes down to you don't like the movie and disagree with it's quality / content. The quality and content of the movie does not mean that the word being referenced in view of millions of people in TV Guide of a gender variant / transsexual character is not valid. (no matter her personality) Sure the depiction is not accurate or PC but that is not the argument the depiction of the character was consistent with peoples limited exposure and awareness of how transsexuals actually were in 1970. Whats important is a significant source (mass publication to millions) used the term in regards to a transgender / gender varient / transsexual woman.


 * As far as is the character transsexual / transgendered let myra / myron explain that in dialog...?
 * As far as is the character transsexual / transgendered let myra / myron explain that in dialog...?


 * Surgeon: You realize, once we cut it off, it won't grow back. I mean, it isn't like hair, or fingernails, or toenails, you know.


 * Myron: What do you think I am, some kind of idiot? I know that!


 * Surgeon: [shrugs] Eh - how about circumcision? It'd be cheaper.


 * Myron: Come on, come on, come on, let's get it over with, Myra's waiting!


 * Surgeon: [shrugs] We'll have to blow up your tits with silicone.


 * Myra: I am Myra Breckinridge, whom no man will ever possess. The new woman whose astonishing history started with a surgeon's scalpel, and will end... who-knows-where. Just as Eve was born from Adam's rib, so Myron died to give birth to Myra. Did Myron take his own life, you will ask? Yes, and no, is my answer. Beyond that, my lips are sealed. Let it suffice for me to say that Myron is... with me, and that I am the fulfillment of all his dreams.




 * The TV guide quote is significant and documented proof of the use of the word in common media and mass media in 1970 that is significant.




 * Lastly your claim of it not being the same word is the most ridiculous claim of them all and I invite you to goto Transgendered to see why.
 * Lastly your claim of it not being the same word is the most ridiculous claim of them all and I invite you to goto Transgendered to see why.




 * I feel you have given zero justification (as I have) and I will restore my edit. The only thing you have convinced me of is you dislike the movie and I'm sorry that is not reason for excluding a citation to a notable (millions of subscribers) early documented use of the actual word in a section labeled "origin of the word..." It may even be the first use of the word in a venue seen by millions.
 * From Ariel (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From Ariel (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * From Ariel, you have provided absolutely no evidence that this inclusion of the term "transgender" (sic: "transgendered" ! bonze blayk (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)) in this brief blurb is in any way historically notable.  Your WP:OR "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article.  I will revert this on every appearance, since you have not responded at all to the problems I have raised, and do not seem to take editing responsibilities seriously… keep this up, and I will report your activities here as abuse. -- bonze blayk (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * … I guess I should note that this is more a case of aggravated WP:SYNTH than pure WP:OR, since there are a couple of sources cited? But to establish that the use of the term "transgendered" here actually had any impact… well, it's just not supported anywhere that I can see (and believe me, I did look!).
 * So, From Ariel, I shall now quote from your initial post here in Talk:Transgender on this matter? "Here is all of the discussion you will get." -- bonze blayk (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * bonze blayk are you telling me that this was not published in tv guide despite actual confirmed scans of the cover?
 * Are you telling me that TV Guide is not a publication read by millions of people?
 * Are you trying to say that it was not describing a character that is a gender non-conformant / transsexual?
 * The only thing you have confirmed is you do not like the character or the movie.
 * I will be asking for arbitration on this as opposed to your attempt to settle this by bulling me by making wild claims of fabrication of information. This is a confirmable source (TV guide) and the dialog of the movie confirms the CHARACTER is transsexual and the quote was in reference to the character from the dialog of said movie. This is neither synth nor is it OR it is a confirmable fact..
 * https://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&nomo=1&biw=1001&bih=542&q=april+26+1970+tv+guide+transgender&oq=april+26+1970+tv+guide+transgender&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=90866l94371l0l94704l12l12l0l11l0l0l179l179l0.1l1l0
 * From Ariel (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm here from the 3O board. Sorry it took so long for someone to get here (these delays naturally happen in a place like Wikipedia). My view would be to leave out the TV Guide mention; the usage in the TV Guide blurb seems more like a nonce word than an attempt to coin a word to aid classification a group of people, and it coincidentally is similar to the word that became in use. My reasoning is as follows: first, the mention in TV Guide is relatively minor. It's used once in a caption blurb about an actress (not even about the movie that it involves). Second: it's not used as a noun, but as an adjective, and with a suffix that isn't usually seen today. Third (and most importantly): it's not describing the character, it's describing the movie. So, while the word itself looks similar, its usage is actually pretty different from the modern use of "transgender." So, on those grounds, I'd say leave it out.

Think of it this way: if someone who had never heard of the word "transgender" stumbled across that TV Guide entry, it wouldn't help them understand the word in use today. It's a minor reference, so it likely didn't have an impact on the actual development of the word, and is therefore of little or no historical interest, and the actual usage doesn't reflect the usage of the word now, so it has little or no illustrative benefit. Since it's not really helping the article, it's probably best to leave it out. I don't think it's egregiously OR or SYNTH to leave it in, but I just don't think it has a place in the article.

Finally, some friendly notes on the usual Wikipedia etiquette (none of these are aimed at anyone in particular): Thanks (and sorry for the verbosity)! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 06:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * bold editing is encouraged (within reason), but once a change has been reverted, that's when discussion needs to take place. The addition of the material was fine and needed no discussion, but once it's been reverted or removed, discussion should take place and consensus should be reached before re-adding it.
 * Yes, a scholarly article is usually given more weight than a more widely-circulated magazine; this is reflected in Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources.
 * Care should be taken in using the word "notability" in a content dispute; in a Wikipedia context, notability is only important on deciding whether a subject should have its own article or not; the policy on notability does not apply to what should be included within an article, only whether or not it should exist.
 * While OR, SYNTH, and POV editing does (of course) happen, we should be careful in claiming them in a content dispute. It can easily lead to personal attacks.


 * Writ Keeper Re is it the character or the movie the answer is yes as the title of the film is the main character...
 * "Raquel Welch moviedom's sex queen soon to be seen as the heroine/hero star of Gore Vidal's transgendered "Myra Breckinridge"
 * heroine/hero star of Gore Vidal's transgendered "Myra Breckinridge" kinda makes it both refrencing the movie and the character not the actress.
 * I do also disagree on transgendered as if you saw transgendered and then watched the movie which predominantly spends the entire movie focusing on a character whom apparently to the audience had a sex change until the movie is revealed to be a dream at the end of what might have been but wasn't much like wizard of oz..
 * lastly regarding "Second: it's not used as a noun, but as an adjective, and with a suffix that isn't usually seen today." "transgendered" is used 41,100,000 times according to google vs "transgender" 37,700,000
 * Google Ngram viewer also shows that transgendered is quickly becoming popular and common http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=transgender%2Ctransgendered&year_start=1940&year_end=2005&corpus=0&smoothing=0
 * From Ariel (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2011
This: "so that "gender" is used to describe the categorical male/female difference and "sex" is used to describe the physical act of sexual intercourse." is incorrect. It should read, ""gender" is used to describe male/female identities and "sex" is used to describe physical genitalia."

141.161.133.207 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your request, but the sentence, as stated, is true: "There is a substantial academic literature on the difference between sex and gender, but in pragmatic English, this distinction is often ignored, so that "gender" is used to describe the categorical male/female difference and "sex" is used to describe the physical act of sexual intercourse."
 * For example: forms, including forms used by physicians and psychologists (who really ought to know better!) use the word "gender" as a "non-sex(y)" term for "genital" "sex" (which isn't truly a binary to start with!).
 * As a transgendered person myself, this muddling of sense drove me up the wall for a long, long time: the distinction is obvious! How can you possibly confuse these? … until I eventually came to the conclusion that the reason the terms became conflated is because to a cisgendered person the distinction makes no sense at all.  (That's WP:OR there, but I believe that's the cause, and why the distinction must be endlessly explained to average people.)
 * So, I'm very sorry about this… but unless and until educational efforts on the significance of the distinction have some impact on common usage, it's going to have to remain that way.
 * Thank you for your comment… Sincerely, -- bonze blayk (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Collected references
If you cite something. Place the main citation here and then a reference tag in the above. Keep this section the bottom. This way any references that are used can be easily found.

This section was last updated in 2008 and seems to be out of use now. I'm adding a references section so that these references stay with this section rather than seep into the ones below it.Insomesia (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)