Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Benjamin's Syndrome


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. I am not leaving a redirect because there are multiple options and maybe it is even better not to have a redirect after all. But this can be decided outside AfD. Tone 19:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As the result of the concurrent RfD, I am creating a redirect to Transsexualism#Alternative terminology. --Tone 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Harry Benjamin's Syndrome
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-existent disease. Not recognized in any book of official diagnoses. Article recreated by same editors to circumvent delete/redirect decision of Harry Benjamin Syndrome. See previous delete/redirect consensus. This term is non-notable; the only reliable source that uses the term currently included at the article says "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is synonymous with transsexualism: “the transsexual disorder known as Harry Benjamin Syndrome.” Previously deleted article averaged 2 visits a day. This obscure term should be a redirect that reflects how Harry Benjamin Syndrome is handled. Jokestress (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing administrator: Per CheckUser evidence, here and at Sockpuppet investigations/CharlotteGoiar, I've removed some of the repetitive SPA notices and redacted some of the off-topic sockpuppetry discussions that were present in this revision of the discussion, leaving the discussions that focus upon the article at hand. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion of sock-puppetry removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. That one article that calls HBS a type of transsexualism is non-credible and lying. We coined the term and didn't authorize them to speak on behalf of the word we coined.  It was published by a person with an agenda.  Delete BOTH articles without ANY redirection as per Wikipedia policy.  Since we coined the term and Wikipedia is not a soapbox, either delete both without redirects or let us keep just one and come up with credible sources.  There ARE credible sources in Spanish and Italian which more than prove that HBS is not a type of TSism, and the OTRS team has verified this on the Spanish page.--74.124.187.76 (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect and comment per nominator. Also, I'm not sure what 74.124.187.76 is trying to say with regards to coining this term. Care to clarify a bit more than vaguely stating "we coined it"? Xenocide  Talk undefined Contributions  23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. User Jokestress, Andrea James, an open Harry Benjamin's Syndrome (HBS) phobic person who is strongly against this patient advocacy movement, she has not a voice to speak for the HBS community as has been pointed out by another user on the discussion page of the HBS article, and her comments, arguments, etc, they should not be considered neutral nor objective here because her clear and open hate to this patient advocacy movement, a movement widely documented in the HBS article, and a terminology in fact officially used by prominent doctors specialized in this field and even the Health Department of Spain's government as it is been proven on the article which contains more than enough reliable sources. An article about HBS Phobia will be created soon with all the accumulated proof of hatred against this patient advocacy movement from people like Andrea James. --CharlotteGoiar (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. More sources showing that the terms are synonymous, supporting a redirect: "Other people with less spectacular transgender conditions such as Harry Benjamin's Syndrome (transsexuality)..." "Transsexualism is sometimes known as Harry Benjamin's syndrome (HBS)."   "Harry Benjamin discovered the syndrome we call Transsexualism."  The article on Transsexualism already discusses the term, so a redirect should be done per consensus on Harry Benjamin Syndrome. Jokestress (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article should remain because it reflects the reality of a precise term used by doctors today and it reflects the reality of a patient advocacy movement emerging from a few years ago. --CharlotteGoiar (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment while i am very curious about this articles subject, and cannot quite grasp its connection to the phenomenon of transexualism, i can say this: its very telling that the main site for advocacy for this syndrome has an entire page devoted to an exegesis of intersex as related to the bible . NO medically oriented site trying to document a medical condition would dream of including such material. regardless of the sites support for intersex people being included in "gods plan" (at least i think they are supportive of this, not that its directly relevant), this means that this site is absolutely not useful as an objective, medically sound source of information on transsexualism of any sort. If this site/subject has a lot of attention, then it is possible to rewrite this article as being about the social movement represented by HBS sites like this. any critiques they have of other modalities, particularly medical/psychiatric, for exploring transexualism must be seen as social, not medical critiques. any legitimate medical research quoted by HBS must be separated out from HBS and considered in the light of medical peer review, etc. If there are not enough references to be found for HBS being a social movement, then the article must be deleted for nonnotability. and ok, these ARE just my thoughts, so i could be wrong, but i dont think so. as i said at first, this is hard for a relative newcomer to these issues to grasp, so i dont have a firm view of whether we SHOULD delete or rewrite. This article would benefit from expert opinion. I dont know how to advocate for that ethically, so maybe someone else knows how to draw in other editors fairly. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - this is an attempt to undo the consensus formed at the AfD of "Harry Benjamin Syndrome", which was closed a few months ago as redirect to Transsexualism. All redirects formed in this squabble should be deleted and salted; the remaining redirect should be protected as it seems absolutely clear that things have certainly gotten out of hand. Both sides have been ignoring constructive suggestions to them at the Harry Benjamin Syndrome RfD, and this AfD is not helping matters as the heat is already quite intense. Everything should be returned to a point two weeks ago... and then, a civil discussion be made at the appropriate venue. There has been too much forum shopping going on here as it is. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article can't be speedily deleted, as it's not an exact recreation of the version that was deleted. It's different (in fact, I dare say it's worse than the original version, judging just by the quality of sources and the writing style), so it doesn't fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. Regular deletion after AfD discussion, though, is fine. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 08:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and keep the redirect, protecting it if necessary. The sources given are totally inconsistent: the principle site,  at various places claims it as very rare, but also says it is the most common cause of   what they term "true Transsexualism" -- contra the assertion above by  74.124.187.76. The question of whether the two terms are synonymous is unanswerable, because the sources are inconsistent. In this context, I would regard none as truly reliable; they have all been contaminated by propaganda. All we can do is report the variation in terminology, but not canonize it in one way or another.   The extent to which human feelings correspond to human biology is not to be solved by squabbling over definitions.  The question of determining the biological basis of this is confused, not clarified, by this aberrant terminology.      DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because I have found no convincing support for the academic or scientific validity of this term. Unable to figure out what the difference was between HBS and TG, I went to the self-published HBS site that is linked repeatedly in the article and I perused this page of it; I also read part of the Nature review that is repeatedly cited on the HBS page. Based on my reading of it, the Nature article does not support many of the claims it's being used for on the HBS page&mdash;in the typical spirit of science journalism, that page appears to be taking mundane observations (for example, a bird with half a female brain transplanted into it can't breed, big surprise there) and leaping to unsupported but flashy conclusions with them (i.e., the claim that "gender identity" is determined wholly by the neurobiological architecture of the brain). Anyway, by now I think I understand the difference that editors are claiming between HBS and TG (that HBS is a physical disorder and TG is a psychological state), but I don't see scientific evidence to back it up and I don't see evidence that HBS is recognized by the academic or scientific communities. No opinion on whether the article should be redirected or deleted, but at the very least it should not remain an article. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. First off, I can see lots of TG Men discussing here and in another related pages about Harry Benjamin's Syndrome, these people's arguments should not be considered neutral nor objective for the discussion of the current topic. They have a clear agenda and and they often show an open hate towards this particular patient advocacy movement (all this will be reported soon online on several websites including on a new specific HBS Phobia wikipedia article on several languages). The main purpose of this article is not to claim for a new disease but to refine a precise diagnostic for the type VI of primary transsexualism which is stated to be a form of intersexualism by dozens of medical experts on this condition today . We should rely on FACTS and medicine, the term transsexualism is not longer suitable for this very precise type VI of patients, because the etiology of their condition is intersexual as Harry Benjamin himself pointed out. To rely in the opinions and arguments of transgender men with a clear agenda behind is not serious at all, as I said, is not objective judgement. Wikipedia's articles about Harry Benjamin's Syndrome in Spanish and in Italian keeps online and the references provided on these articles had been proved realiable and verified by the OTRS team of Wikipedia in these countries. In this English version however, it clearly appears a conflict of interest in the publication of this article, and this violates Wikipedia policy. But the REAL MAIN PURPOSE of this article, beyond all of what I mentioned, is just only to reflect the reality of an absolutely real patient advocacy movement (if it would not exist these TG men would be not so active here and in another places to block it) who is the reality of a minority group who identifies with this definition following the advance in facts in Medicine and this is very widely showed by dozens of blogs, sites, etc, on the internet, just Google for Harry Benjamin's Syndrome at this moment of the search 51.900 entries resulted from the search. So it is a social reality and a terminological fact that we cannot deny, and that it deserves its own page on Wikipedia. This article should Keep, of course, we must rely on these facts and in the conclusions of doctors and Medicine, and above all, PATIENT FACT, not to rely in the conclusions of TG men that supports an opposite agenda to the purposes of this minority of people that suffer this precise condition. If Wikipedia keeps online an article about Queer Theory  which is just that, a theory, not more than a theory, then the Harry Benjamin's Syndrome article should be keep too, as the social movement who identifies with it exists as much as the one who identifies with that "queer theory". And I will not comment more about this. The situation of this problem of HBS Phobia that some TG people suffer from, it will be soon exposed widely on the internet, and eventually other articles will appear on Wikipedia and in other informational resources on the internet about the wide progress of this patient advocacy movement, so what you decide to do or not here will be seen in a short future as just something anecdotal in the history of this patient advocacy movemement. --CharlotteGoiar (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Off-topic discussion removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And by the way... first of all, saying that editors are haters is not helpful, do you have evidence to back this up? And why should it affect the deletion debate anyway? Deletion debates are swayed by references to Wikipedia policy, not by ad hominem attacks; saying "the people voting 'delete' are bad people" doesn't get articles deleted. Next, about your repeated comments that this is a precise medical diagnostic...do you have any medical sources confirming this? (a diagnostic manual or some such.) Finally, I am not TG, nor are several of the other people who have commented here. You're doing yourself no good by making assumptions about people and trying to discredit them without any actual evidence. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. No more really needs saying. Has nothing to do with phobias and everything to do with non-notability. (The vitriol from CharlotteGoiar didn't help any, either.) B.Rossow talk contr 14:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep because I have found enough convincing support for the scientific validity of this term on the sources given by Goiar and a lot of evidence of the existence of this patient advocacy movement both online and offline. Especially online Google shows it. It is vital to differentiate between HBS and TG for the adequate medical understanding and treatment of the first group. This article help to many people who suffer this condition to be informed about it and understand it properly, without queer ideology involved. TG people should refrain from write their opinions here because they don't have the condition, they don't understand it, and many of them are strongly against it (because is different to their TG lifestyle choices and agenda). And yes, Goiar comments on HBS-phobia are completely right, this page's discussion and the old one they speaks by themselves about this. But if you want further evidence of this just read the hundreds of posts on online TG forums of hate about the HBS community. Read articles as the ones written by HFarmer (another TG who participated in the old "consensus" they got among TGs about the old HBS article) or just take a walk by TG sites like Laura's Playground to feel all the hate-HBS-phobia that they spit all the time. You cannot erase the HBS community by deleting this article, you only create more hate between both communities by doing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk)
 * Sock-puppetry struck. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did you find scientific proof? Can you link me to sources in peer-reviewed scholarly journals? I already read the Nature source cited on Goiar's website and it doesn't support any of the pseudoscientific claims made there. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Scientific proof and medical use of the term: In the sources provided by Goiar. But if you aren't able to recognize them, this is not my problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
 * Keep. As the authoress of this article, I hereby demand respect for Harry Benjamin's Syndrome article, since it's been properly proved in this discussion that there is a big group of supporters of this terminology, who reject being tagged as "Transsexuals"; there is enough proof of the wide use of the term, which can be checked by means of Google, as well as by the different articles about the fact that exist in other languages in Wikipedia. That's why I think it must be saved from deletion. Regards. Marta314 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is getting respect. were discussing it right here, right now. demanding respect doesnt help the argument to keep. there seems to be a lack of credible sources to show that HBS is a valid medical diagnosis at this time. fascinating research perhaps. and if there is a significant population rejecting "transsexuals" in favor of HBS, that may be notable, but unfortunately, this begins to approach the margins of notability. transsexuals are a small minority of the human population. it appears that most transsexuals accept or identify with a single, fairly well defined approach to their situation. This may well be recognized one day as an incomplete or misplaced approach, but as of today its NOT. a small minority disagrees with this as a form of labeling? good, in fact, great, more power to all people to self identify as they desire and seek acceptance for that identity, but that doesnt automatically mean this group has enough recognition OUTSIDE itself for an article right now. I havent seen enough evidence for this being a social phenomenon, let alone a medical breakthrough, for to justify an article. I know it really shouldnt have an article which reads like a medical diagnosis at this time. I suspect HBS is going to stay a minority, oppositional point of view within the scope of the article on transsexualism.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G4 with optional protected redirect. This is transparently reposted content. Compare this revision (at Harry Benjamin Syndrome -- no possessive) with the first revision of the current article. The same user, Marta314 was the creator of both linked revisions. The current article was created on 21 September, after the redirect left from the previous article was protected on 19 September to end an edit war by IP user 74.124.187.76. All three active contributors to the two versions of this article (74.124.187.76, Marta314, and CharlotteGoair) are primarily or wholly single purpose accounts who have defended their position with similar invective, claiming phobia, bias, or persecution by the transsexual community. Despite their claims, even ignoring the G4 reposting and examining this article on its merits, there has never been a source provided that satisfies WP:MEDRS, and no more than passing mentions in any reliable source whatsoever. Claims that there are foreign-language reliable sources to support the Spanish or Italian versions are further spurious, as those articles do not have any additional sourcing that provided here. Sir Landmass Weevil (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read my comment above? This article is not speedyable, it has sources added and much of the content has been rewritten. It should be deleted, but through regular deletion, not speedy (see my own delete rationale above). Please focus on the correct reasons for deletion; incorrectly calling for speedy deletion isn't going to help. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of whether the current version is "substantially identical" to the deleted one or not, then, it still lacks anything to satisfy WP:RS. Of the 11 sources cited, 7 are to the same advocacy group website.  One is an internet petition site.  One is a personal testamonial.  One is an article in Biological Psychiatry that does not address the term (but does include "transsexualism" in its abstract keywords).  And one is the trivial BBC mention that earned the previous version a redirect rather than outright deletion. Sir Landmass Weevil (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Transsexualism. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it. Is a very valuable and reliable resource in spite of the biased views of some people here. IMO transgender people are not the ones who should decide it, Harry Benjamin's Syndrome is a term used by some doctors and by a community of people who identify with it, not with transgenderism. Your excuses for to boycott this article are not worth enough in comparison with the positive comments and votes given here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
 * Sock-puppetry struck. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet another useless ad hominem; who says that all the people participating in this discussion are transgender? Please focus on the issues, not the editors. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As others have said, the cited sources do not demonstrate the existence of the condition. Reconsider if HBS, or the movement supporting it, receive substantial coverage in reliable sources. And it should go without saying that the gender or gender identity of the posters to this discussion is of no importance whatever. PhGustaf (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this article looks like a unique view on what the RS seem to assert is the same condition, and thus may fall under WP:POVFORK. PhGustaf (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * you and these other ones are wrong, the cited sources demonstrate the existence of the condition, is a refinement of what was previosuly wrongly know as Type VI True transsexualism. If you don't fall in this category it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs)  08:54, 23 September 2009
 * — 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete A redirect would apparently be inaccurate, according to those who have defined the term in the article and above. Without reliable sourcing that would make clear that there in fact is any distinction from the proposed redirect target, the term as defined by the article is not notable at this point, and the article should await (possible) confirmation of a speculative theory that although interesting does not establish that there is any phenomenon distinguishable from the proposed redirect target.  Steveozone (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources back up the HB'S article and its movement. Keep it, it's very good. There is not conceptual connection at all between HBS and transsexualism/transgenderism based on modern research for what was know as true transsexualism before. Transsexualism is an outdated term for people with Harry Benjamin's Syndrome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 23 September 2009
 * — 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Not only is an outdated term as you say, but the fact is that HBS is NOT transsexualism, but intersexualism, as considered today by the medical experts in the field, as cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk • contribs)  10:39, 23 September 2009
 * In relation to what transgender leader User Jokestress said at the top of this page: Very poor argument to rely in what a journalist writes about a completely new term. And by saying that is a non-existent disease you are saying that primary transsexualism (its old concept) does not exist. So, you don't understand the topic of this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 September 2009
 * Off-topic discussion of not having accounts removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: [Off-topic discussion of sockpuppetry removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)] Please also note that shb-info.org (again owned by someone named Charlotte Goiar) is virtually the only cited source of information for this article. All other issues aside, there's an incredible WP:COI problem here; citing a website one owns and administers as proof of anything is laughable. I'm not sure anything else needs to be said. -- B.Rossow ·  talk  16:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps of interest to those with less time on their hands is a snippet from Goiar's own website: "Charlotte Goiar in Spain decided to attempt to popularise the term 'Harry Benjamin’s Syndrome' (HBS), as it follows the naming conventions of intersex conditions. [...] HBS as a term is still a 'work in progress'". --<span style="border:2px ridge #aaf;background-color:#fff;padding:1px 8px;font:normal 10px Verdana,sans-serif;margin-left:-8px;"> B.Rossow  ·  talk  16:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [Off-topic discussion of sockpuppetry removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)] On the other hand to say that all sources given in this article are referring only to her website is a funny lie because they are not, as everyone can see. As others have said, TGs biased arguments here are not credible at all, I am sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk • contribs) 16:50, September 23, 2009
 * Goiar (or Guren, as she is also known) is apparently known outside the city as well ... though not in the favorable light she'd likely prefer: A slightly different take on Goiar and HBS. Not taking sides here; just sharing some interesting Ghits. FWIW, I'm not TG and have no agenda other than keeping BS off of Wikipedia. --<span style="border:2px ridge #aaf;background-color:#fff;padding:1px 8px;font:normal 10px Verdana,sans-serif;margin-left:-8px;"> B.Rossow ·  talk  17:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for provide us further evidence about the HBS phobia that is coming from the TG community. The link you posted about Laura Playground site is a wonderful example of this, as this is a TG site with a TG agenda and shows a huge HBS phobia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
 * Quick question: who is diagnosing these individuals with HBS, and what papers have they written on the subject? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick answer: some doctors as showed in the cited sources of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
 * Comment Has this dispute over this diagnosis been covered in reliable independent media? Is the subject notable and covered substantially by reliable independent sources? Please keep comments focused and relevant to the AfD. Arguments and soapboxing aren't constructive and make it hard for independent parties to assess the article and whether the subject meets inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, in lots of independent media Example One,Example Two -there is not reference to transsexuality here, Example Three -again not reference to transsexuality here, Example Four -again not mentioning of transsexuality here,Example Five -again without references to transsexuality, only to HBS and so on and on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
 * The first two examples are the same article (2 is a Spanish translation of 1). The others appear to be just trivial mentions that happen to use the name HSB, they're not actually discussions of the dispute (which is what CoM asked for). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 18:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No trivial at all, these are full articles referring exclusively to Harry Benjamin's Syndrome without mention of transsexuality (except in Example One that the journalist confuses a bit the things, but not in Example Two where journalist Daniel Schweimler corrects the mistake). Anyway I wish you a good discussion here, I am off to a trip in a couple of hours, so don't miss me so much, goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk • contribs)
 * Examples 1-2 have been covered. Example 3 refers to the subject of the article as a transsexual, directly contradicting "keep" supporters here. Example 4, astoundingly, refers to Goiar as a doctor. Is she? I can find ZERO other references to her being a doctor; if she is not, then the natural assumption is that either she misrepresented herself to the author of the article or the writer isn't concerned about facts and accuracy. Either way, the article is suspect at best. Example 5 just summarizes Example 4, which again is suspect at best. --<span style="border:2px ridge #aaf;background-color:#fff;padding:1px 8px;font:normal 10px Verdana,sans-serif;margin-left:-8px;"> B.Rossow ·  talk  19:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a broader article subject where this fringe diagnosis (if that's the accurate description) can be included appropriately? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See previous AfD where this was previously decided prior to the recreation of the article. --<span style="border:2px ridge #aaf;background-color:#fff;padding:1px 8px;font:normal 10px Verdana,sans-serif;margin-left:-8px;"> B.Rossow ·  talk  19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As best I can glean from the references, HBS isn't even a "fringe diagnosis". It's just a word Claire M., by her own statement, "coined".  What matters here is that the coinage hasn't caught on enough to be reported by reliable sources.  If it were, it could be covered, fringe or not.  Same with the movement supporting HBS.  But neither is, so it's a redirect at most.  The previous AfD includes the word "autocunniphilic".  I wonder whether that boggler has the same coiner. PhGustaf (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's enough! I find shameful and disgusting the full "investigation" made up by users Brossow and Rjanag about the possible IPs used by user Charlotte Goiar and about her very person and her work User Brossow talk page (vid. comments above), trying to discredit her and her opinions about this matter. I created this article for the sole purpose of spreading knowledge on Harry Benjamin's Syndrome to all those people interested in it, not to query the spotless work of a person (Charlotte Goiar) whom I don't have the chance to know, but whose work helping people suffering from this Syndrome is simply praiseworthy, as can clearly be inferred from the work displayed on her website. I think it is ridiculous the discuss over the "notability" and the "reliability" of the term "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" and the suitability of an article on such Syndrome, after having seen that terms at least as "notable" and "reliable" as the one discussed, like Third genderThird sex, genderqueer or queer heterosexual, have their own safe place on Wikipedia with extensive articles entitled with them, and no one thinks about their deletion. Is it necessary to remind user Jokestress, who nominated this article for deletion, that not a single biologist or scientist would EVER state that there is a third sex in humans or a third gender? Do we have to remind the other users who objected to this article that a word so used in this discussion such as "transgender", in opposition to "transsexual", was almost unthinkable only ten years ago? What is a queer heterosexual? What right does  theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick hold in order to create a "queer theory" and why doesn't  the one who created the Harry Benjamin's Syndrome term have it as well, especially when it's being a syndrome treated by doctors all over the world for more than 40 years? I strongly believe that Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, can no longer remain indifferent to those terms such as "Third sex", "genderqueer" or "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" that may not be officially recognized but which are a part of society, and have a reflection in newspapers, the Internet or mass media. This has been proved above with the external links of newspapers that mentioned the term which is being discussed. Nevertheless, since I see here that my article has made such bad reactions arise, with personal attacks being involved, I ask for the deletion of this article if it is considered to be of help in order to stop it. Thank you. Marta314 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many scientific and medical articles on gender reassignment and gender dysphoria that refer to Harry Benjamin and the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association. There are no scientific or medical articles that refer specifically to Harry Benjamin Syndrome as a specific type of gender dysphoria.  It may be a colloquialism that is common among LBGT persons, but there are insufficient reliable sources to show this, and the current article suffers from soapboxing, synthesis and original research.  As far as CharlotteGoiar is concerned, anyone may participate in article discussions on Wikipedia, but they are not allowed to pretend to be 3 different people. Thatcher 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Section break and reconsideration

 * Harry Benjamin is an important figure in the study of transsexualism. The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association was named for him and their standard of care for transgendered persons have been widely adopted.  (Read, for example, the abtracts to, , and .)  It appears, however, that Harry Benjamin Syndrome is not a recognized medical term for sexual dysphoria due to chemical imbalances in the brain.  Therefore most of this article is original research and possibly soapboxing; also misleading quoting of sources is a serious concern.  Redirect to Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association. Thatcher 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC) (The current redirect of HBS to Transsexualism#Alternative_terminology is probably acceptable as well, although the text there needs some work. Thatcher 21:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points. The Harry Benjamin Association page, though, says the Association is dedicated to mainstream notions of gender dysphoria, and the HBS group distance themselves from that.  I do see it as a matter of terminology, and the second link suggested works with that. PhGustaf (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Transsexualism. This diagnosis is noted in the BBC news source and is at least mentioned in other news sources. Providing information to those searching for this term and noting that this diagnosis exists seems to be in the best interest of our readers. We can duke it out there over how the content should be phrased. :) The unsourced "incorrect" designation there now is a bit much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC source says, "The decision ends a long-running legal process for Nati, who suffers from the transsexual disorder known as Harry Benjamin Syndrome". This sort of casual en passant mention is not, in my opinion, sufficient to establish HBS as a diagnosis.  A scientific source would be good, but there don't seem to be any.  You really don't want to trust most reporters with science.  The redirect is fine. PhGustaf (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You suggest once again redirect to "Transsexualism"; may I ask you then why is not genderqueer redirected to transgender according to your reasoning? Thanks Marta314 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe they should be. "Other crap exists so this should exist also" is not generally considered a valid argument in these discussions. The issue is, for example, whether there is sufficient reliable sources that support the creation of a separate article for the term, instead of as a brief mention in another article.  Gender identification is extremely complex, and it would be a very foolish scientist who would say that all transgender and intersex persons are due to psychological trauma, or that all transgender and intersex is due to biological changes.  Harry Benjamin Syndrome is referred to en passant in a BBC article and a Mirror article about the same case; it is use on some LGBT blogs and advocacy web sites.  It may very well be a term used by some transgender/intersex persons to refer to themselves.  At present, however, there are insufficient independent reliable sources to support a separate article, without relying on non-reliable sources and improper synthesis and original research. Thatcher 22:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I am a neurobiologist, not an endocrinologist, so I decided to do some looking into this condition. I found nothing on pubmed which describes a specific condition by this name, tho this article may seem to back up the claims of such a condition- that brain gender is developed during fetal development and not later. However, since I could not find this specific condition listed anywhere in a reliable source, then I have to opine that it be deleted. My apologies to those who may find this offensive. I would advocate that articles in reliable scientific sources- or medical text books- may help turn the opinion. Basket of Puppies  23:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think there is some research on brain development and how it relates to transgenderism, but there is no diagnosis or condition by the name of HBS so the article is original research by way of synthesis, perhaps to support a term that is colloquially used by some transgendered persons but with insufficient sources to support a stand alone article. Thatcher 23:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I am not a neurobiologist but a cognitive neuroscientist, and I too found nothing other than pseudoscience (including, regrettably, in the Nature article cited on Goiar's website... although, in Nature's defense, the Nature article itself isn't too bad, what's bad is the unfounded conclusions Goiar is leaping to from that article). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 00:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * also @BasketofPuppies: actually, the pubmed article you link above could be seen as evidence against HBS as Goiar construes it. Much of Goiar's website rants about how "physical gender" is not determined by hormones, but that the brain has gender independently (differentiated by neurocytological architecture itself). This article, though, says (in the abstract, at least; I haven't read the full article) that their conclusion is that brain and behavioral sex differentiation is caused by hormonal influence&mdash;just the opposite of what Goiar is trying to say. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is actually an extremely fascinating topic, but I doubt that this AfD is the appropriate place to discuss it. :) Is there a forum available for discussion? Basket of Puppies  01:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but it is unfairly true to state that there are no scientific nor medical mentions of this Syndrome; in Charlotte Goiar's website there is a collection of articles signed by doctors on that Syndrome; take, for instance, this article signed by Argentinian Psychiatrist Doctor Ignacio A. Lutzky ; though it is in Spanish, I could translate it for you if you desire; it talks about Harry Benjamin's Syndrome as an intersex condition and a summary of the notion captured in the article nominated for deletion; that document is signed by a Doctor and it bears his professional association number, so I do not find a reason why we should suspect it is a fake; we find also an article by the Argentinian Surgeon Doctor Pablo Maldonado on Goiar's website, that I could translate for you too, if you wish, and the proof that it is not a fake relies on the external link to his website; therefore, it cannot be said that there are no medical mentions of such Syndrome in pubmeds. Marta314 (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If these doctors wrote an article discussing HBS as a new diagnosis for a subset of TG patients (with differential diagnosis, etc), and it was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, then it would be acceptable as a reliable source. As the situation stands today, the term seems to be an informal term used by some doctors and some TG persons that is not officially recognized.  You could potentially write an article that says "HBS is an informal term for a subset of TG persons used by some doctors" but you still need independently published reliable sources on this; letters from individual doctors posted on an advocacy web site is just not enough. Thatcher 13:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User Thatcher, to say that "HBS is a subset of TGism" is the typical argument used by many TG people without any conceptual basis that supports it. If you want to be taken seriously then you should retract from expressing these false assumptions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't have a view on HBS, having never heard of it before yesterday. The issue is that Wikipedia articles collect and summarize information from reliable independent sources.  If the reliable independent sources say that HBS is a medical diagnosis for some TG patients, that's what the article will say.  If the reliable independent sources say that HBS is a misnomer applied by some TG persons to themselves, that's what the article will say.  If the reliable independent sources say that Harry Benjamin syndrome is a condition in freshwater aquaria caused by not changing the water often enough, that's what the Wikipedia article will say.  The key is that there simple are no independent reliable sources describing Harry Benjamin Syndrome. Thatcher 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Where are the reliable independent sources for to back up Wikipedia existing articles such as Third Sex or Queer Heterosexual? By the way the theory that gender identity is socially constructed is finally shattered and by contrast the theory that prenatally established brain and CNS structures determine innate gender feelings and gender identity is finally established quoting Lynn Conway: "These are dramatic, unprecedented, undeniable observations that shift the previous paradigm of thought, and do so in an area of science that had been subject to much misinformation and taboo. In Galileo's case, the shift was from an 'earth-centered universe' to a 'sun-centered universe'. In the cases here, the shift is away from a 'genitals + upbringing' theory of gender identity to a 'CNS neurobiological developmental' theory of gender identity. The implications of this paradigm shift are far reaching, especially for those who suffer from cross-gender identities. Instead of those gender feelings being considered to be "psychological", they can now be understood as being "neurological" in nature." further supporting the sourcing of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs)
 * Oh my goodness, you sure got us there! The long-standing theory of gender identity has finally been shattered...on someone's personal website! I especially love how she shatters the theory using a bunch of broken urls&mdash;a real shining beacon of science, there. We'd all better watch out....
 * And by the way, the writer of that website, Lynn Conway, is described as a "transgender activist"...aren't those the people who are supposed to hate you so much? <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 15:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've explained this before, this is the last time because I have more important things to do right now. The argument "Other crap exists so this should too" is not a valid argument for keeping this article; it may be a valid argument for reconsidering the other articles you mentioned. But Third sex has 78 references covering about 60+ independent reliable sources, so your argument doesn't even work there.  There is an argument made here that "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is the proper name for the condition formerly known as intense True Transsexualism.  That is an argument made on an advocacy web site and is not a reliable source.  There are articles cited on the web site under the heading "MEDICAL RESEARCH NEWS" that discuss various biological findings in transsexual persons, but none of them mention HBS, or define HBS as a condition, or adopt HBS as medical diagnosis.  Writing an article here that cites these sources as proof that HBS is real is called original research and synthesis.  Original research and synthesis are not allowed.  Wikipedia only reports things that have already been published and widely adopted in reliable sources.  The current article on transsexualism leaves much to be desired.  It might be useful, for example, to discuss the scientific findings and social and cultural issues in separate articles, where findings on biological changes would be useful.  But the simple fact is that Harry Benjamin Syndrome is a term adopted by an advocacy web site that is not supported or used by the medical and scientific community, and not even widely used in the TG community. Thatcher 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, they criticized Galileo too, though hundreds of years later his ideas were common sense... As Galileo before being burnt, I rectify: I ask for the article's deletion (not a redirect, of course). Marta314 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You should read the guidelines WP:Crystal and WP:Up and coming next big thing. Arguments saying "well, this is going to be really big in the future!" aren't helpful here; Wikipedia is only concerned with the state of the field now. If HBS is going to be the next Galileo, we can write about HBS after that happens. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I move to have this closed. Once the !votes of sockpuppets are discounted, the only person voting keep is the IP 213.x, who was also under suspicion of being a sockpuppet (the checkuser found no definitive evidence that it's connected with Goiar's IPs, but no definitive evidence that it's independent either). Even Marta314, the article's creator, has asked for it to be removed. Whether to delete or redirect it can be taken up elsewhere; it is already clear per WP:SNOW, though, that there is absolutely no consensus to keep the article, and leaving this AfD open will just encourage further disruption. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please let the discussion run its course. I don't see cause for a speedy close. The closer can weigh the arguments. Comments that are disruptive should be removed, but I encourage patience. There has actually been some good and interesting discussion and investigation in this process so let's finish what it according to normal procedures. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Aswering Rjanag question: Lynn Conway is considered to be a transgender activist however she doesn't suffer from HBS phobia. She shows respect for the HBS community as showed in this very long article published at her website (Reference 8 of this article) where Harry Benjamin Syndrome is the term used for diagnosis, scroll down and read the entire page for to verify this. Therefore, we have another more independent source added to the many exposed above (mass media, Google, etc..). And by the way, she shatters the theory of gender as a social construct very well, further supporting the sourcing of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11:56, September 25, 2009 (talk • contribs) 213.60.150.80
 * First, you really need to start appending four ~ symbols to the end of your posts, so we can identify who is commenting. Please do so in the future.
 * Second, what you've linked is just a personal account of her experiences, not a reliable secondary source. It's effectively a blog-style editorial, which does nothing to show this is anything more than a neologism. It really sounds like some people are trying to get this term to be commonly used, but it's not reached the point where we have books or scholarly papers on the subject, which means it's too new to warrant a Wikipedia article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I support people's right to self-refer as they wish, but in various place this encyclopedia presents HBS as a diagnosis using sources that do not refer to HBS specifically.  It fails on various counts, such as WP:NEO, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and worse than this, it misrepresents HBS as a genuine diagnosis rather than a self-identity label, potentially misleading readers that such a diagnosis exists.  Deleting the article will help avoid this for the article, and ensure that references to HBS elsewhere are forced to source themselves on their own merits.  I have responded because of the notice on the Sexology project.  I'd support it being kept if phrased in a way that avoided these problems, such as 'The HBS movement', but as it stands it is a poor article full of material that is unsourced, unreliable, or misusing source - hence the heavy tagging. Mish (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am hesitant to say that a term that is so widely used is a neologism or non-notable. Whether it has currency in medical or scientific circles or not does not prevent it from being notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Scholarly research and scientific acceptance are not necessary for this to be notable. Notability comes from outside medical circles at this point, though there are some doctors and governments that are using the term. 213.60.150.80 (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is widely used amongst people who use it self-referentially, which is a minority even within the trans community. Whether it is notable enough to include does not justify it being used to describe a medical syndrome that is not described as such by medical authorities.  Scholarly research and scientific acceptance are necessary for it to be described as a medical syndrome.  Do you have any description of or reference to this syndrome from an official government source (beyond the primary source originating from a Spanish Notary) or medical directive (ICD.10, for example)? Mish (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Don't even bother, MishMish...the IP is just going to point you to Goiar's self-published website over and over again.) <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact I am pointing Conway's self-published website. Although there are other self-published websites as well as this one. 213.60.150.80 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's the point we're trying to make. Self-published websites can only be used to show what a person has said, not to reference facts. In an article about Conway, we could cite that website for Conway's opinions. But it's not a valid source for demonstrating that HBS is a term used outside a fringe group in the TS community. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect – the only ocurrence in a book says its another term for transsexualism, and we already have an article on that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No redirects please; if it is a term used "outside a fringe group in the TS community" to differentiate between them and transsexuals, it is rather unfair to redirect it to them, don't you think so? Marta314 (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've already said that many times, we already know what you think. But for what it's worth, it's not going to redirect to the whole transsexualism article; it would be redirected to the specific section that discusses HBS. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 13:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirect, and protect - this was an attempt to circumvent consensus that was established a few months ago. Harry Benjamin's Syndrome was an article that was developed as it became evident that the people at WP:RfD (myself included) were taking no part of the edit war in Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 19. This was an edit war at RfD; it's one here, and aside from a couple of people with agendas, there has been nothing new since the first AfD to indicate the need to overturn consensus. The similar Harry Benjamin Syndrome was protected as a result of the earlier edit war; the same should be done here after the article is converted into a redirect. Those who want an article of this name should heed Wikipedia policy and start convincing (and not by shouting over) the editors in the appropriate Wikiproject before the edit war could get even more out of hand.B.Wind (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.