Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:24, 16 October 2022

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 October 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

The contents of the andromimetophilia page were merged into Attraction to transgender people on 17 October 2010. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The contents of the gynemimetophilia page were merged into Attraction to transgender people on 17 October 2010. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Distinctions in identity/presentation, and chasers

The article could use refinement on a few points (though I lack access to the resources to research them properly). But I wanted to point out that, as someone who lives this phenomenon on the daily from the receiving end, (1) sexual attraction to transgender people is frequently focused on transgender presentation and other external characteristics, and has precious little to do with identity. This is a distinction which really ought to be made in the article if someone can source the appropriate wording for it from one of the existing citations or a new one. (2) Additionally, chasers (at least for trans women) often show the strongest interest in trans women using their genitalia in ways which are very typical of cis men (penetratively for sex, and with long closed-handed strokes from root to tip for masturbation) but not actually as prevalent among trans women (who engage in a wide variety of masturbation and sex practices, many of which are different from typical cis male behavior). There's actually a few books out there (a cursory search just now finds Juno Roche's Queer Sex, Morty Diamond's Trans/Love, and Jo Green's Trans Partner Handbook, for example) discussing ways that trans women masturbate and have sex, but ones I've seen (years ago) are more instructional/descriptive rather than academic/statistical (so perhaps not the ideal things to cite) -- but I haven't looked at many of these, so there might be some good citeable ones out there. (3) Finally, the article is largely focused on the perceptions and experiences of cis men when it comes to attraction, so it really should be greatly expanded upon -- but I suspect sources could be hard to find due to academia often prioritizing the perspectives of cis males. A huge number of trans women are attracted to and pursue relationships with other trans women (the T4T phenomenon is well-understood in queer spaces), and there are probably at least a few academic papers which mention it (but which aren't easy to find or get access to for nonacademics). There are definitely queer authors out there whose works mentioning this would be sufficient as primary sources if better sources can't be tracked down. If my points here aren't clear, perhaps see the succinct opinion expressed by a Twitter user I follow who brought this to my attention: https://twitter.com/vyrthandi/status/1399590531836137474 os (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Os:, thanks for your comments. Actually, your first sentence is key: it's all about getting "access to the resources to research them properly". A lot of people (including not a few Misplaced Pages editors) have personal knowledge of all sorts of subcultures, and could write for hours about them, but none of that experience and knowledge can be used in any article at Misplaced Pages. As you appear to know, because you mention the lack of a lot of books on the topic at hand here. So that is the main issue. All the tweets in the world won't help; we need to get our hands on WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY, WP:Reliable sources, and start from there. Without that, all the personal knowledge and experience in the world won't help; might be great for Story Corps, or for a TED talk, but it is of no use at an online encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages. Not trying to be a Debbie Downer, but that is the reality of the situation. If you find appropriate sources, by all means list them here; that would be a great help! Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Os:, I'd go further, and say it's based entirely, or almost entirely on expression, since identity cannot be seen. That means that what this article is really about, is gynandromorphophilia, but that's a mouthful and the current article title is the common name, although it is not as precise as the former term. In fact, the lack of precision in the current title may be partly responsible for the recent POV editing and edit-warring going on at the article. Mathglot (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem with a retitle is that all the stuff about the 2019 study on down wouldn't fit. Then we have a WP:POVFORK on our hands - one about sexology and one that's sociology-ish and in more danger of being loaded up with social commentary opinion pieces. Such editors also won't like the term gynandromorphophilia any more and will probably seek to delete or water down what's there. Well-sourced material that covers some of what is mentioned in the older comments above can be added.

Now, as for cross-dressers, a term which was recently objected to appearing in the article by someone else, some trans-positive people have included crossdressers and transvestites (their terms!) under the "transgender umbrella". This is an atypical definition of transgender, to be sure, but studying or mentioning those groups alongside transgender people (in the mainstream, gender identity sense) is not just something made up by transphobes. We don't necessarily need cross-dressers in the lead, but a study that discussed attraction to them along with attraction to "transsexuals" (the study is a bit older) is fine to include.

The article is about a topic involving attraction to a range of body types - this is why precision is lower. People who are transgender may just dress differently without any medical transition (yet?), may have a mix of sex characteristics, or they may have undergone years of hormones, SRS, and related therapies. Crossroads 04:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Or to transgender people who don't dress differently than their birth sex, because of their life circumstances. The title actually has bigger issues than the typical article, because it's difficult to actually ascertain what is included in the scope of the article, merely from reading the title. For those in the category this article is meant to address, they are generally not actually attracted to trans people per se, because you can't see someone's identity; they are attracted to trans expression, that is to say, someone whose expression is identifiably at variance with their birth sex. They are not attracted to stealth transitioners even if they're trans because they presume them to be a cis person expressing their birth sex, even though they are not; nor are they attracted to trans people who retain the expression typical to their birth sex for whatever reason. And they may encounter false positives, and be attracted to someone who is not trans at all, because they guessed wrong based on that person's body or comportment. All of which just goes to show, in my opinion, that the group of people that this article is really about, does not correspond to the article title. I'm not at all proposing a move, however; certainly not to gynandromorphophilia or gynandromimetophilia, because those jawbreakers are only used in academia, and to some extent tend to be used among scholars who aren't very sympathetic to trans people at all. This is the rare article where I can't really see a solution for what to call it, so that the title is accurate, and satisfies both WP:CONCISENESS and WP:PRECISION, since an WP:NDESC title that correctly and precisely described it, would have to be about fifty words long. I'm afraid we're more or less stuck with the title we've got now, even though it has the imprecisions mentioned.

As for cross-dressers, that does fit the broader umbrella, and it makes total sense to include them here. It would be pointless to attempt to exclude cis (het or gay) cross-dressers from coverage in this article just because they are not trans, because for a good percentage of the people that this article is about, that is a major proportion of the population of individuals they are attracted to. But a more important reason to include them, is simply that they are a major component of what available studies have reported on, and there's simply no way we could try to excise them from the studies, and only report on the individuals in the studies that were trans; that would be total OR, and completely out of the question. If someone tried to insist on choosing between ignoring those individuals, or else ignoring the studies because the large, non-trans minority in the study population doesn't fit the the word transgender in the title, that might be the final straw that forces a name change. Mathglot (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Autogynephilia

"Autogynephilia" has been repeatedly debunked, with it being shown that cis women also exhibit it. I think it should be removed from the article or at least has an obvious disclaimer — Preceding unsigned comment added by RubyKDC (talk • contribs) 02:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Nothing has been "debunked", studies show cis women do not exhibit autogynephilia. In 2010, Lawrence criticized Moser's methodology and conclusions and stated that genuine autogynephilia occurs very rarely, if ever, in cisgender women as their experiences are superficially similar but the erotic responses are ultimately markedly different. In 2013, Lawrence criticized both the Veale et al. and Moser studies, arguing that the scales they used failed to differentiate between arousal from wearing provocative clothing or imagining that potential partners find one attractive, and arousal merely from the idea that one is a woman or has a woman's body. Francisco J. Sanchez and Eric Vilain state that, as with nearly all paraphilias, characteristics consistent with autogynephilia have only been reported among men. Yodabyte (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with the unsigned editor and would even go further to say that the evidence for autogynephilia as a cause of transness was weak even before the studies showing cis women also exhibit it. I think those studies are the absolute nail in the coffin for the concept regardless of what its supporters say. But regardless, I think even more that "autogynephilia" is not relevant to this page in any way, since it's not actually any kind of attraction to transgender people. Loki (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that it should be stricken from the article. Ariana Williscroft (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Autogynephilia as a cause of transness" is not the same thing as autogynephilia in general. It is logically possible, for instance, for the phenomenon to exist while not causing transness. This appears to be Moser's view. Its relevance to this page is a matter decided by the sources, which do indeed mention it and measure for it in this context, just as they mention heterosexual attraction. Crossroads 05:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This isn't true. The idea has been repeatedly debunked in general, as the article Blanchard's transsexualism typology states. It is not used academically and Moser is an anomaly rather than a representation of the consensus. Autogynephilia was coined by Blanchard to describe why trans women are the way they are. It has no other uses, and thus should be stricken from the article as per the consensus. Blanchard is NOT a reliable source, is not cited academically and has been widely criticized for his views on the trans community - which as I said, were the REASON he coined the term autogynephilia in the first place. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the editors who are advocating that it be stricken. From what I know of the research in this area, the only academics who consider it with any seriousness are Blanchard as the proposer of the theory, and Moser. Outside of those two, it is largely seen as a fringe idea at best, or a joke at worst.

As an aside, as a diagnostic criteria, the only appearance of autogynephilia in the DSM-5-TR is as a specifier for transvestic disorder. It has no counterpart specifier in the ICD-11. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

"the only academics who consider it with any seriousness are Blanchard as the proposer of the theory, and Moser. Outside of those two, it is largely seen as a fringe idea at best, or a joke at worst." That's not true, according to the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article. Several researchers support it. And are you saying that self-identified autogynephiles like me don't exist? Many of us exist. Pictureprize (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What you would want then, is reliable sources that contradict the statement. Personal experience is not recognized as a reliable source in Misplaced Pages. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Huh? There's already reliable sources saying autogynephilia exists, including on the Blanchard typology page, which includes sources commenting on the "personal experiences" of trans people. Does Anne Lawrence not count? Does she not exist? As for debunking, I agree with Yodabyte. Even if the content isn't restored, some of the non-autogynephilia content should be restored. And the cite should be restored. You can't just nitpick which parts of the source to add. If you're going to do that, you should also just remove the rest of the content. Pictureprize (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

As for "self-identified", I said that, anon, because doubt was being cast on my existence and the same description is used in Anne Lawrence's article. I didn't want there to be any doubt that this is my identity. I identify this way. The label isn't forced on me. Pictureprize (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not doubt that some people identify as autogynephiles. I have not commented on what I believe or disbelieve about individual accounts of autogynephilia. I have only made comments as to the state of the theory within academic circles and diagnostic manuals only.

That being said, there are major problems with the theory. When it comes to the research conducted by or lead by Blanchard, the studies are structured in such a way that they are unfalsifiable. That is, Blanchard and his colleagues dismiss any and all whom do not prove it as either lying or misreporting that they do not have the underlying behaviours as describe by the theory. It is important to note that to structure your studies in a way that makes them unfalsifiable is a huge red flag in scientific research. It is something that no ethical scientist will do.

I would recommend that you read Julia Serano's 2020 review paper, which can I believe be accessed through The Misplaced Pages Library should you lack institutional access through other means. This review details all of the problems with the theory as presented by Blanchard, all of the problems with the design of the studies carried out by or lead by Blanchard, and details the findings of the only independent studies carried out into the theory, all of which contradict the findings of Blanchard in multiple ways. Pertinent quote from the literature review: To summarise, numerous independent lines of research have shown that autogynephilia theory's major tenets - its taxonomy and aetiological claims - are false. Therefore the concept of autogynephilia must be rejected. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I've read all her work. I read as much as I could on the topic to find out more about it. I agree that the typology has issues. I just wanted to say we exist and it's important to include content about this segment of our trans community. You should at least add the cite back. Pictureprize (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you got a source for "we exist and it's important to include content about this segment of our trans community"? 92.0.35.8 (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Julia Serano's views have their place, but it is POV to treat them as the only view. It is simply not correct that the only people to consider autogynephilia with any degree of seriousness are Blanchard and Moser, as noted. In fact, this is shown by the very fact that it appears in the DSM-5-TR. I emphasize, again, that there is a difference between the concept itself and the hypothesis that it causes gender dysphoria. This form of attraction has been found to be relevant by some studies. Purging it from the article is based purely on cherry-picking favored POVs from the body of sources. The material should be restored. Crossroads 03:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That is an inaccurate way to describe Serano's 2020 paper. It is not her views. It is a literature review of all research published about autogynephilia, since Blanchard first proposed. It includes both the work of and lead by Blanchard, and those of all independent scholars who have carried out independent related studies. That puts it as a top tier source per wiki guidelines and policies. Accordingly citing from Serano's paper is the opposite of cherry-picking favoured POVs from the body of sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree 92.0.35.8 (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, do you have any sources for your favored POV, besides one dated entry in a national diagnostic manual? Newimpartial (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The DSM-5-TR came out two months ago, hardly dated. And it is used internationally and is the only diagnostic manual in psychiatry. It is the weightiest source yet mentioned.

I read the Serano paper. Some confusion may be resulting from what she writes about here: While some people today inappropriately use the term autogynephilia in a manner similar to how I use FEFs – i.e. to refer to a particular type of sexual fantasy or pattern of arousal that some people happen to experience – Blanchard conceptualised autogynephilia very differently. And: some researchers have taken to using the term ‘autogynephilia’ as shorthand to describe FEFs; this should be avoided, as ‘autogynephilia’ inaccurately portrays these fantasies as paraphilic, trans female/feminine-specific, a sexual orientation unto itself, and the cause of gender dysphoria in trans women who experience them. "FEFs" is Serano's neologism for "female/feminine embodiment fantasies". Here, of course, we take a view that represents sources in general, and they generally do what Serano criticizes: use "autogynephilic" to describe this. She says that this portrays it as trans-specific, even though studies arguing that cisgender women experience the same phenomenon use the term "autogynephilic". She also says that the term implies that it is the cause of gender dysphoria in trans women who experience FEFs, and that Blanchard conceptualized it as more than just a pattern of arousal; however, Blanchard himself states: it is important to distinguish between the truth or falseness of theories about autogynephilia, on the one hand, and the existence or nonexistence of autogynephilia, on the other. Right before this he mentioned several theories that Serano asserts are inherent to the term "autogynephilia". Moser, who is one of the foremost critics of the Blanchard two-type theory, likewise acknowledges: Blanchard...expanded the term to denote “a male's paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman … … to the full gamut of erotically arousing cross-gender behaviors and fantasies” (1991, p. 235). Note that the definition is not limited to MTFs. Autogynephilia does exist in non-transsexuals (e.g., some individuals with transvestic fetishism or transgendered natal males who do not identify as female consistently). Recent studies like this one use the term to simply mean a cause of sexual arousal. The idea that "autogynephilia" is only used by Blanchard and/or to support his typology is simply incorrect. Though Serano dislikes it, the mainstream academic term for her "FEFs" is "autogynephilic".

This edit should be reverted not only because it is based on an erroneous premise but also because it simply deletes one study entirely and weirdly cuts half of another while also removing its cite note, creating an uncited paragraph. It also removes material that has nothing to do with autogynephilia, like how many men in the study identified as bisexual vs. straight. Crossroads 05:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you grasped the point of my question. Viz. GLOBALIZE, are there any other countries where this concept is currently employed in this way? Or just the one? Newimpartial (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

There is only one international body of sources. Your claim that it is just one country is unsupported. The recent paper I linked above is not American, while Julia Serano is. I could turn it around - are there any sources outside America who refer to the phenomenon of arousal about oneself as a woman as FEFs rather than autogynephilic? Crossroads 00:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the DSM's use internationally, this 2018 "Abnormal Psychology: Contrasting Perspectives" source, from Macmillan International Higher Education, page 70, states, "When it comes to diagnosing emotional distress, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) (introduced in Chapter 1) and the mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders section of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) are the two most prevalent diagnostic systems. They are generally referred to as forms of psychiatric diagnosis because even though every kind of mental health practitioner uses them, primarily psychiatrists develop them. Both manuals are used all over the world." On page 71, the source adds, "Despite being an American rather than international undertaking, some consider the DSM (rather than the ICD) the standard for research and practice throughout the world (Paris, 2015)." This 2013 "The Social Science Encyclopedia" source, from Routledge, page 681, states, "Although developed by psychiatrists in the USA, this classification is widely used by psychiatrists in other countries, and by other mental health professionals." (Emphasis added in both.) Crossroads 00:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. By used in any way, I meant in MEDRS sources, not by practitioners. Also, was someone proposing that the term FEFs should be introduced in this article? Perhaps I missed it. Newimpartial (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

One, I linked to such a source already, and two, don't miss the point that your division of the body of MEDRS sources by nationality is unsupported by policy and works against you anyway. What is the term that the body of MEDRS uses to refer to arousal to oneself-as-a-woman? You also have yet to address the non-autogynephilia problems with the removal edit you endorsed. Crossroads 02:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

My edit aimed simply to remove content that had been reinserted against WP:ONUS. So yes, you found one UK-based primary study that used the concept "autogynephilia" and found a corellation with "gender identity discomfort" in a nonrandom Internet sample. And the study is relevant to this article why, exactly? This is exactly the kind of low-quality, off-topic MEDRS that you are generally keen to dismiss, but this time you are citing it because it uses a keyword you are trying to COATRACK back into this article? This approach of yours doesn't seem promising. Newimpartial (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Missing the point. It's about standard terminology. Now, what is your basis for excluding the source you removed and for cutting off the half of the text of the other source? Excluding based on POV or terminological preferences is not acceptable. Crossroads 23:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Did I miss the part where you established the relevance of that source to this article? That was the basis of the consensus to remove it, as far as I know - the fact that it wasn't relevant content. Newimpartial (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

You are denying the source is about attraction to transgender people? Crossroads 02:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

That is correct. Almost all the contested text I removed is about so-called "autogynephilia". Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

In this, the first part removed had 3 sentences unrelated to it vs. 2 that mention it, and left an unsourced paragraph behind. The second part contained a lot of info aside from autogynephilia and repeatedly talks about attraction to a type of trans women. Do you deny that? If the source said "people with FEFs" instead of "autogynephilia" would that make a difference? All I'm seeing here is WP:FILIBUSTERing of a source based solely on personal approval of the POV contained therein. Crossroads 18:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, it's not filibustering to say that your opinion on this does not have consensus. Including Newimpartial and myself there are six editors who are happy with excluding autogynephilia from this article. Conversely there are only three in favour of including it. Note that this is not a vote, but a quick summary of the points made so far. As such I would suggest that you remove your accusation of filibustering @Crossroads: as it can be read as a personal attack due to an assumption of bad faith upon Newimpartial. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I have however restored the source to the unsourced paragraph, as that can easily be done without prejudicing the remainder of the discussion here, and we should not have unsourced content in a medical context. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that because of their saying anything about consensus, and the point I was emphasizing was not merely omitting autogynephilia but all that text, while claiming that study is not about attraction to trans people. Since there has yet to be any objection to the non-autogynephilia text formerly present about the still-present source, I've restored that. Crossroads 23:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Big problems with the lead

I think we have a big problem with the lead but I'm not sure how best to fix it. Recent attempts don't seem to have got it right but I do see the issue that they were trying to address and it's pretty bad. Let's see if we can find a better wording.

Currently we say "Sexual arousal research has confirmed that their response patterns are unlike those of gay men and resemble those of heterosexual men, except that they are highly aroused by transgender women in addition to cisgender women." The "they" here is "Cisgender men attracted to transgender women"

I can see some huge problems here:

1. We have absolutely no right to imply that a heterosexual man is any less heterosexual for being attracted to a trans woman. We have absolutely no right to imply that the default position of a heterosexual man is never to be attracted to a trans woman. That is not only untrue. It is an untruth can and does get people killed. We have to be much more responsible. The use of "resemble" and "except" are utterly awful here.
2. We are not distinguishing between people who are attracted to trans people incidentally and people who are specifically attracted to trans people because they are trans. That makes not only the lead but the whole article confusing and unhelpful, bordering on the incomprehensible.
3. We are only talking about men being attracted to women when the subject of this article is sexual attraction to transgender people in general. We should talk try to cover this in a less gendered way. I really doubt that the way we just shrug off the issue of attraction to trans men is justified.
4. We are only talking about cis people's attraction. There is no mention of trans people's preferences. A lot of trans people are in relationships with other trans people and I'd expect that there is something to be said about that.

Reading through the rest of the article it seems that we are going to have a very hard time improving it as some of the source material seems to be straight up garbage (assuming that we are not misrepresenting it to make it sound worse than it actually is) predicated on the false axiom that trans people are not really the gender that they say that they are. I mean, if something purporting to be a scientific study really does say "said that he was 'bisexual' rather than 'gay' because he was able to think of the transwomen as women" then that's disgusting unscientific language being used in an entirely gratuitous way which should not have been published in 2010. It reads like something from the 1950s.

OK. So, I already said that I don't have the answer but I think I do have some of the right questions though:

1. Are we using the best sources? Is there really nothing better out there than this?
2. Have we got the topic right here? If we really don't have enough sources for a general article about attraction to trans people then maybe we should reframe and rename this as an article about cis people who are specifically attracted to trans people or even just about cis men who are attracted to trans women?
3. How can we rewrite the article in less offensive terms if these sources really are all we have to work with?

DanielRigal (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The core of the problems with this article is that it used to be called "Tr*nny chaser" (without the star). Here's the edit that moved it to that from the original title of "transsensual", it then got moved to "transfan", and from there to the current title.

It seems like the motivation for the current title was to avoid debates about whether the title should be pejorative or a euphemism, but in doing so it inadvertently hugely expanded the scope of the page, from a small group of men who fetishize trans people into being an article about any attraction to trans people at all. I think the page ought to be moved to "trans fetish" or something similar since the current page is extremely not about the thing the title purports to be about. Loki (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The last move was 10 years ago, and the article has changed greatly since then. I see no reason to purge a bunch of relevant material to turn back the clock.

Regarding the lead more generally, the current wording could possibly be improved upon, though this is not the way as it implies that all heterosexual men show arousal to both transgender and cis women, when this is not supported by the sources. A workable solution may simply be to end the lead with the "psychologists have researched" sentence to cut the Gordian knot and let the body of this short article do the talking.

Regarding neglect of trans people's attraction and attraction to other groups than trans women, missing material about that can certainly be added, but it is quite possible that the body of sources themselves are biased in that way (towards cis and men's attractions) and hence there's nothing we can do about it.

More generally, regarding predicated on the false axiom that trans people are not really the gender that they say that they are, while there is no reason to say that, there's also really no getting around the fact that the trans women being studied do have a type of body that differs a lot from that of cis women, and more specifically contains a major characteristic associated with the sex opposite their gender - and that the body plays a huge role in sexual attraction. Really, does not the finding that men attracted to trans women even with penises have arousal patterns matching heterosexual and not gay men refute the very thing of concern - the idea that such attraction makes a man gay? It's true that not all straight men have this arousal pattern, but the same is true of attraction to other types of women; we can still talk about differences between body types and recognize that attractions differ. Crossroads 05:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that Loki's suggestion is good. It is a quick and easy way to deal with the main problem here. The article would still benefit from improvement but at least once it is clear what the subject actually is the article will be encouraged to develop along the right lines. DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

As an overall reply to your specific concerns.:

• • 1) People may self-identify as heterosexual, but a choice in sexual partners may depend on circumstances. I recount a story narrated to me by my father years ago. Dad self-identified as heterosexual and had multiple female partners. But at one point an attractive gay man offered him sex, and my father was horny and seriously tempted. He stopped at the last minute, due to a fear of how his family and peers would react. It was a one-time thing and not a habit, but he recalled the event as the one time in his life where he doubted his own self-identification. I tend to believe that arousal and temptation may have a similar effect on other people.
  • 2) We are also not distinguishing between people who simply feel attraction, and those who already had one or more transgender sexual partners.
  • 3) I am aware that women could also be attracted to transgender people, but have there been published studies on the topic?
  • 4) Again the problem here is the lack of relevant sources. Have there been studies on the sexual preferences of transgender people? And can any conclusion be drawn by the experiences of a hand full of individuals? Dimadick (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposing page deletion / merge into Transgender sexuality

I was going to propose changing the title and heavily refactoring the article but just came across the article Transgender sexuality. It seems like we should just move the relevant parts there and remove the page, for the many aforementioned issues above.

All we would need to do is add section on "Attraction to transgender people" with subsections on 1) a better referenced shorter overview of the fact people aren't less straight or gay for being attracted to trans people, 2) T4T relationships, what trans people call dating other trans people (though I'm not sure if this warrants being a subsection or section, since it is often more about community and understanding than attraction/sexual orientation, though that plays a role), 3) fetishization of transgender people, and 4) societal views. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. they are two different things. Transgender sexuality talks about the sexual orientation of transgender individuals, while attraction to transgender people talks about those attracted to transgender individuals. It's like as if they were antonymous pages MikutoH (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that Transgender sexuality is the correct place but I do agree that the proposed content would be good somewhere, possibly as a section in Human sexuality or Sexual orientation. I'm not sure where best to place it. I'm not sure that this would replace this article. Loki has suggested (in the section above) that this article has really always been about the fetishisation of trans people, which seems reasonable to me and makes it sound like it could be a valid topic for its own article if reframed correctly. DanielRigal (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd prefer this page be moved to Fetishisation of Transgender People and cleaned up rather than merged in with an article about the sexuality of transgender people themselves. Loki (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Right, because trans people are completely unlovable. Nobody could possibly love a trans person, unless it was a fetish. And then it's not love, anyway. Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Gender studies articles
• Low-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Start-Class psychology articles
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles