This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sangdeboeuf (talk | contribs) at 09:17, 19 December 2020 ({{TOC left}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:17, 19 December 2020 by Sangdeboeuf (talk | contribs) ({{TOC left}})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 Archives | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Are they really homosexual??
Is this article about the term "homosexual transsexual" or is it about people who really are homosexual transsexuals?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- About the people. It includes information about the term (as it should), but most of the text (and most of the RSs in the world) are about the people. — James Cantor (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- But they aren't really homosexual. They're straight, per the fact that transgender people are correctly thought of as their identified gender. Georgia guy (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate the confusion. The research literature has mostly examined at people pre-transition, and most scientific RS's use terminology relative to natal sex. Many activists, however, prefer language that matches their own experiences, which are expressed post-transition (i.e., relative to the new sex). So, that's what (I believe) the article should say: In order for a reader to understand what the RS's say, the reader needs to be aware of the language used there. In order for a reader to understand the current political debates, the political views on terms should also be included. Whether such people are really homosexual is interesting, but would constitute WP:OR on our part. — James Cantor (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- I will second what User:James Cantor said. Transgender people like to have the literature written in reference to the gender they identify as rather than the gender presumed based on their anatomy. This is a source of much of the confusion of a reader. Then there is the controversy over the way thse observations were used in the theory of Autogynephilia.
- Are "homosexual transsexuals" really "homosexual" ... are they just very gay men? If that's what you are asking Georgia guy Here's my response. As the research quoted under MRI studies indicates homosexual transsexuals brains were in many regions the same as those who share their gender identity. That is their brains were more like those of cisgender straight women then the brains of gay males are. Nuerologically speaking they are not just gay men. In terms of being born with one set of organs and preferentially attracted to people with those same organs.* There are spectra smooth gradients of gender identiy and sexuality which are not simply related as if connected by a wire. (*I left out the possibility of a MTF "homosexual transsexual" hooking up with a FTM transsexual. The ... "dude where's my car" secnario.)
- My advice is this, this artcile is about a concept in the psychological literature used for research purposes, nothing more. A transwoman attracted to a man is just like a woman attracted to a man for most practical everyday purposes. Treat the ones you encounter in real life with respect and decency. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- The way I view what James Cantor is saying, the description is "This is the standard term in the literature; whether it's a misnomer doesn't affect how standard it is." Any corrections to this description?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am simply pointing out what Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy says: "Misplaced Pages does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." You are entirely free to disagree with a rule you don't like (or an implication of a rule which you don't like), but that discussion belongs at the talk page for that rule, not here.— James Cantor (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that comment as meaning that reliable sources say that this term is still used even by people who understand that it's a misnomer. Georgia guy (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Now, you're just picking a fight over the topic itself, and I have no interest in engaging. Create your own encyclopedia, and you may decide therein who understands what.— James Cantor (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Georgia guy there have been lots of fights over this issue so please understand that. It is not a misnomer. The literature is written in reference to how a prospective transsexual would look when they walk into a therapist office for the first time and pre everything. In that anatomical sense of the body they have and the bodies they are attracted to they are homosexual.
- In the neurological sense they are on a continuum between gay men and straight women and are very attracted to essentially straight men. So in that sense they are more like straight women.
- Let me ask you this question. In high school while I had taken hormones a bit I basically lived as what the kids would now call a gender queer boy. When I had sex with a 6'7" 275 lb wall of muscle who was my sometimes boyfriend ... was I homosexual to all external apperances?--Hfarmer (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But which sense, anatomical or neurological, determines homosexuality?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- On Misplaced Pages, it is the sense used by the RS's. — James Cantor (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- James Cantor's position that this terminology is standard in RS doesn't seem true, especially with current RS. WPATH, the most relevant professional organization, does not use the term homosexual transsexual in this way. The DSM, published by the APA, also has stopped using this terminology for a couple decades and now has no sexual attraction specifiers. All relevant articles for two pages in the field of sexology under a google scholar search for transgender sexuality also use the term with opposite meaning to the one stated in this article. Obviously, some recent sources use this articles meaning but they primarily seem to be advocates of Blanchard's typology, which is contentious in the field and not accepted by any major relevant organizations like WPATH and APA. Rab V (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- I never said "this terminology is standard in RS." So, whatever Rab V believes about it is irrelevant.
- Who declared WPATH to be the relevant scientific authority, outside its own members? Although it was originally composed of professional researchers and clinicians (when it was HBIGDA), it's now a general membership organization expressing political views. Although WPATH made the marketing decision to include the word "professional" in its new title, it's frankly deceptive: One need not be doing research or providing professional services on trans- issues. The organization is one of fans, not experts.
- It's silly (in fact, bizarre) to declare APA to be opposed to the Blanchard language: It was APA who appointed Blanchard and Zucker to the sex disorder committees.
- The DSM comment is also irrelevant to the wikipedia page under discussion here: The phrase "homosexual transsexual" never appeared in any edition of the DSM. Making it sound like APA made removed the term to express a view is to, um, 'give alternative facts' to it. (Moreover, very many activists want trans- out of the DSM altogether, but that wouldn't make WP have to remove the page about it.)
- Finally, Rab V's google scholar search term is also wrong. "Homosexual transsexual" yields 402 hits, all about transsexuals who are attracted to the sex they were born as. Searching "transgender sexuality" yields 422 hits, and those hits are not about this topic. Indeed, that phrase is not used to name any individual topic at all: The resultant articles span identity development, coming out, and (of course) very many political views.
- — James Cantor (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- James Cantor's position that this terminology is standard in RS doesn't seem true, especially with current RS. WPATH, the most relevant professional organization, does not use the term homosexual transsexual in this way. The DSM, published by the APA, also has stopped using this terminology for a couple decades and now has no sexual attraction specifiers. All relevant articles for two pages in the field of sexology under a google scholar search for transgender sexuality also use the term with opposite meaning to the one stated in this article. Obviously, some recent sources use this articles meaning but they primarily seem to be advocates of Blanchard's typology, which is contentious in the field and not accepted by any major relevant organizations like WPATH and APA. Rab V (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- On Misplaced Pages, it is the sense used by the RS's. — James Cantor (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But which sense, anatomical or neurological, determines homosexuality?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Now, you're just picking a fight over the topic itself, and I have no interest in engaging. Create your own encyclopedia, and you may decide therein who understands what.— James Cantor (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that comment as meaning that reliable sources say that this term is still used even by people who understand that it's a misnomer. Georgia guy (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am simply pointing out what Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy says: "Misplaced Pages does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." You are entirely free to disagree with a rule you don't like (or an implication of a rule which you don't like), but that discussion belongs at the talk page for that rule, not here.— James Cantor (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- The way I view what James Cantor is saying, the description is "This is the standard term in the literature; whether it's a misnomer doesn't affect how standard it is." Any corrections to this description?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate the confusion. The research literature has mostly examined at people pre-transition, and most scientific RS's use terminology relative to natal sex. Many activists, however, prefer language that matches their own experiences, which are expressed post-transition (i.e., relative to the new sex). So, that's what (I believe) the article should say: In order for a reader to understand what the RS's say, the reader needs to be aware of the language used there. In order for a reader to understand the current political debates, the political views on terms should also be included. Whether such people are really homosexual is interesting, but would constitute WP:OR on our part. — James Cantor (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- But they aren't really homosexual. They're straight, per the fact that transgender people are correctly thought of as their identified gender. Georgia guy (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Bailey (2003)
I've removed all citations to J. Michael Bailey's 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen. Any material in the book that isn't specifically summarizing others' research is based on a bunch of anecdotes he personally collected, along with his own, unscientific, "hunches, speculations, and personal opinions", as Alice Dreger explains. The book was never meant to be scientific, and better sources exist for any scientific studies that Bailey does mention. For the rest it's a primary source for Bailey's own "findings". See also Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology#Bailey (2003). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- You removed more than citations. This clearly shows you removing material that was cited to Bailey via WP:In-text attribution. What guideline or policy states that we are not to mention this book in transgender articles at all? I'm certainly seeing no support for that at WP:Fringe. And the book can obviously be cited by secondary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- There is no such guideline or policy, of course. Sangdeboeuf decided at the discussion they linked to (at the typology page) that this source was always unacceptable and undue no matter what anyone else said. That several other editors disagreed didn't matter, since Sangdeboeuf is the only one who can correctly interpret policy and guidelines, and if they have a valid point according to themselves, then what everyone else thinks is irrelevant. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- If we could all focus on improvements to this article, that would be great, thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
What guideline or policy states that we are not to mention this book in transgender articles at all?
That is not what I said or did, and indeed the book itself is a noteworthy topic under Blanchard's transsexualism typology. However, the statements I removed here are WP:UNDUE, for all the reasons I've stated at Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology#Bailey (2003). Specifically, Bailey doesn't cite any peer-reviewed research for his observations about "homosexual transsexuals"; they are instead based on informal anecdotes and his own "hunches". Obviously I removed material that was cited to Bailey; there would be little point in removing the citations otherwise. Where exactly has the book been cited by any secondary sources? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)- Already been over this. 4 other editors did not agree with these arguments at that discussion that these statements were undue, so what gives you the right to remove them? And if your answer is "my interpretation of XYZ policy/guideline overrules them", again: People did not agree with you in your interpretation of policy and guideline, so what gives you the right to remove the book? -Crossroads- (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- See WP:NHC. I've explained my reasoning already. Feel free to respond to the actual points I made. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- People already considered, discussed, and rejected your points and interpretations. So, again, what gives you the right to remove the book against the wishes of multiple other editors? If your response is that you are right (thus implying everyone else is wrong), start reading this comment again from the beginning until you understand the issue. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Funny, I thought anyone could edit Misplaced Pages. If you think I've violated editing policy, WP:ANI is thataway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- The statements I removed were:
In The Man Who Would Be Queen, J. Michael Bailey (2003) wrote that the homosexual transsexuals he studied are comfortable with prostitution, and that they have a masculine sexual appetite, but are attracted to men. He reviewed evidence for a taxonomy according to which there are two forms of transsexualism in males, one that is an extreme type of homosexuality and one that is an expression of a paraphilia known as autogynephilia.
Bailey found that most homosexual transsexuals learn to live on the streets, resorting to prostitution, or shoplifting.
In The Man Who Would Be Queen J. Michael Bailey writes that about 60% of homosexual transsexuals he studied in Chicago were Latina or black; in his studies of gay males only 20% were non-white. Bailey quoted the opinions of two of his subjects who attributed the difference to genetics, or inflexible gender roles in their respective cultures.
Where were these specific statements argued not to be undue? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)According to Bailey's interpretation of Blanchard's theory the causes of homosexual transsexuality are extreme examples of the causes of homosexuality in males.
- People already considered, discussed, and rejected your points and interpretations. So, again, what gives you the right to remove the book against the wishes of multiple other editors? If your response is that you are right (thus implying everyone else is wrong), start reading this comment again from the beginning until you understand the issue. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- See WP:NHC. I've explained my reasoning already. Feel free to respond to the actual points I made. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- You stated, "That is not what said or did." Your actions are contradictory on this matter. Again, this clearly shows you removing material that was cited to Bailey via WP:In-text attribution. And it's not just your actions. With the way you have been going on about Bailey, it's clear that you feel that Bailey's statements should not be included even when cited to him via WP:In-text attribution (except for maybe within the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article). This is why I stated, "What guideline or policy states that we are not to mention this book in transgender articles at all? I'm certainly seeing no support for that at WP:Fringe." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- I know what I stated, thanks. There's no need to tell me so. I have never suggested that we remove all mentions of the book from transgender-related articles. In fact, I've added material about the book to the article on Blanchard's theory: Any "feelings" I may have are not the issue. I've explained my reasons for removing the statements here and at the other talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Adding mentions of the book/statements from Bailey to the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article while removing them from other transgender-related articles aligns with the "except for maybe within the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article)" part of my comment. But, as is clear, you've also had an issue with including Bailey's comments at that article. As for your feelings not being an issue, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you have anything to say relevant to the disputed material itself, this would be the place to say it. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- As an old timer looking around here I think I could speak for the other two editors (who strangely I am friends or mutually follow on social media now in saying the following. You can't really discuss this topic without discussing Bailey's book at least a little bit. It was a HUGE part of what even brought this concept into popular consciousness. That you can discuss it quite so much without his book shows that there was lots of technical psychological literature that discussed the relationship between transsexuality and sexuality which used this term and concept.
- If you cannot cite the Bailey book then why cite a news paper article?
- Furthermore the backlash against his book also informs readers of how the transsexual/transgender community feel about the matter. Remove it and you remove all context for that part of the story. It just looks like a bunch of angry crazy transwomen decided to go after a psychologist out of the blue.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
You can't really discuss this topic without discussing Bailey's book at least a little bit. It was a HUGE part of what even brought this concept into popular consciousness.
Then it should be easy to find reliable secondary sources commenting on it. Just quoting Bailey doesn't give any indication of the weight his views hold.If you cannot cite the Bailey book then why cite a news paper article?
I don't see anyone arguing for the inclusion of any newspaper articles, but no matter. Newspapers may be reliable in certain contexts; my argument against Bailey is that his statements are unduly weighted in a scientific context. The book is not a work of science.Furthermore the backlash against his book also informs readers of how the transsexual/transgender community feel about the matter.
Is there a source for that analysis? We already have an article about the book; that is the place to inform readers of the backlash to it.Remove it and you remove all context for that part of the story.
Once again "that part of the story" is more about Bailey and his book than the subject of this article. It's off-topic here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)- Hfarmer, I'm not sure what you mean by "who strangely I am friends or mutually follow on social media now in saying the following." We've barely interacted and I'm not on sites such as Facebook or Twitter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Look at the archives and the edits from pre 2010. I won't mention the other editors but they who edited this with me, and clashed with me over this are now friends of a sort. I am not so invested in this as to edit war and argue over it. However, without mentioning TMWWBQ... Bailey's book the controversy won't make sense. His use of the term "homosexual transsexual" and "Autogynephile" set a lot of it off. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Autogynephilia isn't within the scope of this article. No one said we shouldn't mention Bailey's book. What we want is a reliable, secondary source saying it set off a controversy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Look at the archives and the edits from pre 2010. I won't mention the other editors but they who edited this with me, and clashed with me over this are now friends of a sort. I am not so invested in this as to edit war and argue over it. However, without mentioning TMWWBQ... Bailey's book the controversy won't make sense. His use of the term "homosexual transsexual" and "Autogynephile" set a lot of it off. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- If you have anything to say relevant to the disputed material itself, this would be the place to say it. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Adding mentions of the book/statements from Bailey to the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article while removing them from other transgender-related articles aligns with the "except for maybe within the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article)" part of my comment. But, as is clear, you've also had an issue with including Bailey's comments at that article. As for your feelings not being an issue, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- I know what I stated, thanks. There's no need to tell me so. I have never suggested that we remove all mentions of the book from transgender-related articles. In fact, I've added material about the book to the article on Blanchard's theory: Any "feelings" I may have are not the issue. I've explained my reasons for removing the statements here and at the other talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Already been over this. 4 other editors did not agree with these arguments at that discussion that these statements were undue, so what gives you the right to remove them? And if your answer is "my interpretation of XYZ policy/guideline overrules them", again: People did not agree with you in your interpretation of policy and guideline, so what gives you the right to remove the book? -Crossroads- (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- There is no such guideline or policy, of course. Sangdeboeuf decided at the discussion they linked to (at the typology page) that this source was always unacceptable and undue no matter what anyone else said. That several other editors disagreed didn't matter, since Sangdeboeuf is the only one who can correctly interpret policy and guidelines, and if they have a valid point according to themselves, then what everyone else thinks is irrelevant. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)