Talk:Homosexual transsexual/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

On review (Result= Passed)

I am currently reviewing this article. Please bare with me, be patient and I will get it done within the next 24 hours. Cheers Realist2 (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• The first key areas of the "Quick reject" requirements are not an issue here. So far so good. Realist2 (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• For part 1 (A=Pass B=Pass).So far so good.

• For part 2 (A=Fail B=Pass C=Pass) , there are three citations that need sourcing.

• For part 3 (A=Pass B=Pass) , here i was reluctant to pass part B, im worried that that controversy section is to large, ill pass it but i have reservations.

• For part 4 (A=Pass).

• For part 5 (A=Pass).

• For part 6 (A=Fail B=Fail). I believe it DOES need a suitable picture, you guy's need to agree on whats suitable.

CONCLUSION: This is very close to passing. You could get it sorted in a day easily people. Source those 3 citation tags, include a suitable picture and consider cutting down that controversy section. I will put this on hold. Get back to me personally when you have done these things and you`l pass. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou I will work on it. --Hfarmer (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I am a bit confused by the Above Review. Could you specify a bit more plainly which references need to be sourced I mean is "Part 2" in reference to "History" or "description by western science"? How about Part 6. Is this refering to a list of criteria? If so where is that list so I can simply refer to it. Help me understand what you are saying? Please. --Hfarmer (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I chekced an I see you are making direct reference to the list of Criteria. What you mean by "citations that need sourcing" I take that to mean say filling out a complete citation template on them preferably with a URL link to where an online version could be found. For one of those references that might not be possible as it is to a book from 1923. I hope I am changing the references you were referring to. --Hfarmer (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What you need to do is

• a) resolve the 3 that remain in the article. (That way you will pass Part2A)
• b) Get a suitable picture with a suitable caption. (That way you will pass Part 6A & Part6B)
• c)Consider cutting down the BBL controversy section

Does this help? Realist2 (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks thankyou very much. I saw and resolved the citation needed's in the article. Which was not hart because sources which said those things were already cited at some point. Only one needed to be found a new. A picture is going to be a hard sell to the rest of this room and may take a while longer than a day. I will think on what could be cut out of the controversy section.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Update

• For part 1 (A=Pass B=Pass) Well written, correct style

• For part 2 (A=Pass B=Pass C=Pass) All sourced, no tags, all formatted, no original material

• For part 3 (A=Pass B=Pass) Article sticks to the point and has the right amount of depth peer section

• For part 4 (A=Pass) It is neutral

• For part 5 (A=Pass) It is stable

• For part 6 (A=Fail B=Fail). I believe it DOES need a suitable picture, you guy's need to agree on whats suitable.

Realist2 (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok its been a few days, i can see a picture is a no go for now, im not going to fail the article over a picture i dont think thats in the best interest of wikipedia, the article reaches GA states but if you guys ever want to get it to FA you need to resolve this dispute. Best of luck. Realist2 (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture Reduxredux

Well folks you heard it from an unbiased, reviewer with no vested interest. This article DOES need a picture. What picture to use? Who's picture to use? Should it even be a picture of a person per se? Let's think outside the box on this one. Here are some ideas of mine.

1. Perhaps a picture which captures the concept of boyhood femininity which homosexual transsexuals theoretically show. Such as a boy playing with a Barbie doll with his back to the camera, or a similarly stereotypically feminine activity.
2. Perhaps a impressionistic work of art to represent the concept.
3. Perhaps a picture of simple objects one might associate with this concept.

Their has to be some illustration that could be found for this article. All the complications that can be found for using a person make that option less viable. So let us think outside the box. --Hfarmer (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion... Im not gay or transexual, sexuality is only 1 part of being a "homosexual transexual" im sure, no-one should be defined by their sexuality alone. I read the article and felt sad, it painted a bleak picture i must say, maybe a picture that reminds us that these people are normal like everyone else is appropriate? A simple picture of a person happy and smiling can have quite an affect Realist2 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well realist I am such a person. A picture of myself was suggested submitted and rejected. As i am not "notable" enough for being a homosexual transsexual. Just how one can be notable for being a MTF transsexual who was attracted to men as a man and as a female thereafter escapes me. Read the above discussion of a picture. Great roadblocks can be thrown up in the path of using any picture of any identifiable person. It's a great suggestion. I would like that. But I just don't see the other users ever being able to leave such a picture in place.

I'm sorry the article made you sad. I personally have a positive view of sex and sexuality. It is something that sustains the species, makes people feel better than any drug, and bonds lovers together. This article is about a sexological topic. In that science sex is the main focus. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh agreed sex is a good thing (ok that might have come across wrong), what i ment was is that thats not what all of life is about, no1 thinks about sex or sexuality 24/7 they? Everyone has other interests and i think sometimes it might play into the warped image the far right would like to send out as truth. English isnt my first language so maybe im not explaining it how i would like but trust me my intentions are good. :-) Realist2 (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No one thinks about sex all the time. That's not what the article says. It only tries to describe a theory in which differences among transsexuals that correlate to sexual orientation are the main focus. Their are always many equally valid angels to look at any issue. The sexological angle is but one. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As Realist Said

A picture may be a no go right now. But as it stands the only way to really improve this article would be for it to be illustrated. To that end I will look for pictures or things/ places/ people to take pictures of which would serve this purpose. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits.

I thought it might be useful to indicate in greater detail why I think my edits are proper.

• "The term" versus "a term"—Blanchard only coined one term to describe this group, so it gets a definite rather than an indefinite article. I have no problem including the word controversial. I don't know what might be used as a source, but I do believe that it's true.
• "Male-to-female transsexuals" versus "male-to-female transsexual women"—I entirely appreciate that people who undergo transition want to emphasize wherever possible that they are indeed women. However, the purpose of this page is to describe a term that was introduced by Blanchard, and Blanchard did not define the term that way. Once again, I have no problem indicating that the term is unpopular among many, which is why I put in a sentence saying so. (Although a ref would be good.)
• We have previously discussed whether Wyndzen meets WP:RS, and you previously agreed with me that it does not and that we should find a better source. You have every right to change your mind, of course, but it is rather unfair to expect me to be aware of it without any discussion.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

MTL, you are making major changes to controversial articles without discussing them first. That is frowned upon. For instance, "homosexual transsexual" does not originate with Blanchard, and not just transsexual people take issue with the term. The term has also been applied to FTMs. Further, you are removing reliable sources backing these statement up. I suggest slowing down and discussing things. Jokestress (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am more than happy to discuss any edit I make. I include my reasoning behind every one, and I will listen to counter-arguments for any. I do not know what to make of frowning. If I have broken any rule, I certainly would like to know it.

See quotation below.

• I can cite the origin of the term to Blanchard. If you have an earlier cite, by all means, replace mine with it.

What is the date of your reference? I find it predating him in Freund and others.

• I have no problem whatsoever expanding the indication that about who dislikes the term. A reference, however, would be useful.

You removed one. See also the Benjamin book.

• What reliable source have I removed?

The one that said the term is used to describe FTMs as well.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BB

Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject (not just a simple copyedit), it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page.

It's etiquette here, or Wikiquette, when coming in new on controversial articles. Slow down. Make changes gradually. Don't remove reliable sources without discussion. Jokestress (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think most of these issues would be appropriately discussed inside Lynn Conway mediation page, which I understand you have shown interest in. You are entirely correct about this point, however: Freund's use of the term "homosexual transsexual" does indeed predate Blanchard's. I apologize for my error. In case it is of use to you, the earliest Freund reference to the term that I was able to locate is: Freund, K., Langevin, R., Zajac, Y., Steiner, Bl, & Zajac, A. (1974). The transsexual syndrome in homosexual males. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 158, 145-153.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Marion my reply will sound a bit less politik than Jokestress's but that can't be helped. This article as you found it came into being based on allot of research by me and her and a number of other people. I understand where you are coming from but you can't just come in and rewrite a lage portion an think it will go unnoticed. I particularly take issue with the way almost the entire intro to the article on autogynephilia was introduced here. We have a kind of structure here. Some details are debated but basically it's this. One root article for the entire topic one for autogynephilia , another for "homosexual transsexual", and another for the controversey. If you want to help I would strongly suggest that you either A.) work on one of the other article s which are admittedly not so good. Or at least discuss them here. As I am about to demonstrate.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A subsection on the causes of Homosexual transsexuality

I have been thinking that the one thing that is missing from this article is any text on the causes of homosexual transsexuality as it is discussed in the literature. In particular I have noticed again and again that one particular factor is mentioned again and again. The late birth order-older brother effect. I think that should be mentioned here. There should also be a link to the article Etiology of transsexualism here is the proposed text.

/proposed subsection

Any thoughts.--24.15.18.235 (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right on. See fraternal birth order and sexual orientation. Everything that has been identified about the etiology of homosexual transsexuality is also true of regular homosexuality in males.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes very true. At least when it comes to effeminate homosexual males. I personally think that homosexuality and transsexuality are too complex to have one and only one cause. That the truth lies between what is written by BBL and what is written about the BSTC. I see no reason both ideas could not be true to some extent. --Hfarmer (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• The above description of Green's conclusion about the HY-antigen theory is the reverse of what he actually wrote.
• The summary is missing a reference:

Blanchard, R., & Sheridan, P. M. (1992). Sibship size, sibling sex ratio, birth order, and parental age in homosexual and nonhomosexual gender dysphorics. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 180, 40–47.

• The description of the stopping rule is, I think, too short to give readers an idea of exactly what is meant.
  

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the page I cited. "Hypotheses explaining the extension of prior findings to this large sample of transsexual males include a progressive maternal immunization to the male foetus either through the H-Y antigen or protein-bound testosterone or alterations in foetal androgen levels in successive pregnancies, all modifying male psychosexual development. Data on the sexual orientation of younger brothers of homosexual male transsexuals in this study are not consistent with the progressive immunization hypothesis." The emphasis is mine. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Let me move the emphasis in order to highlight the error. Data on the sexual orientation of younger brothers of homosexual male transsexuals in this study are not consistent with the progressive immunization hypothesis."

The data from the homosexual transsexuals themselves (the subject of your paragraph and the subject of Green's paper), however, was consistent with the Hy antigen theory. I have no opposition to including Green's secondary analysis in your paragraph, but to include secondary/contradictory information while omitting primary/confirmatory information violates NPOV. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing or conflating two things. The fraternal birth order effect is one thing. The H-Y antigen theory is a separate thing. The H-Y antigen theory is a proposed cause for the fraternal birth order effect. Green confirmed finding the effect but says his data did not support H-Y antigen as the cause. Perhaps that is not plain enough in my writing. So I will change it. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My abilities for confusion are boundless. But, I don't think I have, in this case. Green conducted two sets of analyses in that paper, one on the sample of homosexual transsexuals themselves, and on their younger brothers. The homosexual transsexuals showed the fraternal birth order effect (and where consistent with the Hy antigen theory), and the younger brothers did not show the effect (and were, therefore, not consistent with the Hy antigen theory).

Incidentally, I appreciate your revertion of changes to the main page. The ability to divorce one's feelings about a desired outcome from one's thoughts about that outcome is the mark of a talented thinker.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is one problem with what you are thinking. The H-Y Antigen theory is not ONLY for homosexual transsexuals but it applies to homosexuality in non-transsexual biological males as well. See here [1] In that paper Blanchard says this himself. If every brother simply increased the odds that one was homosexual by 40% then a man with three older brothers would have a 120% chance of being gay.  :-? I am pretty sure there are millions and millions of men with three older brothers who are not gay at all. Greens second finding shoots down the H-Y antigen theory as a cause for the older brother effect.

Perhaps if I take my point to something else. Imagine the following situation... Suppose there was this glass of water right on the edge of a table. We come into the room and find the glass shattered on the floor and water everywhere. We agree 100% that their has been an effect namely the glass fell and broke while full of water. HOWEVER while that effect is beyond question their can be many theories about what precipitated the fall of the glass. Perhaps a small earthquake, or a pet like a cat knocked it over, or mischevious glass tippin grimlins knocked it over when we weren't looking. All of those are valid theories for the cause they can all lead to a broken glass on the floor. However we can test for one cause or the other and find out which one cause that glass to fall and break in that fashion. We can rule out and falsify one cause or the other w/o somehow denying the reality of the effect.

Bringing it back to the topic and out of my methaphor. Dr. Green checked his data for the progressive immunizeation and instead of finding that the younger brothers of HSTS's are not generally homosexual themselves. Thus his data does not support the H-Y antigen hypothesis while it does support the fraternal birth order effect. Cause and effect are separate things. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I know my own personal anecdotal experiences are not WP sources but here it is. In my experience myself and most of the transsexuals I know personally who would be classified as homosexual in BBL theory all have one or more older brothers and late birth order on top of that. Those who I know that have younger brothers those brothers are not all gay. The ones who are not don't appear to be closeted at all. Just my own observations. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: "If every brother simply increased the odds that one was homosexual by 40% then a man with three older brothers would have a 120% chance of being gay." No, the 40% increase is multiplicative, not additive. If the probability of the first male child being gay is 2%, then an increase of 40% means that the next male child has a 2.8% chance of being gay. The third has a 3.92% chance and so on. (That is .02*1.4^^n where n is the number of older brothers.) Technically, the increase is in the odds and not in the probability, but for this range of numbers, it makes little difference. A more detailed handling of the math is available in Cantor, J. M., Blanchard, R., Paterson, A. D., Bogaert, A. F. (2002). How many gay men owe their sexual orientation to fraternal birth order? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 63–71.

I appreciate the implications of Green's data for causality. However, he used an extremely small sample; although he did not say it in his paper, there is no way to differentiate his interpretation from the more obvious (to me) interpretation that he did not have the statistical power to find the effect, which typically requires extremely large samples. (In the hundreds.) One could perform what is called a power analysis in order to ascertain exactly that the probability would be for a sample of 14 people to show and odds ratio of 1.4 (i.e., an increase in odds of 40% per older brother), but that would be OR.

The same is true of one's personal experiences. One would need hundreds of people in order to have a statistically meaningful sample.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I see. The way this is stated in so many papers is a bit confusing to me. In my mind the words odds and probability are related. I hear "odds increase by 40%" and I think that means 40% more probability. (Since the probabilities have to be normalized to 100% i.e. 1/2 heads +1/2 tails in a theoertical coin flip.) I guess psychologist use these words differently than physicist. Hmmm... I need to be aware of that in the future.

It does not seem at all obvious that the H-Y antigen hypothesis has any uncontroversial proof that it is the cause. While as I said in my little metaphor the effect is undeniable. If that is included then it makes sense to me to include wiritings on the doubts that people like Dr. Green have. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The probability is the number of positive cases over the total number of positive and negative cases (that is, the denominator is the total number of cases). The odds are the number of positive cases over the number of negative cases. Probability is more intuitive, but odds have certain statistical advantages. I couldn't tell you how much of these psychologists came up with this themselves and how much was taken from epidemiology and economics; very few psychologists, in my experience, have much facility with math at all.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgot: Yes, you are correct about there not being any smoking gun proof that the Hy antigen theory is what causes the fraternal birth order effect. (And Blanchard never said there was.) It's merely, thus far, the only theory that has been able to explain the data.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bagemihl quotation

Hfarmer, please give any reasoning why you feel the Bagemihl quotation should not be included in the article.

A particularly revealing example of the heterosexist and generally biased reasoning of medical professionals can be found in the language used to categorize and pathologize transsexuality. Clinical studies and definitions have traditionally employed a confusing terminology in which, for example, a female-to-male transsexual who is attracted to women is labeled a "homosexual transsexual," while a female-to-male transsexual who is attracted to men is labeled a "heterosexual transsexual." In other words, the point of reference for "heterosexual" or "homosexual" orientation in this nomenclature is solely the individual's genetic sex prior to reassignment (see for example, Blanchard et al. 1987[24], Coleman and Bockting, 1988[25], Blanchard, 1989[26]). These labels thereby ignore the individual’s personal sense of gender identity taking precedence over biological sex, rather than the other way around. With this clinical terminology, people can be conveniently described as "escaping" a stigmatized homosexual identity when they become involved with members of the opposite sex following reassignment (erroneously assumed to be “the norm”). The myth of the heterosexual imperative and the primacy of biology is thereby reasserted and rebuttressed, while the transgressive status of all transsexuals is trivialized.[8]

It seems to be a good summary of the arguments against use of the term. Jokestress (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Bagemihl captures the reason why many people object to the use of terms that reflect one's chromosomal rather than one's desired sex. I disagree with Bagemihl that using that language automatically denotes any -isms on the part of the speaker. Coleman and Bockting, for example, are generally well-liked among transfolk; few people would call them transphobic or heterosexist. So, although I have no reason to say that Bagemihl's statement is being misrepresented or that its inclusion violates any WP policies, I also don't see how including it improves the page. It merely (in my view) adds fuel to an on-going fire.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As with "autogynephilia," what's at issue here is the characteristic vs. the term. Nobody disagrees that the characteristic exists. The term itself is the controversy. As such, we owe it to readers to show why it is controversial, and I feel this quotation is an elegant summary of the most salient objections. Bagemihl doesn't call anyone transphobic or heterosexist. He says (and many agree) that the term is highly problematic. That's why it is vehemently opposed by transsexual people as a group. Jokestress (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I simply wish to discuss this before putting it in. I think their can be a more elegant way of weaving this into the article. What I would do with this is paraphrase and condense it as faithfully as possible into four or five sentences. I would add those to the BBL controversy section in this article (as well as the article on "augotynephilia"). Then I would expand the controversy article to include these sort of concerns. What is in that quotation probably should be addressed in the article. As you yourself has just said this quote is in relation to the controversy.

For the record. I too can disagree with the idea that being a "homosexual transsexual" is done to escape being gay. I personally am just letting go of any pretense of caring what society thought and just being myself. If by being my self I end up being a transsexual then so be it. I still say I am not 100% sure what some people mean by feminine gender identity. Apparently to most of the people that use the phrase that means wanting SRS. Their has to be more to it than that. It has to be possible to be femine and have male genitalia because many people are just that. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Organizational proposal

Per guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead section, I'd like to revise the lede to comprise three or four paragraphs:

1. Description of the term
2. History and development of the term
3. Summary of findings in literature employing the term
4. Criticism of the term

The first two could be combined. The article itself would then follow the same organization. Jokestress (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is a revision that does not involve trying to make major changes to the tone or content of the text then I do not object. If as it happens too often with article on this topic the criticism section is like 1/2 of the article then I would have to vehemently object. I.e. the "description of the term is "homosexual transsexual is a term used by perverted closet case psychologist to pathologies sissyfied little gay boys who think they are so cute and pass so well...I hate them" (Ok so I am being sarcastic there...trying to be funny. You wouldn't write that but I know people who would. ).

Seriously though.

Comparing what you propose to what we have now

1. Description of the term == Description by western science
2. History and development of the term ==History of the term
3. Summary of findings in literature employing the term == Description by western science
4. Criticism of the term == Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy.

It seems like this could be done without having to rewrite the bulk of the article. One thing you may be able to do that I could not is write a NPOV, and non crude sounding introduction that would only need like a 11th grade reading level (according to the SMOG test) to understand it. Much respect if you can do that.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How's this for a simpler opening paragraph (using same citations - omitted here):

Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some psychologists and sexologists to describe transsexual people who are exclusively or predominantly attracted to people of the same sex, based on the transsexual person's sex assigned at birth. The majority of literature using the term describes transwomen.[1][2] It is less frequently used by proponents to describe transmen.[3]

Jokestress (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Title

Can we get a title for Yolanda Smith? Presumably she's not just a random person off the street. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I mean she's a PhD psychologist in the Netherlands. Specifically the University medical center, university of Utrech. The paper cited has that at the top of it. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we should include that in the article: "Psychologist Yolanda Smith" or something like that, instead of "Yolanda Smith (who could be anyone)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We should also add that another psychologist has noted that citing Smith in this way is a misunderstanding, making specific mention of how it's erroneously presented here by Wikipedia editors: "Many believe Smith, van Goozen, Kuiper, and Cohen-Kettenis (2005) is a response to this critique. For example, it appears as counter-evidence on Wikipedia. If this was their intent, it is missing the necessary evaluation of clusters and does not include the necessary control groups to account for base-rate information (a concern I have about most proautogynephilia research)." [2] Jokestress (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I will agree to this when I get to know Ms. Wyndzen's real name and not her nome de plume. For as things stand now one could practically locate me, come to my home and speak to me about this matter. Where as I cannot find anything about her that would independanlty affirm she is who she is.

In the past other editors of this page have also pointed out this difficulty with inclusing anything Wyndzen says because of such anonymity. We do not have the change to vior dire her as to her expertise. Her expertise... her supposed, and purported expertise is the reason for including that yet I cannot question her? What is she afraid of? I mean heck google her and all one gets is a pen name. Google me and you find out all one could ever want to know to be able to wiegh what I say.

To the point. Smith cites the kind of concerns that Wyndzen raised on her webpage does research and issues a conclusion that affirms much of what Blanchard found. All Wyndzen does is write on her blog like webpage about it and that is supposed to get this great weight? Her expertise is supposed to have the weight to override the results of empirical research? Seriously does it even conform to the letter of what wikipedia policy calls a reliable source. (if one blog cannot be a source then no blog can be a source.)--Hfarmer (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at what she writes on a footnote of her rather well presented blog which I see some how got published in Archives of sexual behavior (I though that journal was just a Bailey and Blanchard controlled propaganda rag. :-/ Let it publish something certain people like and it becomes a gospel?) Any two year old child can see that Smith's study had the relevant control groups. The issue is weather or not homosexual and non homosexual transsexuals differ from each other NOT how the differ from natal females. That is information that would be nice to know but it is not necessary. (Correction:Looking at the article they DID test natal women in the form of FTM's and basically did not find autogynephilia among them. Her criticism is wrong on it's face even.)--Hfarmer (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

NOW I demand that anyone with the gall to criticize not just wikipedia but me. (I know WP:OWN but damm it this article is my baby) Show yourself Ms Wyndzen or shut up! I resent and I am sure the WP community as a whole resents having faceless name less people who cant handle public scrutiny being able to take pot shots at us.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of a pseudonym does not make a person unreliable (i.e. Cheryl Chase (activist)). Dr. Wyndzen's real name is known to those she trusts. She's smart to keep her name private, since nutters like Alice Dreger go on the radio and froth about her being an "enemy of Blanchard," etc. The work Dr. Wyndzen criticizes is put forth by the type of people who could cause problems for her professionally and personally if they knew her name, the way Dreger went after a young Point Foundation Scholar with a differing POV. While I was disappointed that anyone participated in Zucker's charade of objectivity in the Archives, that doesn't preclude it from being a reliable source according to Wikipedia. Bottom line is that Dr. Wyndzen is trained in the field and has noted that Wikipedia specifically is misusing the Yolanda Smith information based on a lack of understanding of the science. Jokestress (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

On the point of autogynephilia (in love with the image of themselves as a female) in natal females... That would be applicable to non-TG females who are happy with their self image as a female. The FtM equivalent would be autoanerphilia (based on anerphilia being the opposite of gynephilia, as stated in Gynephilia and androphilia), being in love with the image of themselves as male. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! That topic ought to have it's own article. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a common misunderstanding of "autogynephilia" (one I made myself when I first heard the term). It is not about self-esteem or being "in love" with anything. It is about male sexual arousal. It describes a psychosexual pathology, a paraphilia that applies to males. There is not an FTM equivalent according to proponents, because paraphilias occur almost exclusively in males. The only mention of the antonym in the literature is to say there is no mention in the literature. Jokestress (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt what you say is true about autogynephilia. However Smith et al did find a small number of women who reported being aroused when dressed as men. On the other hand I haven't seen that reported (or for that matter really looked for) elsewhere. Point taken. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Although slanted in her description, Jokestress is correct that autogynephilia does not describe the self-esteem sense of self-love; it is meant to describe the pattern of sexual arousal that people described (more frequently so before it became a political no-no to say so). It is also true that FtMs do not (or nearly never) report an analogous sexual arousal pattern. However, I am not aware of proponents who say that FtMs could not have paraphilic interests because paraphilias are a phenomenon of biological males. FtMs do show many characteristics of biological males, and there are some paraphilias that do sometimes occur in natal females; so, the possibility has alwasy been quite open. I am not sure it would be accurate to say that there is no mention in the literature; it would probably be more accurate to say that are few if any confirmed cases, making it very different from the frequency of autogynephilia reported by MtFs.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again there appears to be a problem for some editors here separating a phenomenon from a problematic term (as with this article). No one denies some transwomen are attracted to guys; they object to the taxonomy and the demeaning term "homosexual transsexual." No one denies that people might have an interest in feminization, or an erotic interest in feminization, or an autoerotic interest in feminization; they object to the taxonomy and to describing it as a psychosexual pathology that occurs in males only (as if non-trans women never feel sexy or experience arousal from "feminine" thoughts, behaviors, or items). This is a long-running problem with people who fancy themselves scientists and believe very much in a social construction, and thus can't comprehend how observed phenomena might otherwise be described and organized outside their pet models.

As far as the terms "autoadrophilia" or "autoanerphilia" (again, as opposed to a phenomenon), which was AliceJMarkham's comment to which I was responding, "There have been no reports of any of these individuals being sexually aroused by male clothing or clearly describing 'autoandrophilia'" (Dickey 1995) and "'Autoandrophilia' has not appeared in the published literature to our knowledge" (Ekins 2001). As I said, the only use of the term has been to note that the term is not used. Fortunately for FTMs, they are largely off the radar of the people who pathologize MTFs, which is a reflection of the general attitudes of society as well. Jokestress (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel a need to reply to "Once again there appears to be a problem for some editors here separating a phenomenon from a problematic term (as with this article). No one denies some transwomen are attracted to guys; they object to the taxonomy and the demeaning term "homosexual transsexual."" Not everyone who hears Dr. Blanchard's theory or reads Dr. Bailey's book to my knowledge has that reaction of unequivocal offense. Most are not crazy about the taxonomy but I mean... If you are a younger black or hispanic transwoman, in an urban environment, who has sold erotic services, who was like "princess Danny" as a kid... it's hard to get offended when a psychologist writes that in a book. That part is just like... duh no S__t Sherlock! Brilliant deduction! :-/ To be honest I found things like those writen by the illustrious McCloskey regarding Dr. Bailey's "homosexual transsexual" subjects to be worse than anything B or B have ever written by far.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW I more than fancy myself a scientist. Please refrain from personal attacks.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That comment was not directed at anyone here. I was actually thinking of quacks who endorsed nonsense like nymphomania and hystero-epilepsy, or "scientists" who used to categorize people as quadroons, octaroons, and so on.

The problem here is that the people who rally around BBL are wannabes: people previously classified as "non-transsexual" who wish to identify as "transsexual," or people who would be classified as "autogynephilic" who identify as "homosexual transsexual." Both kinds of wannabes are rejected by the groups they wish to be a part of, in many cases because they are attracted sexually to people in the target group. In fact, they are often openly mocked by people who would be classified as the types with which they identify, just like any other type of tranny-chaser gets mocked. This reinforces their desire to turn to "science" like BBL for validation, since they get little from people they consider their peers. I have published these observations elsewhere years ago. If there are trans people in reliable sources who endorse the term "homosexual transsexual," we should note that, but I don't know anyone who would be classified as such who endorses that term. Jokestress (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Another real problem is that people who devote their lives to "debunking" BBL theory are almost always Autogynephiles or overly concerned that people think they are autogynephiles weather BBL theory would classify them as such. Especially rabbid are those who admit in emails that they are autogynephilic in an email then recant. They then act pushy and act like thier opinions create facts... Clearly I am being Sarcastic who else here would I be writing about. Jokestress please refrain from personal attacks.

Let me assure anyone reading this what Jokestress says about me couldn't be father from the truth. I am respected by most transsexuals my age who know me even the ones who do not like me. I have been out as either trans or gay since I was 13 (mostly trans). A few months ago I met a respected trans academic and blogged about it. I will not name names because dropping names is classless (ok the trans academic is Julia Serano and I have met many people in Ball culture some of whom are real life, youtube, and myspace friends respectively.) I am quite real and know of what I speak.

The few people I have discussed this with were those who saw Dr. Bailey's book on my shelf and wanted to see what it said for themselves. I would then show them Dr. Conway's website. They wanted to see pics of some of the people in the book. I also showed them her sucess stories pages. They promptly read those ladies. Their reaction to what's in that book that would apply to them I could best describe as being told old news. Like hearing that we won WWII no Duh. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what your response above has to do with this article. I am not aware of anyone who would be classified as such who identifies as a "homosexual transsexual." If you are claiming you are a "homosexual transsexual," I believe that is based entirely on self-diagnosis, and it would certainly not be the conclusion of proponents of the term. Your attempts to add your own photo here as an example of a "homosexual transsexual" would confuse readers on Wikipedia, because to my knowledge, no proponent of the term has ever described you as a "homosexual transsexual." In fact, proponents of the term have written about "autogynephiles" who engage in "systematic distortion" of their life stories as an attempt to make themselves seem like more socially-desirable "homosexual transsexuals." We avoid adding misinformation here, which is why we need to stick to reliable sources. If you know of a reliably-sourced statement from someone in the community who endorses the term, we can add it here. Your assertion that you are one is not supported by either a professional diagnosis or a reliable source, so it is not relevant to the article and not worth discussing here. If you wish to assert this as a self-identity, that should probably happen off-wiki. Jokestress (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrea this kind of behavior is beneath you. First of all you decided to resort to thinly veiled ad hominem arguments against me. One's which are totally absurd. I don't need to prove anything to you or anyone else. I have distorted nothing at all. Yes I do believe that if the Ts world were divied homosexual Vs non-homosexual transsexual by BBL I would be counted as a homosexual transsexual. I see that as a mere fact. I have been a sissy or transie all my life. Not always proud of it perhaps but never the less. This is not entirely a self diagnosis I have also lived in Chicago all my life. I knew Dr. Bailey though I did not know the ladies he named in his book. Based on reading about how he talked to them and what about I am sure he thought of me as being that type of transsexual.

There is one way in which this kind of discussion into which I have drawn you is germane. It has to do with including anything written by Madeline H. Wyndzen. People out there know nothing of "Dr" Wyndzen other than that she does not agree with BBL theory. Whereas people who know me on the internet can look at things like this blog posting where I talk about meting Julia Serano at a talk she gave at NU. They can look at my list of myspace friends which includes people I knew in highschool. Look at the comments. They don't seem shocked or surprised at all. If I were a liar their reactions would be very different. I also must mention for someone supposedly rejected by young gay and transgender folk I have allot of such people as myspace friends. Many of whom I know in real life, or have mutual friends whom I have met in real life. Lastly my youtube video's one can look at me in sound and motion and critique and read and I can read back. They can interact with me. Who can interact with Wyndzen? Who can affirm that she isn't just an invention of anti Blanchard ideologues? No one!( I will set my myspace profile to public so that it may be viewed here for about 24 hours. I don't generally like to show off but this is a really important point here).

The point of this exercise was to point out in glaring dramatic fashion why it is ludicris to give anything writen by an anonymous person like Wyndzen any weight at all. Heck I only think it is noteable at all because what was written under that name hilites what Smith et al researched. Thankyou for being yourself and providing me with an excuse to react the way I just did. :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the controversy section

The current section is biased and incorrect. It is incorrect because it specifies the wrong charge against Bailey ("inappropriate sexual advance"). "Juanita" claimed Bailey had sex with her, but Northwestern did not investigate this charge. It is a lurid but irrelevant "accusation," one Bailey denied, with evidence. It certainly doesn't seem relevant here, but if you want to include it, get it right. You might just take the paragraph from J. Michael Bailey, which has been much more carefully (and accurately} rendered.

And it doesn't include the conclusion by Dreger that the charges against Bailey were manufactured by Conway, James, and McCloskey as punishment for writing about autogynephilia.ProudAGP (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more importantly, "Juanita's" charges are not mentioned anywhere on "Maria's" webpage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This complaint shows I have no real bias. If you belive some people inspite of all evidence I am just Dreger in disguise or something sheesh.

Junita's complaints are mentioned elsewhere on Dr. Conway's website I know they are and will hunt for them elsewhere. The value of linking to Maria's story in some way is because it puts a face on what Dr. Bailey had in mind when he wrote what he wrote.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wanting to put a human face on a concept is not an acceptable reason for using a webpage as a citation to supposedly support a claim that the page does not make. You could consider it as an external link for that purpose, but not as a reference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That is an inadequate response to the fact that there are inaccuracies in the article. It's not right to include inaccurate assertions just to "put a face" on something. Why can't you just copy the better paragraph from the J. Michael Bailey page? Please respond to this and let me know whether it is acceptable if I do so.ProudAGP (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding citing Wyndzen: I believe Wyndzen's comments are out. Her blog does not qualify as a reliable source, and there is no evidence of her producing articles in RS's to permit it an exception. Her commentary in the Archives of Sexual Behavior also does not qualify as an RS, in my opinion. Although the articles Archives are peer reviewed, items such as letters to the editor and the commentaries to Dreger's article were not. This leaves no RS containting Wyndzen's comments.

Regarding Jokestress' recent comments: I find them ranging from unproductive hostilities to personal attacks. Jokestress makes comments about what proponents of the idea of autogynephilia would say, but often gets it wrong. (Please note, however, that I have on several previous occassions noted when I believed Jokestress got it right.) Vague attributions are, again, unproductive. I believe that in controversial topics such as this, editors should stick to specifics. To my hear, negative and unsubstantiated references to the beliefs/behaviors of heterogeneous groups smacks of stereotyping.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have found the real reference for the allegations that Bailey had sex with a research subject (Juanita). I will wikify this reference into a foot note and insert it. At this point I would like to make clear the difference between Wyndzen's website and Dr. Conway's. Like me she can be contacted (if you email her she will reply I have done this.) You can find out all about her and weigh her informations veracity. Furthermore the way she constructed it is...more reminiscent of old line scientific websites such as (xxx.lanl.gov). She could have bound it in paper back and called it "The Journal of Deconstructing Michael Bailey" and it could be looked at as a legit magazine if not jornal. It's in a different league than what Wyndzen did. (If she even exist at all?)--Hfarmer (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wyndzen

Wyndzen is a complicated problem. According to (mandatory) WP:V, "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability." An unknown person causes real problems with evaluating the reliability of "the creator of the work".

If the kind of work and the publisher are both sufficiently good -- and I'm sure I'd put the publisher as well as any proper article published by them in that category -- then IMO those can probably override the inherent limitations of the anonymous writer.

But if there are alternatives -- surely some professional, somewhere, has been willing to make complaints and actually stick his or her real name on them? -- then I think we should use those in preference. And if no professional in this field is willing to make a public complaint... that makes you wonder about the validity of the complaint, doesn't it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, "WhatamIdoing," there are clearly times when people decide to participate pseudonymously in public discourse for a variety of reasons. A New York Times or WSJ editorial is reliable even though it's by an "unknown person." Madeline no longer uses her real name, probably for some of the same reasons you contribute here as an unknown person. In a way, it doesn't matter who wrote the piece in Archives of Sexual Behavior. It was published in a reliable source that anyone can look up and is thus verifiable and reliable. Most trans people and psychologists don't want to cross these CAMH people because of their reputations. A trans psychologist is doubly motivated to protect her identity. Jokestress (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• WhatamIdoing has correctly identified that no bone fide professional has made the comments that Wyndzen has, despite that it has now been 5 years since the publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen, which would indeed put questions in the mind of any objective observer.
• Jokestress is incorrect to say that NYT and WSJ editorials are by "unknown persons": Newspapers do in fact verify the identify the authors of editorials; they merely withhold the names in the publication itself.
• Jokestress once again has no evidence to suggest that trans people and psychologists "don't want to cross these CAMH people." Any fear that exists is the result of Jokestress own manufacture. Moreover, one would have little difficulty saying that it is Jokestress whom trans people and psychologists fear because of her reputation of, for examples, filing false accusations, posting ridiculing pictures of them and their children on her website, of writing to their colleagues and superiors laying false accusations...
• Jokestress will (of course) continue to say that Wyndzen made her comments anonymously out of fear, but it is also plausible that she made her comments ananymously so that she would not be responsible for defending them as would be expected from a scholar.

I do not believe the decision whether to include the Wyndzen comments is complex: Follow the WP rules. Although it is in Jokestress' political interest to include Wyndzen, the WP policy is based on having multiple people fact-check an article (the more the better). The Wyndzen commentary did not undergo any peer review or fact-checking by anyone, as indicated by the journal's editor in the front of the issue in which it appeared.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's not reliable, why did Zucker publish it?

It should also be noted that CAMH found that James Cantor harassed a transgender speaker during a presentation on trans issues. That incident will linger on Dr. Cantor's record for 7 years. Long-running intimidation and harassment of trans people by CAMH employees are borne out by historical facts. Jokestress (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Zucker published all commentaries sent in to the Archives (except for one commentary which did not actually address the topic).
• CAMH found no such thing. If Jokestress has any evidence other than that someone said he felt harrassed, then she should present it. Equating accusation with guilt appears to be a theme with Jokestress. Because anyone can write a letter saying anything, folks who disagree with Jokestress' points of view have reason to fear being the subject of false allegations.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 15:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just confirming: in your opinion, materials in the Archives of Sexual Behavior that aren't peer-reviewed articles are unreliable, right? Jokestress (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, yes, although I can imagine exceptions. The analogy that comes to mind is that blogs are non-RS except for blogs written by people with an established history of pubs in RS's.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 19:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's get back on topic. The topic is not whether or not we like this; the topic is whether or not it meets the mandatory requirements of WP:V. the policy says that "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work." Ignore your personal preferences for a minute. Strictly for the purposes of Wikipedia, a reliable source is a term of the art with three components.

Because of a decision by the author, we simply cannot evaluate one of the three components. Unlike a newspaper editorial -- which is officially written by the paper itself, as a person in the philosophical sense -- a "comment" or "letter to the editor" published anonymously or pseudonymously in a a scientific journal is not. It is officially written by, and full responsibility for it lies with, the unknown author.

Now ideally the anon author wouldn't be unknown. But given that we have an anon commentator, what are our options? As I see them, they are three:

1. Dump the comment as sufficiently unreliable to be unacceptable.
2. Accept the comment as legitimate (=Trust the journal to have verified the author's qualifications).
3. Find another source that says the same thing, on the grounds that a complaint by any reliable source is as useful as another for the purpose of this article.

What I hear from James is that #3 isn't possible, because no professional is willing to make these claims publicly.

I don't suppose that anyone here knows anyone at Arch Sex Behav and could actually find out whether or not they bothered to find out the real name of the author? I don't want to know the author's name, but it would be reassuring to know that they have taken basic steps to make sure that the author was not deliberately misrepresenting credentials. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Dump unless we hear from someone at Archives of Sexual Behavior about her credentials. I say that is the best course of action. If each of us send a polite email asking about the supposed Dr. Wyndzen I'm sure they will reply. Just make it clear you don't want to know what her real name is... we just want to know if they did any checking of her credentials. Or conversely as Dr. Cantor says they published virtually every commentary. If they did the latter then they likely did not check. I think we should at least ask wait say two weeks for a reply. Ample time I'd say for them to get back to us no matter how busy they are. If they do not reply then we can only proceed based on what we know. What we know is that "Dr. Wyndzen" is a phantom and knowing the internet as likely to be a complete fraud as anyone else who is so anonymous.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am on the editorial board of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, but I was not involved in the publication of Wyndzen's commentary (or anything else that appeared in that issue). I have also published several articles in the Archives (starting before I was appointed to its editorial board), so I have been through it's publication process several times. There is no step in the process in which authors supply the journal with their credentials. Manuscripts are evaluated entirely on their own merit regardless of author; in fact, the authors of several of the commentaries published alongside Wyndzen's had no relevant scholarly credentials. So, I do not believe it is Wyndzen's credentials that are exactly what is at issue: Even if Wyndzen is bone fide psychologist, the WP policy for deciding if a person's comments are an exception to the fact-checking/peer-review policy are that the person has previously published relevant works in good RS's. That would require knowing, not Wyndzen's credentials, but her identity.

Moreover, Wyndzen had the option of publishing her comments in an RS still maintaining her anonymity, but did not do so: That is, authors are permitted to submit their materials to journals for peer-review and have them published without their names. This is not what Wyndzen did: She instead submitted them to a newsletter for GLBT psychologists (which does not review) and then to the open call for commentaries by the Archives, which also conducted no review. For all we know, Wyndzen's comments were rejected by peer-reviewed outlets, and she had no choice but to publish them in an outlet that would not evaulate them. So, I believe here too that knowing Wyndzen's credentials would not show that her comments meet WP standards.

The editor-in-chief of the Archives is Ken Zucker, and his email address (which appears on everything he publishes) is ken_zucker@camh.net. I am entirely willing to ask him if he verified Wyndzen's identity before accepting her commentary, but I do not believe it would solve the problem. Moreover, the answer I receive from Zucker would be OR and could not be verified by anyone else.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

While it is true you are the kind of person Dr. Zucker would certainly respond to others could ask as well. I take your point though no other person could verify what we were told.

What you say sounds true enough to me. In so far as I am familliar with publishing in a physics journal. Some places like (www.arxiv.org) will only let an author put a paper there if they are "endorsed" by a recognized physicist in that subfield. Most other paper journals follow a procedure like what you described Dr. Cantor. So I see psych works mostly the same way.

Given what you have said it seems to me that the only option we have is to remove everything related to "Dr. Wyndzen" until we can see some proof of life from her. That is until she comes out of hiding.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Hfarmer, I don't understand your goals here, but they should include an accurate discussion of the controversy, and not merely the inclusion of Juanita's pictures. First of all, Bailey wasn't accused of "inappropriate sexual advances." He was "accused" of having sexual relations with a research subject, something that appears not to be against the law or the rules. So this wasn't ever investigated. What was investigated was the accusation that Bailey conducted research without ethical oversight from his IRB. Truly, you should read (or carefully reread) Dreger. Your section, now replaced, did not adequately reflect what happened, and the current version does, both in the details and the big picture.

I intend to edit this section. We can work together on this, if you want, but you have to tell me what it is exactly you want. If you want Juanita's picture up, we can work that out in a different way.ProudAGP (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Juanita objects to the term, so that would be a WP:BLP issue. Hfarmer on the other hand identifies as a "homosexual transsexual," so if we are going to include a picture exemplifying a "homosexual transsexual," Hfarmer has proposed one of these two: heading to work [3] or in the physics lab [4]. I know of no other self-identified "homosexual transsexual" who is public, so this does seem to be the best option. Though I do not think a picture is relevant (this article is about a controversial term, not a demographic group), if the consensus is that Hfarmer exemplifies a "homosexual transsexual," I will defer to that consensus. As I have noted before, I do not believe Hfarmer would be classified as such by proponents of the term, so it might confuse matters to include Hfarmer's image here. Jokestress (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be possible to link to Juanita/Maria with the context that Bailey wrote about her as a homosexual transsexual prostitute. There is a video online with her talking about being a prostitute, with yet another name (possibly her actual name): http://www.ablongman.com/html/videoworkshop/disciplines/human_sexuality.htmlProudAGP (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In that clip, the subject does not identify as a "homosexual transsexual." To date, only Hfarmer has identified publicly as a "homosexual transsexual." There was also a woman named Tamara who participated with Hfarmer on a forum, but like Hfarmer, would probably not be identified as a "homosexual transsexual" by proponents of the term. Jokestress (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then in that case it would be wrong to say that she identifies as a homosexual transsexual. It would not be wrong to say that Bailey wrote about her as such. Indeed, I think it is necessary to say that he did. The question is whether it is desirable to add a link to pictures and video. I think it might well be.ProudAGP (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies in place to protect living persons. For instance, people have written about Bailey's alleged sexual involvement with Juanita, but we shouldn't include his picture at John_(prostitution) as an example of that type of person. We can only include someone who both identifies by the term and has been classified as such. That's why Hfarmer is the best available option (though I continue to object to a picture). Jokestress (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress: Writing "about Bailey's sexual involvement with Juanita" asserts that Bailey did have such an involvement, and there is no evidence that Bailey did. You are in clear violation of WP:BLP. Strike out your unfounded accusation immediately.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As you (Jokestress) obviously know, one important difference is that Bailey denies he had sex with Juanita, and the evidence supports him. (Sorry.) Juanita is on the internet talking about being a transsexual prostitute. She likes men. Bailey wrote about her as a homosexual transsexual. I see no problem linking her Conway pages and the video to any of the relevant WP pages. Bailey didn't write about Hfarmer, and I actually agree with you (horrors!) that one cannot simply take someone's word about what kind of transsexual one is. That's a big part of the controversy, that one simply doesn't get to identify as one wants. Which means, for example, that you weren't necessarily autoygynephilic in 1998, when you identified as such, and you aren't necessarily not autogynephilic now that you no longer do.ProudAGP (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure there's evidence. She has reported this to Northwestern and discussed it in the press. See the McCain piece in the Washington Times. I added "alleged" just to clarify. Jokestress (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations are not evidence; I note that this is the third time you have treated them as if they were.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. We have testimony for these allegations, which are of course evidence. She testified at Northwestern and has provided other evidence. We should take this to your talk page if you wish to continue this discussion. Jokestress (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, testimony is not evidence of itself. That is, Juanita's statements cannot be both the allegation and the evidence of the allegation, which exactly how you are (mis-)using them.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Testimony is evidence. Again, if you wish to discuss dictionary definitions, let's take this to your talk page. Jokestress (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You can say it as many times as you like, but it is still untrue. Testimony is evidence of other observations; it is never evidence of itself. If that were true, we would need no detectives. Testimony can serve as the allegation or as evidence that supports the allegation, not both.

If you want further discussion on a talk page, start typing on a talk page.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it would violate BLP to say that Bailey labeled 'Juanita' a HT in his book, and that Juanita rejected this label as inaccurate and offensive. BLP only prevents us from reporting Bailey's choice of labels as a fact. It does not prevent us from reporting "allegations" in a "he said/she said" fashion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Some things I need to respond to.

ProudAGP asked what my goals were My goals are always to see to it that the facts are represented in accurately and understandably on the wikipedia as per WP policies. In some cases this is facilitated by a picture. For example if one has never seen a elephant how could one describe it? That is what this article is like a very detailed description of an elephant. If we have a picture here and a picture in the autogynephilia article it could show what the huge difference in appearance is supposed to be.

For the record I would have no problem using the picture which I uploaded to wikipedia for this purpose. I took the picture during a lab class for the purpose of illustrating this article. I got dressed for school that day knowing I was going to take a picture for the internet. I made sure to look my best. The choice of venue was on purpose I wanted to illustrate both what kind of person Dr. Bailey was talking about...but do so without being a total stereotype. The picture from my photobucket on the other hand was taken after I got home from yet another job interview and I look a bit rumpled to say the least. The picture from my photobucket is not as good for that reason.

You also forgot about my obligatory cheesecake shot![5] Or how about this one pic that I used on craigs list and on my escorting website (free advertising :-) ). Or a animated gif showing in succession a pic from when I was very young and apparently id'ing myself as a female scientist, a picture from like Jr. High looking queer but not flaming, one from College looking as manly of a black muslim as I could, and finally one as the person I am now...the realizeation of what I said I wanted to be when I took the first picture. I am quite proud of that. I think I should be.

No matter what picture we put here it would cause a problem in someone's mind or the other. If we use my picture there are the issues that Jokestress has raised in the current discussion. In particular that there is no record outside of my own word that under Dr. Blanchard's theory I would be classified as a homosexual transsexual. There are things from which we can draw inferences, various evidences but that is not allowed here on the Wikipedia. It would be against WP:OR to draw any such conclusion and include it in an article. Furthermore if I know anything about Jokestress at all it is that basically she does not believe that these two types exist at all. So even if I was written about that would not be sufficient for her.

I am afraid that too applies to the idea of putting a picture or Juanita on this website and saying she is a homosexual transsexual. I suppose we could put down the fact that she was written about as such by Dr. Bailey.  :-/ I really don't like the idea of that video being on the net. Oh I ROTFLMFAO'd when I saw it... but then thought you know just when you think these kinds of things are dead and buried. Having this up on the net must be horrible for her. OTOH it could explain why Dr Bailey thought and wrote what he did. I mean contrast her to say the illustrious Dr. McCloskey. :-? This video could explain why Bailey thought as he did. It's a judgement call on our parts.

I URGE ANYONE WHO WOULD THINK TO DO SO TO NOT PUT A REFERENCE TO THAT VIDEO IN HERE! Have some compassion. Even if there is a WP policy that could justify its inclusion I don't think this should be in. The textual reference to her story on Dr. Conway's website is sufficienly illustrative to give readers a sense of what the article is about.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. Jokestress no shade, disrespect but you tend to be a bit anal retentive about precise language when it comes to a person's self identification. I can recall times when we would be discussing various transgender expressions around the world, Brazilian travesti's, Indian Hijra's, or Fa'faf'fine, and you were like "well they don't identify as transsexual using the word transsexual therefore they are not transsexual."  :-) That attitude is neither good nor bad about these things. Caution is best in these cases.

I on the other hand go back to the old axiom: If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck. No shade to Juanita/Maria/Sylvia...the woman of the hour...but if you are on tape calling your self a "shemale".  :-/ Then saying the stuff that she did...her sex drive etc. :-\ That does not exactly prove what Dr. Bailey wrote wrong :-| (Let's talk about her education instead it's quite impressive...nah who cares about that like I say on my website. Let's get to the transsexual talk.) --Hfarmer (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly right. This and the transsexual article should be about the western medicalized conception of those terms. You can talk about trans expression in other cultures on the transgender page, or better yet, on the pages devotes to those specific demographic groups. This article is about a controversial term used in sexology, since no one uses "homosexual transsexual" as an identity (except you). Jokestress (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one except for the people who do, such as http://www.transkids.us/.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by James Cantor (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Transkids.us is a completely unreliable source run by a transphobic netkook with a long history of lying about her life history. The only real people who participate there would not be classified as "homosexual transsexual." Jokestress (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress.... The problem is that ladies who call themselves Kathoey who have had SRS exist. They have had western medicine yet the interpret things in terms of their culture. Is the person I linked on the word kathoey any less of a transsexual (she is a TS woman success story so on this I can agree with Dr. Cownay)? Check your talk page.

Interesting do you know of any examples of people or groups of people perhaps that you would say are likely "homosexual transsexuals". Just applying Dr. Blanchards' definition not saying you like believe in it or anything?--Hfarmer (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A "transphobic netkook", eh? You are unlikely to convince anyone to disregard other people's self-identities until you can make a grown-up's argument for why they should. Name-calling suggests you have no real argument; the behaviour is beneath any of your others I have seen on WP so far.

Your accusations are another gross violation of BLP, your second today, in my assessment. I urge you to strike it through. I do not believe many admins would tolerate it.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a more detailed discussion of Kiira Triea (Denise Tree) and the "transkids.us" hoax for anyone who wishes to determine the reliability of that site and its author. Jokestress (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress violation of BLP

Hfarmer, WhatamIdoing: I am considering whether it would be appropriate to report the above to ANI. It would be for them, not me, decide whether Jokestress' comments on her own website is sufficient to justify the above comments on WP. I am over-reacting?
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 01:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You could or you could delete it. Another option would be to ask for a administrator to intervene. To be honest though wikipedia policy generally only strictly applies to the actual articles and peoples user pages. The discussions generally do not have to follow all of those policies. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You are not over-reacting to the name-calling, but I have very little faith in the ability of admins to do anything about it. They are substantially overworked, and the case would likely entail an enormous amount of Wikilawyering. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering eh. :-?

IMO all that would happen to Andrea is a warning being posted to her talk page. She is a very respected member of this community and contributes allot. I don't see any real sanction, like a ban, being imposed on her. This is coming from someone who has been insulted by her in numerous ways... denial of my existence, reality and sincerity in spite of any and all evidence is a big one... Just let it go. She'll get back on task and you and her can end up collaborating to make a good article even better.  :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Letter from Professor Wyndzen

Dr. Wyndzen sent me this earlier this week:

Dear Andrea James,

Thank you for letting me know about James Cantor's effort to remove reference to my work from Wikipedia. Though disappointing, it is also flattering that he considers this worth his time. Perhaps he recognizes the accuracy of my critique of autogynephilia and he worries that when other behavioral scientists read it (especially those not already committed to a side), they will recognize how weak Ray Blanchard's model is. James Cantor and his colleagues may also be starting to recognize the larger problem of beginning their account with the assumption of a mental illness model and how it results in stereotypes of transgender persons. They may be worried about the ongoing debate about including transgendered persons in the DSM for being who they are; censoring Wikipedia so it only showcases their side as reliable might delay uncommitted psychiatrists and psychologists from readily finding the scientific accounts on the other side. It’s a clever manipulation of our scientific heuristic that peer-reviewed journals contain more credible information. Like all heuristics that usually work, it sometimes fails. It fails in this case because the journals are part of a mental health community that begins with the assumption that we are mentally ill for being who we are. Those who begin from a neutral or positive perspective on transgenderism lack journals of their own.

Imagine what James Cantor's life as a gay man would be like today if those at the American Psychiatric Association dismissed Dr. Anonymous as "unreliable" because he did not publish against the mental illness model of homosexuality in a peer-reviewed journal or because he protected his identity. As psychology professors, James Cantor and I both know that it's the quality of our arguments that matter – not our names, credentials, or the sources in which we publish. Perhaps the transgender community should gently remind him that you cannot raise yourself up by pushing others down. Even if he continues to behave unscientifically, I am not sure why this persuades other Wikipedia editors? I thought the spirit of Wikipedia was to be neutral, present all sides, and let readers judge for themselves? It’s a spirit I agree with. When Anne Lawrence introduced autogynephilia to the transgender community, I discussed with Ray Blanchard exposing a wider audience to his original work and he graciously allowed me to post some of his writing on my website. Maybe James Cantor feels better believing I am unreliable. Maybe others will feel that I am credible because of my decade of involvement in the trans-community and my numerous efforts to bridge the divide between transgender and psychological communities. If it may help, please feel free to post this message. I hope you are successful in preserving Wikipedia’s principled neutral stance.

Best wishes, Madeline Wyndzen

http://www.GenderPsychology.org/

I wonder if this should be published in a wider venue like the LGBT project page. Thoughts? Jokestress (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the above establishes Wyndzen's letter as an RS.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth Zucker described them as peer commentaries, and Dr. Wyndzen's article sells for the same price as any other article in the same journal ($32.00). This claimed distinction between articles appears to be a false one designed to eliminate critical viewpoints. Jokestress (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That argument and my response to it were already made. Although Jokestress/Wyndzen's comments are aimed at me, I was not at all alone in my conclusion that Wyndzen's commentary does not meet WP:RS. Jokestress can hypothesize whatever she likes about my motivation for pointing out that Wyndzen's commentary does not meet WP:RS, but none will change non-RS's into RS's.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 19:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh please give me a break her "decade of involvement in the transgender community". She's a total and complete phantom a computer enchanced halucination. Who based on Jokestress's own standards could be called an anonymous "net kook". Or is that only a factor when one disagree's with her?

Secondly while what she says is true about the quality of arguments mattering more than who makes them there are still two issues here that make just who she is important. The first being that using a website such as gender psychology as a reliable source is only permissible in Wikipedia when the authority of the person who made the website is not in question. The second is that her authority is questionable because her arguments fail in the face of peer reviewed published studies such as smith et al. Which have emperical data which agree's with blanchard's. Her only argument against them is that they did not compare homosexual and non-homosexual transsexuals to natal females. That's not enough to totally invalidate their study's finding that sexual orientational categories have some clinical value. Those are the two reasons why I do not think her work is a reliable source. However if she was to reveal who she was I think her comments could be included and given their due weight.

Wikipedia has numeros policies and arbitration comitte case law which are on my side on this one. If someone wants to appeal to their authority they must let it be known exactly who they are. This way any editor or person just clicking through can check for themselves. (Instead we get from her a Wizzard of Oz like "Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain").

Tell her what motivates this editor is wanting to have a accurate, neutral, and good wikipedia article. Which we know is neural because Dreger in her paper writes of an early version of this as being slanted against Bailey. Which we know is neutral because even as she saw this article as being pro BBL Dr. Cantor I'll bet saw it exactly the other way. As Menacham Begin said a good compromise is one where neither party is happy.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more important for writing the encyclopedia, as opposed to Righting Great Wrongs, is the fact that the response to my question at the Reliable Sources noticeboard was strongly negative, even after our pro-Wyndzen editor tried to "explain things" a bit. See the response here. Given that RSN says no, I think this source has got to go.

In the future, if Wyndzen wants the Truth™ published, then perhaps she'll be able to find someone who is willing to put his or her name and academic reputation on the line for saying it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There was just one response there. Hardly consensus. Further, Dr. Wyndzen does not use the word "truth" - Bailey is the only one who throws around that term (see the John Bancroft reply in ASB). I will re-ask the question about reliability of ASB articles. Jokestress (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It would have been more complete for Jokestress to have written 'just one more response there'. The same conclusion has been now expressed by Hfarmer, WhatamIdoing, and me as well as that just one person.

Just to repeat an earlier point, Wyndzen (and anyone else) always had the opportunity to submit articles for peer review and to have them published anonymously.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Protonk and Vassyana have added their voices to support DreamGuy's earlier response. Three out of three responses from uninvolved editors at WP:RSN agree that the Wyndzen letter does not meet our reliable source standards. We should therefore not use this source, and any information that cannot be supported by other RSs needs to be removed from all the relevant articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)