Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:23, 7 January 2009

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

LGBTQ+ studies Start‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Meaningless sentence / typo

There is a sentence in the second paragraph "Harry Benjamin treated her". It makes no sense. Someone who knows what was going on -- please fix. William Ackerman 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Offensive use of personal pronouns

When talking about or to transsexual people, it is viewed as extremely insulting to not respect the personal pronouns of the acquired gender. Can someone please fix this? Emilykitten 10:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't it inaccurate to refer to a transgender person by their new gender, when describing events that happened before they had their sex-reassignment surgery? In other words, before Lynn Conway had the surgery, shouldn't he be a "he" and then afterwards a "she"? Lynn Conway wasn't born as a woman, after all.User:Anonymous 10:29, 04 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. It might be offensive, disappointing, or whatever to some, but that doesn't matter. It's the truth. A MtF transgender person was a man at one time, and living outwardly as as a man. So for that time in Conway's life, male pronouns are simply more accurate. There's not really any way to argue with that. BuboTitan 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's the biggest political football in the field at the moment. So some -- very likely including Lynn Conway -- say that she was born with a woman's soul, in a man's body and (in any significant or metaphysical sense) really was a woman from birth (or before), although no one else knew it. Others -- sexologist J. Michael Bailey, for example -- will say that Conway was born a boy in a boy's body, probably grew up (through no fault of Conway's) to become an adolescent male who got an erotic charge out of crossdressing, and eventually became an autogynephilic transsexual woman (which he describes as a man who wants a woman's body, not as a woman trapped in a man's body).

Conway is doubtless utterly furious and insulted by such a description, partly because she wants the right to present her experience in her own way, and partly because Bailey's notion is perceived as being politically dangerous for transsexuals. No matter how accurate the idea is (or isn't), or how supportive Bailey himself is for SRS, the fear is that it will be turned into a justification for denying treatment for TS people. (Like this: "Manolo Blahnik shoes aren't medically necessary for a shoe fetishist, and sex reassignment surgery isn't medically necessary for transsexuals.")

I don't think that we are going to find agreement on the correct pronouns for Conway's earlier life. There are people firmly on both sides of the question. I think the article might benefit most by reducing the use of pronouns altogether, and then resolving not to worry about it too much. WhatamIdoing 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dive into the Bailey controversy. That's another issue altogether. But the fact is, earlier in Conway's life, Conway was legally a man, was addressed in public as a man, was living as a man (including being married to a woman and having two kids). I might feel that I'm young at heart, or have a black man's soul, but that doesn't change my legal age or race. Someone keeps reverting this claiming it's "inconsistent with Misplaced Pages style guidelines" without explaining on the discussion page how that could possibly apply here. Pronouns are not earth-shattering things, but I'm very curious to hear their justification. Until then, I'll just keep undoing their reverts. BuboTitan 10:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that you undid more than just pronoun changes? You should do a diff on your latest edit. WhatamIdoing 16:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

True enough. Some of those were revisions by others that got caught up in undoing changes. Once again, I fixed the pronouns. When someone is legally a man, it is proper to refer to him as "he" (especially when living as a man). If legally a woman, "she". I'll keep reverting this until someone shows me a wiki guideline that says anything different. Also changed "realized he was transexual woman", to "believed he was...". Since Conway is not a psychologist, "realized" seems a little assumptive. BuboTitan 11:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So? Legal rules apply only in legal contexts. Misplaced Pages is not one of them. We can use whatever seems good to a consensus of editors, not what seems good to some administrative law judge. WhatamIdoing 14:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then what about social contexts? At the time Lynn Conway was legally a man, he was also living as a man, was recognized as a man by his employer, was addressed as "he" by everyone, was married to a woman, had "male" indicated on his birth certificate & driver's license, etc, etc. In short, societal consensus is that Conway was a man at that time, and therefore, it would be strange for wikipedia to argue against this. For example, if I'm writing about the early life of the Pope or a famous general, I'm not going to label them as "his holiness" or "General" during the time of their youth.BuboTitan 20:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages, so we should follow Misplaced Pages's rules for pronouns, which are the same as the AP Style Guide. It says to use female pronouns in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's strange that wiki's own page on the AP Stylebook doesn't mention that it is the same as wiki's rules (maybe you should change that then). But assuming you are right, since I'm not going to purchase the AP Syle guide for $17.95, please quote us the relevant passage that says we should call men "she" and women "he". BuboTitan 20:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

Identity

"This is perhaps an area where Wikipedians’ flexibility and plurality are an asset, and where we would not want all pages to look exactly alike. Misplaced Pages’s neutral point of view and no original research policies always take precedence. However, here are some nonbinding guidelines that may help: Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is your relevant passage, then it's clear that you either haven't been reading or entirely misunderstand this discussion. I happen to agree with that guideline and am following it to the letter. I am using the terms Lynn Conway is using to refer to herself. She refers to herself as a female now, but in her earlier life, she (and presumably everyone else), referred to her as "he" since at that time she was legally a man and living as a man.BuboTitan 23:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So Kellyprice wants to consistently apply Conway's pronoun of choice to the entire life. BuboTitan wants to use both the pronoun that Conway used to use as well as the pronoun that Conway is currently using. I don't see enough information in the MoS to declare either of these approaches to be inconsistent with style. What needs to happen right now is that the two of you need to knock off this stupid revert war. Go read WP:3RR before you touch that undo button again, okay? WhatamIdoing 04:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Her official biography, which she must have proved, is dispositive as far as I'm concerned. It uses the feminine pronouns when describing her entire life. Calling someone by a gender they don't want to be called is an insult to a living person, and would raise some serious BLP concerns. BLP trumps style guidelines anyway, but most style guidelines outside of Misplaced Pages for serious or professional writing would probably agree. I've seen this usage for another Misplaced Pages article too. At this point given all of the reverts and discussion above I believe BuboTitan is simply being contentious and should be warned not to keep reverting. Three editors -- four including me now -- have restored the feminine pronouns back to the article that this user wanted to alter. If this continues the article will end up being edit protected and/or the user will end up blocked. I see no compromise efforts or common ground on this particular issue. If BuboTitan really wants to challenge issue I would suggest bringing it up as a broader matter of policy, or using one of the available dispute resolution mechanisms.Wikidemo 10:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, check out User:WhatamIdoing's latest edits. They seem to solve the problem by avoiding pronouns entirely. A kludge to be sure, but it works. Good job! Wikidemo 23:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how Conway's biography would be dispositive. Idi Amin might have called himself the King of Scotland, but that doesn't mean it was true. I agree that BLP need to have some leeway, but this is ridiculous. You are "warning" me and threatening me with being blocked, all for simply telling a factual statement. Good luck with that. In early life, Lynn Conway was a man, in legal terms, societal terms, and medical terms. Even Lynn Conway can't argue against this. So what is the problem with the article reflecting that? First duty here should be to the truth. Granted, a few pronouns are not an Earth shattering point, but you are changing the article to reflect something that simply was not true. I plan to bring this up as a matter of wiki policy, but as it is, there is no policy supporting your position, nor do I expect there to be. It would be pretty difficult to insist on addressing people by the titles or statuses they hold currently, when you are talking about events in their past.BuboTitan 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BuboTitan, are there any pronoun usages remaining in the article with which you disagree? Or any other characterizations in this article with which you disagree? -Agyle 06:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in the first couple paragraphs. I object to using "she/her" pronouns when describing events that happened before Conway had the surgery. Conway was a man at that time, and used "he/him", as did everyone else. Seems like common sense to me, but I'm afraid certain wiki users are allowing their personal political activism to get in the way of the facts here, and keep reverting the article ad nauseum. This sentence, for example, just doesn't make any sense: "She had made an earlier transition attempt in the late 1950s that failed due to the medical climate at the time". Well, if the transition failed, then Conway wasn't a "she" at that time, right? This is just one example, but the pronoun "he" is more appropriate here.BuboTitan 12:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

She wasn't a man. She was a woman with a birth defect. She was aware of it, and was able to eventually have it corrected via hrt and surgery. Gender is due to the way the mind is wired, not the physical body. It is disrespectful to refer to her in male terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying "she was a woman with a birth defect" is an opinion, which of course, you are entitled to. But Conway was not aware of it all of his/her life. It's also not entirely accurate to say that the "birth defect" has been corrected, since with current technology, the changes brought by surgery and hrt are largely superficial. Conway will never bear a child as a woman, and would be identified as a man under a hormone or DNA test, for example. But that's another topic. BuboTitan 19:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Being unaware of a birth defect does not mean that it does not exist, however she was aware of her transgender status from childhood. Many women aren't fertile for various reasons; fertility isn't a factor in gender identification. DNA tests are also not definitive. XY doesn't always indicate male or XX female. There are always exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice (talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I found and removed two more unnecessary pronouns. Can we compromise on using female pronouns for the events of the transition, when Conway was identifying internally as a woman, dressing like a woman, taking female hormones, acting like a woman, and so forth? Insisting on the actual hour of genital surgery as the demarcation point seems a little -- intrusive, not to mention gross. WhatamIdoing 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There will be no end to problems associated with picking a demarcation point for a pronoun change when speaking of someone who has had a physiological sex change. Unless we know something about her genetic make-up, unless we have published, accurate, verifiable references from which to make our decision this discusion has no place on this page. KP Botany 05:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If the discussion has no place on this page, then I'm wondering just where does "KP Botany" think it should go? I think the demarcation line of using he/she should be either: 1)At the point the individual legally had their gender changed, or 2) At the point he/she started outwardly living as a member of the opposite sex. Once again, earlier in life, Conway was living outwardly as a man, and therefore should be addressed as one when speaking about events at that time.BuboTitan 16:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In practice, we have something not very far from a signed statement that Lynn's genetic makeup is either XY or XYY (=non-intersexed male): Conway had perfectly normal fertility pre-transition, and fathered two children (both girls). Unusual genotypes have disastrous consequences on fertility. I am aware of no unusual genotypes that would produce both a male phenotype and normal fertility. Unless you can think of something I've forgotten, then I think we can safely assume that we're talking about a genotypically normal male at birth. But I do not understand how this has even the smallest impact on which pronouns to use for the time in which Conway was publicly living as a man. WhatamIdoing 06:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Split references into one reference, one footnote?

It seems to me that the LA Times article serves as a reference for almost the entire article, with the exception of the 2004 Wilson reference cited for a single sentence, and some unsourced information from the last few years. However, they're both listed in a reference section, and the Times article is linked as a footnote, seemingly arbitrarily, to one particular sentence regarding Conway's children. I would suggest creating a Notes section for the reflist template, to contain the 2004 Wilson reference, and changing the Times article from an inline-referenced footnote on a particular sentence to a standard reference in the references section. (My terminology may be off, but hopefully it's understandable.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change, as I noticed the LA Times article link was to a reprint on Conway's personal website, not to the LA Times. The format I used is a very non-standard style, for flexibility in linking and explaining the links. I think technically Conway's reprint should not be linked at all, even though it seems like a reputable reprint, but I'll let others decide how to handle it. -Agyle 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced material

Some recent information doesn't include citations. I casually searched news archives using Google (e.g. like this) and can turn up reliable sources saying she's an activist, and a vocal critic of Bailey's, but not that she was a "prominent spokesperson for the rights of transsexual people" or that she was "a leader of a 2003 campaign against" Bailey. I added the Fact tag to the current sentences to allow time for references to be supplied. If they can't be supplied, the wording could be scaled (e.g. change "prominent spokeperson" to "activist") and any number of reliable sources are available.

I also tagged the recent personal information such as her 2006 marriage as unsourced. I didn't check the external link to her personal website, as it's not listed as a reference. I'm not disputing that she did get married, just indicating that a reliable source is needed to corroborate the fact. -Agyle 03:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP and controversy

Re revert of MarionTheLibrarian's edits, Lynn Conway's page on the controversy makes it clear that Dreger and the journal and editor that published her work are principals in the controversy. According to WP:BLP, "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement," and "Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources." If you want to add something from the sources who are involved in a dispute with Conway, it needs to be done carefully, encyclopedically, with attribution to who has express what, not via weasel words with a footnote. The obvious strong POV that colors all of MarionTheLibrarian's edits here and in other articles should really disqaulify this editor from adding such interpretations of controversial material to this BLP. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Plan for after protection expires

Since the page has been protected after our little edit war, we should discuss how to process after the protection expires. At present, the page Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy is not even linked here, and that's where the main discussion of the contentious issues is. Would it be helpful to use a main link or something to there, rather than trying to represent that contentious topic here in the bio (BLP would still apply there, of course). Other suggestions for how to avoid problems we've seen in recent days here? Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, our impass appears to be whether, to what extent, and how Dreger's recent analysis of the controvery(ies) should be included on Conway's page. From the point of view of providing readers with a complete encyclopedic entry, the question is, 'Should readers be made aware of the existence of her history' or (alternatively phrased), 'If a person reads a page about Conway that does not mention Dreger and discovers the Dreger history through google (for example), will the person believe that the Conway page is incomplete?'

It is my belief that a Conway page that does not mention Dreger's history would be incomplete (likely leading future readers to add Dreger's history to it). When the Dreger article was scheduled to appear in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the editor (Zucker) called for an open commentary, so that anyone who wanted could have their comments published along with Dreger's in the very same issue of the journal. Many people, both those agreeing and those disagreeing with Dreger, submitted comments, and all were printed. Because your previous edits didn't mention the commentaries and because commentaries came online only a few days ago, I assume you haven't read them yet. (If you do not have access to a university or medical library, I would be happy to email the commentaries to you.)

I suggest that, instead of referencing only the Dreger article itself (which is what I had been doing), we reference the entire issue of the Archives >including< all the commentaries. That way, readers are alerted to Dreger's summary >and< the criticisms of the history. I am thinking of something along the lines of:

A history of the controversy was published by Alice Dreger, an historian an intersex activist, in which she concluded that Conway coordinated a smear campaign against Bailey. That history, along with commentaries both agreeing and disagreeing with that allegation, appears in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

That makes the entry complete without the entry declaring that Dreger's conclusion is correct, leaving the final opinion to the interested reader.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that Conway's involvement in this controversy be mentioned and all sides made accessible. The easiest way to do this is with a brief summary and link to the full article. As for using the "archives" as source for more info, that's problematic, since, at least as Conway describes the controversy, the archives is at the center of the cabal, with its editor Zucker being deep in the argument (he has been a Blanchard co-author, so that seems plausible); and Dreger represented one side of the controversy on an NPR radio program, so doesn't seem like she can be considered a neutral analyst/historian as she and the archives want to portray her; using the achives to refer to Dreger as "scholars" is where your POV shows too much; it's OK to have a POV, but not OK for it to show up so much in articles you edit. You are correct that I was not aware of and have not read the commentaries; I've read very little on this topic, and have no expertise or insight to offer; but I can see POV pushing clearly enough without that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly appreciate that I would seem to have an agenda—after all, on this and on related issues everyone does appear to have one. I can only reiterate that my interest is in completeness; any bias I seem to have for one side is because there is a dearth of information about only one side. If you can think of a way for me to demonstrate to you that any opinion I have is based on and only on the available information, I will happily volunteer for the test. Otherwise, we will have to agree to disagree.

Although I am indeed new to wiki, you can see over the past few days that I am able and willing to provide well-sourced information on a range of topics in sexuality. I have substantial...er, library resources, to contribute whereas most editors rely on information already available on the web.

As for the neutrality of Dreger/Archives/Conway, that's an odd situation. Any perusal of Conway's or Andrea James' sites will show that they have made accusations of everyone who has ever said a negative thing about their side or a positive thing about Bailey's. They have long written that they believe there exists a conspiracy of well-placed transphobic academics. Over time, they have added to that list anyone (including other openly transsexual folk) who does not agree with them. The difficulty now is that there exists no one remaining to be called neutral at the standard you seem to be asking for. People Conway agrees with are called "recognized experts" on her site, and people she disagrees with are called "discredited" (despite any evidence in either direction). When Dreger began her history (in which she included her initial opinions), she was as neutral as a person can be shown to be; it was only because of her conclusions that Conway/James and others started going after her, forcing Dreger to mount a defence, making it >seem< like she could not have been neutral to begin with. In her history, Dreger does indeed find fault with some of Bailey's behaviors, and on her website, Dreger finds fault with Zucker. If that doesn't denote someone capable of seeing the grey where everyone else is casting characters in black or white, I don't know what would.

That said, I think we have what the only realistic solution is. Yes?—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not an unusual situation to find people completely polarized over an issue. I am not suggesting that Conway is being neutral or objective, either. But some of your edits are very misleading with things like "scholars say" supported by a Dreger article in the archives. I find it amazing that you are claiming to not have an agenda in this yourself, based on the tone of your edits, but maybe... Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I did a lot of work on the career section, refs, etc., which was large undone by Andrea Parton's edit, probably due to an improperly handle edit conflict. I've tried to repair it, incorporating what she added about activism, and the new section heads, but I may have missed something, so take a look. This also involved taking out MarionTheLibrarian's latest, which I consider as bogus anyway, since Marion and the author she likes to quote are both obviously very biased participants in the controversy they describe; I've withdrawn from editing the BBL controversy page because it is hopelessly partisan, but there's no reason to let that overflow into this bio. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What you believe to be biased is irrelevant. The information in my edits fit all WP policies on verifiability, reliable sources, and bio's of living person. You also (at least tacitly) agreed to those changes in our prior discussion, in which I participated in good faith.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about a tacit agreement. My suggestion was to keep the controversial statements by principals in the controversy on the controversy page, rather than have Conway's enemies adding such stuff to her bio. It is remarkable to me that you are unable to admit that you too are a participant in, or a spokesperson for, this attack on Conway by the "archives" side of the dispute. I am not taking sides like you are, justing trying to keep the principles in the dispute from dumping on the bio pages, which should be more about the actual person, their accomplishments, and what they're known for, as represented by neutral third-party sources, not by participants like Dreger and you. I see you have a new account now, as BarbaraSue, doing more of the same. Please just stop. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly Dicklyon does not want Dreger's piece on here. I understand why an advocate for Conway would feel this way. The assertion that Dreger is "biased" is unfounded. Dreger makes it very clear in her paper that going into it she expected to find that Bailey was not blameless. She was an acquaintance of Conway's, and they had not been unfriendly before Dreger asked for Conway's cooperation. Furthermore, the solution that Dicklyon and Marion apparently agreed to (but which Dicklyon is not adhering to) refers any interested person to both Dreger's piece and to the commentaries, many of which were negative.BarbaraSue (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What agreement are you referring to? Maybe I'm going senile, so I need a reminder. And this claim of unbiased coming from you certainly carries no weight, given your edit pattern that's all about painting one side white and the other black. Dicklyon (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And I am not BarbaraSue. The check-users page is at your disposal.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is not. And the statement by BarbaraSue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that an admin can verify that he is not you is also not true. It is clear that you are careful enough not to use the same IP address, but unless you both let us know who you are, we have no way to know. But it doesn't really matter. As long as both of you exhibit the same editing pattern, pushing the POV of the editors and authors of the archives who have a beef with Conway and others, I might as well think of you as one and the same. Dicklyon (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've reprotected the article for 30 days due to continued edit warring after the last protection ended. Work this out using the dispute resolution process. Dreadstar † 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried the WP:RfC, but didn't get any comments. I'm up for mediation. Anyone else? Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Dick, I might have replied to your RfC if it had been somewhat more specifically phrased. As it stands, it seemed more like a "request to have several other editors put a lot of time and effort into sorting this out," and while these pages are on my usual watchlist, I'm not willing to put much more than ten minutes a week into them. If you can identify a specific, small, separable issue, then you might get a better response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The specific issue is whether the "history" by Dreger, published in Zucker's Archives of Sexual Behavior, can be treated as if it is a neutral source. I say cite the NYT, and summarize the controversy with points supported by that more neutral source, but don't site the partisan material by the cabal who have taken one side in a big messy controversy; citing that here in a way that represents it as a neutral source is the main tactic of MarionTheLibrarian and now her meat puppet BarbaraSue, here and in related articles such as BBL controversy. I have no problem referring to the controversy; just problem with letting spokespersons against Conway have their POV presented here as neutral; if you don't know that Dreger is a spokesperson against Conway, check her blogs, such as this radio show transcript where Dreger teams with the Bailey to blast Conway. Dreger has been blasted for bypassing peer review of her "history", publishing it through the archives edited by Bailey's buddy Zucker. In summary, can we enforce WP:BLP here? Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolving May, 2008 edit war

Marion, your edits have gone beyond just very POV. You're even distorting the contents of sources like NYT now. Please consider how wikipedia works. In the long run, your efforts to push a point of view will come to nothing. There's no sense make a lot of work for everyone in the process. Slow down, do some more neutral editing, learn the process, and contribute, instead of disrupting by pushing a narrow point of view in an area that you are obviously much too close to. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lynn Conway. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dreadstar † 07:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reading the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policy and all the related Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources policies and guidelines. I've protected Lynn Conway and Andrea James to stop the edit warring. Please work it out and find consensus with the other editors on the article's talk pages. Dreadstar † 07:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am hoping you can provide some input to prevent a repeated edit war. Last week, you (correctly) protected the Lynn Conway page, which was devolving into an edit war between me and user:Dicklyon. He and I discussed the issue on the talk page and came to an agreement on how best to resolve the situation. The protection expired, and I edited the page in the manner to which Dicklyon and I agreed. However, he has now backed out of that agreement/consensus and is reverting everything that any other editor changes on that page. Any guidance or intervention would be greatly appreciated.

Help me, Dreadstar-Kenobi. You're my only hope.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to pursue the steps in the dispute resolution process, such as getting a third opinion, starting a request for comment or through formal mediation. Dreadstar † 04:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A useful step would also be to respond to my question when I asked what agreement you are referring to. Anyway, on the talk page I mentioned that I'm up for mediation; if you are, too, say so, and we can set it up (formal or informal). It's a step that can only be undertaken when the interested parties all agree. Read about it and get back to us. BarbaraSue, you, too. Dicklyon (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am entirely amendable to mediation. BarbaraSue will have to speak for herself. The conversation leading to what I believed to be an agreement was:

• At 20:30, 25 May 2008, I wrote "I suggest that, instead of referencing only the Dreger article itself (which is what I had been doing), we reference the entire issue of the Archives >including< all the commentaries." I also suggested this text:

A history of the controversy was published by Alice Dreger, an historian an intersex activist, in which she concluded that Conway coordinated a smear campaign against Bailey. That history, along with commentaries both agreeing and disagreeing with that allegation, appears in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

• At 20:40, 25 May 2008, Dicklyon wrote "I agree with you that Conway's involvement in this controversy be mentioned and all sides made accessible. The easiest way to do this is with a brief summary and link to the full article.", which is just what my suggested text did.

• In order to double-check that we were indeed agreed, at 21:37, 25 May 2008, I wrote "I think we have what the only realistic solution is. Yes?"

• At 23:29, 25 May 2008, Dicklyon responded by reiterating why he believed I was biased, but did not address my text. Because silence counts as assent and because Dicklyon did not provide any other suggestions, I left it at that.

When the protection expired, I put that text into the Conway page (including a summary and a link to the entire article) and put a note on Dicklyon's talk page indicating I had done so However, Dicklyon removed the text we discussed and replaced it with his own text that he had not previously shared, that we did not discuss, and did not provide the link to the full article.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It is regrettable that I was not more explicit in my disagreement in this edit, or that you interpreted your edit that you represented as consensus as doing something like I suggested. But thanks for pointing out what you were referring to. I was not silent in reaction; rather, I fixed it with a main link like I had proposed and asked you what you were referring to. The "brief summary" that you included ("A history of the controversy was published by Alice Dreger, an historian and intersex activist, in which Dreger concluded that Conway coordinated a smear campaign against Bailey; that history, along with commentaries both agreeing and disagreeing with that allegation, appears in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior.") is completely one-sided, and consistent all of your other POV-pushing edits, especially since you know that Dreger has gone public one side of the debate, and the editor of the archives, Zucker is also a proponent of that side. You are being quite disingenuous here. Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Experts have every right to hold and express opinions on the subjects in which they have expertise. Both Dreger and Zucker have long histories of publishing in high quality professional outlets in the relevant areas. Whether you think that any given expert has a bias for a particular view is irrelevant. When opinions and debates reach the level of being printed in high quality outlets, such as the Archives and the NYTimes, they meet all the requirements for inclusion in WP. Whether you think that a peer reviewed journal should be disqualified is irrelevant.

Whether I misinterpreted your words/silence or whether you entered the discussion in bad faith is a judgment that only external readers can make.

I am ready to begin the mediation process when you are.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to judge whether the Archives of Sexual Behavior is a "high quality" outlet; this controversy is my only exposure to it, and from what I see, I would have to conclude not. Certainly, it is not in the same camp with the New York Times. As you know, its editor Kenneth Zucker has extreme positions on issues such as "Gender Identity Disorder" that a priori put him at odds with much of the TS community. From this base, neutral commentary can not come. So when you represent their side of the controversy, it needs to be as a side, not as a neutral. Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it incredible that Dicklyon insists that the editor of the preeminent sexology journal (Zucker) and the eminent historian (Dreger) were biased, prior to findings. There is no evidence of this, and if Dreger concluded (and Zucker published) results unfavorable to Conway, the most parsimonious explanation is that she did so because said results are correct. Conway's role in this controversy is very important to her career, and it generated both the New York Times article and entire issue of the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior. MarionTheLibrarian has tried to refer both to Dreger's target article and to the critiques of that article. That seems fair.BarbaraSue (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And I find it incredible that you're so quick to respond here; why is MarionTheLibrarian's talk page on your watch list, if you've never edited here? Or did someone email you about it (since I don't see any communication via your talk page)? You've been very careful, you two, to abide by the letter of the rules when you can, without respecting the spirit of cooperative NPOV wikipedia editing and things like BLP. As to Zucker and Dreger being "eminent", that's within their own domain/cabal, which you are a part of. Dreger has gone public on NPR, with Bailey, to blast Conway and others; having joined the debate, on the side of the sexology cabal, that being the only place, probably, that would publish such a one-sided "history", she has given up the possibility of being taken seriously as a neutral commentator. That's why I keep saying to reference the New York Times article instead of Dreger if you want to neutrally represent the controversy via reliable and unbiased sources. Every one of your edits is about making Conway and McClosky on the one side look worse, and the "sexologists" on the other side look better; your pretence at NPOV is way too feeble; can you at least try harder not to look so biased? Dicklyon (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

By Dicklyons logic, an article about the Holocaust is biased if it makes the Nazis look worse than the Jews. Give support for the idea that Dreger is "biased" rather than reporting what happened. MarionTheLibrarian has repeatedly tried to refer to both the Dreger target article and the commentaries on the article, some of which are critical of Dreger.BarbaraSue (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for twisting my logic into nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

One interpretation of Godwin's law - the first person in a debate to resort to Nazi comparisons "automatically loses" said debate. Xmoogle (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

On Apr 21, 2003, Lynn Conway wrote that TMWWBQ "will in time be viewed as very analogous to the Nazi propaganda films about Jews in WWII."

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Sounds good to me. Conway loses that debate. And BarbaraSue loses this one. Dicklyon (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have finished reading the mediation rules. Before formal mediation can begin, less formal methods need to be attempted. The third opinion option is meant for disagreements between only two people. The request for comment is unlikely to garner comments from anyone not already watching the Conway page. So, the 'mediation cabal' appears the most appropriate (to me). To start that process, the Medcab-request has to be added to the talk page of the relevant topic. So, I am relocating the above conversation to the Conway talk page, and adding that template to it.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree to this plan. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Archives of sexual behavior

I was asked for an opinion just of the standing of this journal: In the Web of Science Journal citation Reports, Archives of Sexual Behavior, published by Springer, one of the two leading commercial scientific publishers, ranks 15th out of the 86 journals in the field of clinical psychology with an impact factor of 2.198. It therefore is beyond much question a high ranking clinical psychology journal, as judged by clinical psychologists. There does not seem to be any specialty journal in the subject that has a higher ranking or reputation; the next ranking specialized journal, Journal of Sex Research has an impact factor of 1.149. This is referring to the journal in general; the quality of individual articles in it will of course vary. I suppose its obvious that there are many schools of though in psychology, and people in one school do not necessarily think highly of those from other scholarly traditions. But I see no reason not to quote it, even in a context of BLP, I consider it as highly reliable a source as you will get in this subject. Further, I think Marion's wording for the controversy seems reasonably objective. DGG (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. I appreciate the details you've provided. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request has been made to the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this article.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved.

I made some minor edits at the request, as I felt that it misrepresented the core of the issue substantially. Please let me know if you disagree. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I made more explicit how neutrality and appropriateness (for lack of a better word) are related. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. We still need approval of the other participants before mediation can commence. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lynn Conway Mediation

I've accepted the 2008-06-01 Lynn Conway mediation case. Please feel free to visit the page and comment there. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So wasn't there an outcome of this mediation? The current page does not reflect that.ProudAGP (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The outcome was that user:Dicklyon and I agreed not to edit the controversial pages: The Man Who Would Be Queen or Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence Theory Controversy, nor to edit the controversy-section of related WP pages. You and everyone else, however, are free to edit as you like; any interference from Dicklyon or me will be limited to the talk pages.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to update the section on Conway's role in the controversy regarding Bailey's book. I do not believe that any of the proposals by Dicklyon or Marionthelibrarian are sufficiently detailed. Conway leads her hugely popular website with a large section attacking Bailey, Dreger, and Zucker. It hardly seems undue weight to explain what the controversy is about, including both sides, rather than merely mentioning that there is a controversy.ProudAGP (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Anybody home?

Is there anybody neutral watching this article? User:MarionTheLibrarian (James Cantor) and I had an agreement to limit the BBL controversy stuff to a brief mention and a link to the relevant article, and then agreed to not engage in further editing that section. Now User:ProudAGP has taken Cantor's place as the pusher of the one side of the controversy, re-introducing a lot of negative POV into this bio. I reverted the obvious hack, and will have to do so again if nobody else is willing to take a sensible position and protect this article from WP:BLP violations. It is simply irresponsible to introduce Dreger's interpretation of these events without balancing with the other side, and this is not the best place to do it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Until such time as somebody shows up here to control the wild BLP violations of User:ProudAGP, I'll just revert its edits back to the original compromise state. Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're objecting to. Is this just a WP:DUE issue, or is there some specific complaint? (Note that I've only read the most recent version.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a combination of balance and weight. If we're going to say more here about the controversy, it will need to be better balanced, and there's nobody here to balance ProudAGP's biased viewpoint (he/she is apparently a proud autogynephile, and therefore has a viewpoint rather more on the Bailey side than on the Conway side, as is clear from its recent edits here and elsewhere). Furthermore, Cantor and I had an agreement in principle to keep the section small and link to the page about the controversy; we never converged on the exact wording details, but to now have one biased editor pouring in so much undue weight with somewhat biased viewpoint pretty much tears up the basis for our agreement. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well this seems like a problem. I have to agree with you that this section of the article needs more neutrality, but maybe the section shouldn't be too short. And if ProudAGP is a "proud autogynephile", then they need to remember that just because they fit the BBL theory, not every trans woman does, and that such an assumption would be horribly unencyclopedic, and could lead to some serious POV problems in their edits. However, not having heard this firsthand from ProudAGP, I shall make no assumptions about their gender/surgical status/psych diagnosis or whatever. Xmoogle (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent minor edits, which at least give it a bit of balance. The phrase "and all supporters of Blanchard's model" is not supportable in sources, I think, so should be removed. And there's an extra period after a ref. Other than that, it's not too bad, but more weight than I thought we had converged on. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually hadn't noticed that part, and yes, the phrase is both problematic and redundant - if Lynn Conway disagrees with Blanchard's model, then it logically follows that she disagrees with others who also follow that model, therefore the phrase is redundant regardless of it's accuracy. I'm not necessarily 100% happy with the version I created, however I was attempting to reach a suitable compromise, therefore my first edit has mostly been a cautious nudge. I shall reread, and make some minor changes, to at least fix the errors you have pointed out. I appreciate your input in this matter, and would also appreciate the input of the others involved in this issue, though they currently seem to be more focused on criticising you than on discussing the article itself. To the two users who seem to have a major problem with Dickylon's version (without naming any names, as I'm sure you two know who you are and I'm not trying to cause more conflict or point fingers), it's not accurate to continue blaming the entire problem on Dickylon as the alternate version also has POV problems. A better use of your energy and time would be to talk here about finding a consensus and a version that we can all agree is NPOV and accurate. Xmoogle (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. One thing that I've noticed with these continual reversions back and forth is that there's two versions of the first sentence:

• "Since outing herself, Conway has been a transgender rights activist."

and

• "Since outing herself, Conway has worked to protect and expand the rights of transgender people."

Now, it may just be that this sentence has been an unnoticed part of these edit conflicts, but just in case the wording does matter here, I'm asking about it. To me, they both essentially say the same thing - though the second version seems a little more verbose and descriptive, hence it's the version I left in in my edits. So, does anyone actually have any objections to either version of that sentence? I'm actually going to alter it to "rights of transgendered people", since that seems grammatically correct to me, though I'd still like to know if anyone has any issues either way with that sentence. Xmoogle (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy to discuss such issues on the talk page, and I believe it is a mischaracterization to imply that 'everyone is to blame' when only Dicklyon is repeatedly hitting the revert button and declaring himself the arbitor of who and what is biased and what may and may not stay on the page. There is a reason that he, and only he, has been repeatedly blocked for edit warring. To ignore that is to leave an elephant in the room. If ProudAGP and I can (and have) discussed pages with Jokestress without a single edit war, we can discuss pages with anyone...well, almost anyone.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, James, you miss my point. I'm saying that blame and pointing fingers is *irrelevant*, a stress causing waste of emotional energy, and something that will not get matters resolved. There *are* POV issues with this section currently, and Dickylon is not the only one to hold this opinion, as I'm trying to edit the section to balance it better as well. What I was saying is that this continual bickering about who's in the right and who's in the wrong entirely fails to address the main issue - fixing the problems with the article - and that while this bickering is not valuable contribution, an actual mature, grown-up discussion *would* be valuable. Is that any more clear? Xmoogle (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your point is entirely clear to me; I merely disagree with it. My opinion is that it is the treatment of symptoms that wastes time when one ignores the actual disease.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Treating someone disagreeing with you as a "disease"? While a part of me is unfortunately tempted to make a comment regarding the typical attitude towards criticism of Clarke Institute doctors, I'm going to try my best to be civil here and assume good faith. After all, perhaps you were referring to the conflict itself as a "disease". If so, the only rational way to "treat" said "disease" is for us to discuss and agree upon what this page should say. It's a talk page for a wikipedia article - a place to discuss improving the article, not a place to point fingers and have playground arguments about who "started it". We all seem to have a problem agreeing on the correct way to neutrally portray this situation, and unless we can deal with that problem like adults, it's not going to get fixed in a way that's beneficial to the article. Other than that, I question the wisdom of applying your psychologist's habits to Misplaced Pages editing, or at least the wisdom of using such language (disease, symptoms, etc) in these discussions... you may inadvertantly give the impression that you believe our disagreements with you are rooted in childhood trauma :) More seriously, such language is rather ambiguous, and can be taken in many unfortunate ways. Xmoogle (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if my intent was not clear: My intended analogy was that edit-warring was a symptom of Dicklyon's participation. (And my behavior is my own, not that of my colleagues. To ascribe the behavior of an individual to an entire group is the very meaning of prejudice.) Finally, for the record, I do not work in the gender clinic. It's in a separate department...although I have filled in for someone who called in sick.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 18:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As an example, the phrase "Most fundamentalist Christians are anti-homosexual" would be ascribing behaviour to an entire group, but not prejudice, as the statement is factually correct. As for you personally, I do not have the highest opinion of the Clarke Institute's current high-level staff, and if I'm completely honest, while I try not to judge people on their associates the behaviour I've seen from you makes me very wary of you. However, this is not a relevant discussion for this talk page, and while I'd be quite happy to point out gaping logical holes in the theory your Institute promotes in another medium (such as email, instant messenger, etc), it would not be appropriate for here. Now, Dicklyon may have gone about things the wrong way, but I do personally believe that he had good intentions - I think he truly believes that part of the intended agreement was that that short version of the controversy section was intended to remain. From reading through it myself, that is certainly what is said, that the page here should only have a brief overview of the controversy and link to the main relevant pages. I do not believe that Dicklyon is intentionally causing edit wars, but attempting to do his best on what was a rather tricky situation. And since both of you, *and* ProudAGP, have now been told not to edit this section, I'm trying to edit the section in a way that's fair to neutrality and not biased towards either side, no matter what my opinions on the actual issues are. So, James, do you actually have any suggestions regarding the section's contents, or will you make comments about further edits I may make to make the section briefer? As I'd really prefer to do this with input from both sides. Xmoogle (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon's wild accusations of BLP violations

Where to start.... First of all, there have been no "BLP violations." The edit that I made on the Conway page (which will be restored shortly) is accurate and fair. Dicklyon clearly has the goal of keeping any mention of the Bailey controversy to a minimum. (Those familiar with the facts of that case will understand why Dicklyon, Conway's friend and unofficial Misplaced Pages editor, wish to keep it off.) Dicklyon and Marionthelibrarion never reached an agreement about the precise wording of an edit, and even if they had, it would not bind WP editors forever. (If I am wrong, please refer me to the WP rule that says otherwise.) The administrator who concluded that Conway is primarily known for her engineering contributions was mistaken, I think. Google Conway and her second hit is her transsexualism page. I think that a good analogy is the page of William Shockley. Much more distinguished scientifically than Conway (he did win a Nobel Prize), he still has a not-small section of his page devoted to his late life controversy, in his case speculating about race differences in intelligence. Conway has been accused of worse, in my opinion (e.g., making up false charges against another scientist in order to silence him). Note that my edits on Conway's page stop far short of taking a side on this issue.ProudAGP (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And unless you can cite that Dickylon is "Conway's friend and unofficial Misplaced Pages editor", you epically fail the "assume good faith" guideline. You know, maybe you two should try talking *to* each other, not *at* each other, this is how really dumb arguments get started here. Xmoogle (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon has never hid his relationship with Conway. If you google their names, you will find him mentioned on Conway's site, and Dicklyon acknowledged such the same here on WP. I can track down the diff's, if you like. Whether Dick's claims to revert on the Conway page what he believes to be BLP violations constitute being an 'unofficial WP editor' is open for interpretation.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're missing my main point - you're both talking about each other on this talk page, but not talking to each other to try and resolve this, instead you're getting into an edit war. Edit wars are bad, as is lack of communication. Xmoogle (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that wasn't the original person replying, nevermind. Xmoogle (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem: we have only one editor, with a bias professed right in its handle "ProudAGP", who is editing this section, since James Cantor (another highly involved and highly biased person) and I have agreed to leave it alone. That can't work. It's better to leave the section small, with link to the controversy, than to fill up the bio with biased criticisms. BLP violations are negative or critical statements not well supported by reliable refs. Such things as "Conway was a principal figure...", "Some feel that Conway's investigation was seriously biased..." for example. And the understated "Dreger's article was published alongside 23 commentaries, including some critical of Dreger" when in fact a large majority were critical of Dreger. Until another editor steps forward to balance ProudAGP, there is really no choice but to back out this biased editor's changes. I'll hold off a day or two, and see if help arrives; if not, I'll back it out again. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, here's the problem: We have only one editor, Dicklyon (who has previously worked for Lynn Conway), who has been blocked three times for edit warring (including on this page), started yet a fourth edit war (this time with ProudAGP), and not only violated his mediated agreement with James Cantor not to touch the controversy section of this page, but also is declaring his intent to do so once again despite being told by an admin (DGG) that he should not be doing any such thing. Throughout these discussions, edit wars have occurred when and only when Dicklyon was involved: Despite having heated conversations, there have been no edit wars among ProudAGP, James Cantor, Jokestress, Andrea Parton, Hfarmer, nor any of the other people who edit the trans and related pages (at least, not in the few months I have been on wiki). Personally, I do not believe it is difficult to identify the common denominator among the edit wars. For reference, here is the agreement that Dicklyon and I made with each other not to edit the controversy section of the Conway page , but which Dicklyon has declared he will simply violate as he sees fit. If anyone believes that Dicklyon, and not the result of this talk page, should be deciding which of ProudAGP's (or anyone else's) edits should remain, please raise your hand.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 13:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And if anyone believes Cantor's characterization of the history of these controversies, please raise your hand, too. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Condensing the controversy section

Alright, in an attempt to separate discussions of edit wars and who should/shouldn't be editing this section from discussions of how this article should be written, I've created a new talk page section here to discuss my attempts to shorten this section, since I agree with DDG's statement that "The main article on the controversy is Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy. that's where to put the details. The others should refer to it, instead of repeating it". So, the first *major* edit I'm going to make is this - removing "Northwestern University conducted an investigation into some of these accusations, and while the university did not release the results of that investigation, their Vice President for Research stated "The allegations of scientific misconduct made against Professor J. Michael Bailey do not fall under the federal definition of scientific misconduct."" and replacing it with "These accusations were investigated by Northwestern University, however, no official action was taken against Bailey". This shortens things significantly, and I believe is still accurate and detailed enough for an overview. If anyone has suggestions or objections to my edits, I'd love to hear them. Xmoogle (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, it is very appreciated. Let me see if I can clean up things a bit further. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG and Xmoogle and believe the BBL controversy page is the place to flesh out all details of the issue, rather than rehashing things here. I went a bit further than Xmoogle and shortened the section. My edit reflects the section prior to ProudAGP's edits, plus a sentence that directs the reader right to the BBL controversy if they wish to learn more. Any future edits to the controversy section really, really, really should be discussed here on the talk page and gain some form of consensus before any inclusion into the article. BrownHornet21 (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me also say I don't have a problem with this section modified by Xmoogle (and did a very good job with it): "Conway began an investigation that eventuated in a number of accusations against Bailey, both scientific and ethical. These accusations were investigated by Northwestern University, however, no official action was taken against Bailey by the university."

...but think that, since it is a "post-mediation" addition, it needs to be discussed and agreed upon here prior to inclusion in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHornet21 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 8th August, 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair and sensible. Anyone else have anything to say about this? Xmoogle (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The revision as it currently stands on the page is acceptable to me with the stipulation I will get to in a moment. Please do not change it along the lines suggested above, adding reference to Conway's accusations to Bailey without also referring to the very well supported allegations by Dreger that Conway's accusations were bogus. (These were supported by a lengthy peer-reviewed article in sexology's best journal and a New York Times article.) It is also not known whether any official action was taken against Bailey. Seriouisly, the version being discussed is much worse than what is now on the page. So please do not use it.

The stipulation I have is that it is not fair to have such a cursory treatment of this controversy on Conway's page while Bailey's page has a lengthy one. I therefore will lobby to change Bailey's page along the same lines. Furthermore (not a stipulation but an intention), I disagree that the discussion belongs on the BBL controversy page. That page is awful, and for reasons I will delineate when I propose various changes, it should not exist. The relevant controversy history is already on The Man Who Would Be Queen page. Since the present version links there, it is fine even if I am successful getting the controversy page deleted.ProudAGP (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I agree that if Bailey's page also has BLP violations, then Bailey's page needs to be addressed. At any rate, "Two wrongs make a right" shouldn't be the ultimate solution. BrownHornet21 (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree also with ProudAGP's intention to shorten the discussion on the Bailey page and get rid of the BBL controversy page, which is a wasteland. The controversy is best covered in one place, and The Man Who Would Be Queen is probably the best place. However, it will be important to make sure that ProudAGP is not doing it alone, due to a certain professed POV that conflicts with that other others. Dicklyon (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See? Now that we're all talking in a civilised fashion, things are getting fixed. Anyway, it does seem consistent that The Man Who Would Be Queen should be the place for the full discussion of the controversy, from both sides, and that both this page and Bailey's should only have a brief outline of things. Although I must ask ProudAGP something - was Dreger's article really "supported" by the sexology journal (which to say was the best would be POV), or merely published? Given that it was published alongside many critical commentaries, I'd personally believe the latter to be true. Regarding "no official action", what I'd shortened it to was "no official action was taken against Bailey by the university", which seemed an accurate way to summarise both "Northwestern University conducted an investigation ... and while the university did not release the results of that investigation, (they) said, "The allegations of scientific misconduct made against Professor J. Michael Bailey do not fall under the federal definition of scientific misconduct."", and that other pages I've read about this issue state that while Bailey retired/resigned, both he and the university denied that said retirement/resignation was due to this controversy. Now maybe there was some lesser action taken against him, I don't know, but since that part has been removed from this page anyway, it's really only a concern on the main page about the controversy. As for the BBL controversy page, I do believe that due to how much controversy exists on that topic, it does need to be covered - either in the main BBL theory article, or if it should get too long, summarised there and split off into it's own page (which appears to be how it's handled right now). The BBL controversy page as it stands now, however, is not really written in the best way and it would take major cleanup (probably of the "blank the page and start again" variety) to make it encyclopedic. Depending on how much content there is truly relevant, it may be able to simply go in a controversy section of the BBL theory page. Other than that, I can't see any other problems except for the one in the discussion below, but I'll reply to that there :) Xmoogle (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

One minor quibble: the phrase "since outing herself" seems rather loaded, as if this were an active or publicity-seeking event; in reality, she came out quietly, gradually, to various levels of friends and colleagues over time. The phrase "since coming out" might reflect this subtle difference better. Dicklyon (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I also dislike "since outing herself." Personally, I find "coming out" and its cognates to be too informal for an encyclopedia. A more professional expression would be appropriate, such as "since openly acknowledging..." or "since disclosing her transexuality..."
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that "since coming out" is better. It doesn't seem too informal to me, and I feel the suggested alternatives above don't feel right to me. They seem unwieldy, "openly acknowledging" almost makes it sound as if she'd been denying it before, and "since disclosing her transsexualism" makes me think "disclosing to who?". Perhaps some other alternative exists? Xmoogle (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Tone

Recent edits have introduced at least one sort of flowery phrase, "While struggling with life in a male role..." Doesn't "While living as a man" or "Before transitioning from male to female" or some other plainer phrase sound more, well, encyclopedic? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounding more encyclopedic wasn't my goal there. I was trying to convey something of the story as I read it in the cited source. Take a look, and then we can discuss it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounding encyclopedic is necessary: See WP:TONE. Misplaced Pages does not want to reproduce the style of The Los Angeles Times Magazine, or any other magazine, in its articles.

I still object to this phrase. I also think that the next sentence is remarkably strange: Conway "lost access to the woman's children". Which woman? Conway's ex-wife's children? Were they somehow not Conway's children? Don't you think we could admit here that all mammalian offspring technically have two parents, no matter what the courts say about legal custody issues? I think it might be better to say something like "Conway was denied custody of their children." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you don't like about the tone. The source makes it clear that life in the male role was a struggle; can you phrase it better? And to say that she was denied custody would not be supportable, since she never sought custody. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes in the direction you suggest. The bit about struggling with life in the male role is still the best I've come up with to reflect the contents of the source (I'm not trying to duplicate it's tone, but to reflect the bare bones of the information). Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that the aspect of struggle was perfectly obvious to the typical reader without mentioning it. Nobody volunteers for transsexuality, especially not forty or fifty years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

True, it's obvious and sourced, so what was the issue again? Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I take it back: it's not at all obvious. I knew she was transsexual for several years before that article came out. Before reading it, I might have thought it perfectly sensible to say "while living as a man"; but after reading it, I can't really accept that terminology. She never really "lived as a man"; rather, as the article points out, the role of husband and father was a tremendous struggle, because she was at the same time always thinking of herself as a woman, but was having to live in the male role. Please give it a read, and let me know if you come up with a better way to express this. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that if you didn't know that every transsexual struggles with gender roles and society's expectations, then we should not assume that the average reader will, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Transgender activism and controversy

Under #Transgender activism and controversy, if the single-quoted half-sentence is a direct quotation, then it needs double quote marks and an inline ref at the end.

The external link visible at "prevalence of transsexualism" needs to be removed, as external links should not be visible in an article per WP:EL#Important points to remember #3. (The usual solution is to turn it into a ref.)

Finally, I think that feud is a reasonably accurate description of the standing enmity, feelings of being attacked, guilt by association, and so forth affecting the various factions (do click the link and read at least the lead to Feud), and I don't think that "academic debate" is even close to adequately descriptive. For one thing, it implies that Conway has the same academic credentials in the relevant field, since an academic debate is most often a debate among peers -- not a long-running argument between an "expert" or "professional" in the field, and a person in an entirely unrelated field that feels personally disparaged by the "expert opinion". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The quote is from Conway's home page and is widely quoted according to a quick search; it might have been picked up at any number of places, but should probably be attributed to her home page and hence as her own self-characterization.

I would recommend also fixing the ref/punct order. Put end punctuation (comma or period) first, then follow by refs without any spaces or commas.

I don't see what part you're referring to in that "feud" comment, but I object in principle to your continued strategy of saying that only the academic sexologists are qualified to have their opinions valued in this debate. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Nogladfeline changed very contentious academic feud to academic debate here, before removing all information and links to the scandal here.

Certainly a direct quote from Conway should be attributed to Conway, and I agree that the punctuation around the new refs (do we really need six refs for her performance?) needs to match the style used in the rest of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lynn Conway is both an academic and has direct experience in transsexual issues. How can her first hand experience be discounted, while compared to what others have gained only secondhand? Her experience included decades of academic study, since young. She has conducted her own research into transsexual issues, for example, the examination of the prevalence of transsexualism. She has, specifically and pointedly, called to question the validity of sources, statistical analysis, interpretation, and broad generalization of BBL theory. Quite simply, the debate being waged is academic in nature. The lack of a PhD in sexology has no relevance to this fact. Nogladfeline (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't say that Conway is not entitled to hold an opinion. I don't even say that Conway's view is wrong. I merely say that what we call an "academic debate" involves academic peers in the relevant field discussing their opposing views through conferences, journal publications, and the like. Two astrophysicists publishing opposing papers about whether string theory does or doesn't adequately account for some detail of the universe's fabric is an example of an academic debate. It may be rancorous -- it may even result in lifelong enmity between the parties -- but it does not involve the opinions of a person from an entirely unrelated field, and it always involves academic discourse.

Conway and Bailey are not peers in the relevant field. Furthermore, the debate is not fundamentally academic in nature. Conway, like most of the anti-Bailey people in this feud, has published no academic papers on this subject. (Conway has not published any papers at all in a sexology journal; Prevalence of transgenderism is self-published.) Instead, the opposition has organized a string of complaints about sexual misconduct, medical malpractice, informed consent, and even personal comments about Bailey's family. This does not constitute an academic debate. If you wanted to call this a political debate, I might have more sympathy, since the standards of behavior are rather different among politicians (and since the goals appear to be largely political in nature) -- but academic debate is misleading.

Feuds, on the other hand, are intense, long-running arguments that begin because one party (correctly or incorrectly) perceives itself to have been attacked, insulted or wronged by another. I'd say that pretty much sums up the situation here: Conway clearly believes that Bailey's book was an attack on and insult to all transgendered people, and this certainly has been an intense, long-running argument. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The cited source calls it an "academic feud". The fact that Conway hasn't published her side in an academic journal doesn't make it less academic; it's just that the academic sexologists control the journals and present their side there, so she has to present in other ways. Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to stick with academic feud, especially since that's the language chosen by the cited source. I'm not willing to call it an academic debate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not Conway's personal vanity page

I have not checked this page in a while--that won't happen again--and I am greatly disturbed by the changes that have occurred, primarily those initiated (without any discussion) by Nogladfeline. The most important problem is the whitewashing of the fact that there is great controversy surrounding Conway's transgender activism, and especially her role in the Bailey book controversy. Whether or not one agrees with Conway--and I don't--it is indisputable that she has been accused in highly reliable sources of very bad behavior (lying to destroy someone's career). Just as on J. Michael Bailey's page there is a presentation of both sides, acknowledging controversy, there should be here too. It's only fair, and also, more importantly for Misplaced Pages, it's only accurate. And thus I've added the mildest possible acknowledgement of this affair. I will be lobbying soon for more detailed coverage of this controversy. It is certainly the most important thing she has done in decades.

The idea that Conway was truly "stealth" for years is ludicrous. I have met her, and she's among the most masculine transsexuals I've ever met. It would take a clueless observer, indeed, to miss this. We are going on Conway's word, alone, that she was "in stealth." (I have met two people who knew her back then, and both confirm that she was fooling herself.) Obviously, we can't make changes based on anonymous sources, but it would be better to acknowledge that Conway thinks she was in stealth, rather than assert that she actually was in stealth.

"They enjoy sharing many interests and pastimes"...Please!!!! That kind of crap doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. It belongs on Conway's own vanity site.ProudAGP (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that "in stealth" can have a variety of meanings. Perhaps this is a case of "in stealth" meaning "not publicly acknowledged, not matter what people whispered about", instead of "easily passing without any suspicions ever being raised".

I really don't think that the level of stealthiness is an appropriate subject for an encyclopedic article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's also in "scare quotes" and attributed, so should be no problem. Speaking as one of the formerly clueless ones, it seems right to me. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, ProudAGP, you're being incredibly hostile about Conway, to a degree that may cause POV issues if you're not very, very careful. Just because someone doesn't share your views on things isn't really justification to start insulting their appearance etc - it's mean, uncivil, and uncalled for. You also seem to be making the assumption that Conway herself is making the edits you disapprove of - the "personal vanity" edits, as you refer to them. However, these edits have been made by a wide variety of people, some of whom may know Conway personally, some of whom (probably the vast majority) may not. Therefore, this looks like an incorrect assumption. I must recommend that for the sake of NPOV, rational discussion, and even your own stress levels that you calm down over this issue, stop making it a holy crusade, and approach the issue objectively and rationally. I'm sure that if we can all discuss things calmly and in a grown-up manner, rather than making silly POV statements about Conway's appearance, we'll be able to maintain a balanced and fair version of this article without unnecessary arguments and stress. I will, however, concur that the line "They enjoy sharing many interests and pastimes" is not written in a truly encyclopedic tone. Xmoogle (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not find Xmoogle's comments above productive; I recommend sticking to specific edits and text in order to improve it instead of predicting what might be said and what might be assumed. I agree that "interests and pastimes" is inappropriate, and I personally agree that the page currently fails to include information in RS's about Conway's controversial role in TMWWBQ. Moreover, I agree that slang such as "in stealth" should be replaced with a more professional description of whatever the relevant RS says...although I am not aware of any RS that says such a thing without merely reflecting Conway's own comments. (Claims on Conway's own website would, however, certainly justify statements such as "she describes..." etc.) Incidentally, although the page uses "activist" and its synonyms several times, there does not appear to be any justication for that term either...there is no mention of groups in which she was elected to office nor mainstream news outlets that mention any instances of activism. (Media mentions all appear to pertain to computer science or the aforementioned controversy). Indeed, none of claims about activism have any sourcing at all.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I added back a few sourced details from the LA Times about her home life. In this edit, ProudAGP had added a duplicated ref to the NYTimes article, and also adding a citation to Dreger; this is probably a bad idea, as the NYTimes, a secondary source, already covers the facts needing verifiability, and the Dreger article, a primary source by a principle in the controversy, would need to be balanced by some of the responses to it; I think we agreed it's inappropriate to expand this article in that direction. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well personally James, I didn't find the comments by ProudAGP productive, that's why I commented. It almost seems to me that certain people wish this article to say only "Lynn Conway is a big meanie who attacked poor Saint Bailey, and she's ugly and a stinky-head. Oh and she did some stuff with computers too.", which is really not a helpful attitude, and does nothing for the improvement of Misplaced Pages or this article. And I don't intend on seeing that happen. Also, regarding the Bailey controversy, I believe that consensus has been reached that the articles of both Conway and Bailey should only have a brief description, linked to the main article on those events. Xmoogle (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dick, I'm not sure that the "personal life" information is really of encyclopedic interest. Married, lives in Michigan: sure. Shacked up with her boyfriend before getting married, likes to go canoeing and ride motorcycles through the dirt: Who cares?

It reads like a magazine article, not an encyclopedia entry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The guy who wrote the biographical article for the magazine thought it was worth mentioning, probably to show that she's a reasonably normal woman by most measures (or abnormal, if you don't think most women like to ride motorcycles in dirt -- but you get to draw your own inferences from the facts). What criteria do you suggest for what's "encyclopedic", if not just relevant and verifiable in reliable sources? Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ProudAGP, I completely disagree that Conway's role in the controversy is her most important recent work. Broadly, she has represented transgendered people and interests for nearly a decade. Her website is known to every transperson I've spoken with in person. They speak glowingly of her work. If the controversy bears mention, then it is only as a small part of her activist work. It should not dominate it.

Furthermore, there should be no place on wikipedia for unsubstantiated, disrespectful judgments on manner and appearance. And many of her colleagues never suspected that she was other than a natal female, she was never publicly acknowledged as trans until she came out later in life. She looks pretty good for a woman of seventy.

To conclude, my interest is in maintaining the focus of the article on Lynn's work in computer science, secondarily on her transgender activism, with only a tertiary mention of her role in the apparently very complicated controversy. Nogladfeline (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. The controversy is complicated, and not primarily about Conway. Her active transgender web site predates the whole Bailey bruhaha by a few years; the book naturally caused a lot of activity there, because that's where the community was, not because she did anything in particular herself. It seems the sexologist camp can't understand the reaction of the community and wants to interpret it as Conway having it out for Bailey or something. Looks like they're making another attempt to mess with her wikipedia bio instead of tending to things that they understand. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, technically, biographical articles on Misplaced Pages are not supposed to bother with determining a person's Most Important™ contribution to humanity. That's really an unknowable concept. Bios are supposed to report what a person is known for, and I assume that, among certain groups of people (e.g., sexologists), Conway is known to them for playing a key public role in the Bailey scandal -- and I also assume that if you chatted with mathematicians or computer scientists (e.g., the context that you know Conway from), that they would say that Conway is best known to them for something entirely unrelated to sexology. A reasonable approach is to present all the information, balanced primarily by whether you've explained each of unrelated issue to a similarly appropriate level of detail, and not (for example) by word count.

As for Conway really only being an innocent tool in the hands of the community who didn't really mean to do anything in particular: That sort of claim is paternalistically disrespectful to Conway. Mature adults make independent choices about their behavior. It's absurd to think that "the community" (for example) wrote and signed and filed a malpractice complaint against Bailey. Conway's signature is supposedly on the complaint. We should allow Conway to own her own actions instead of dismissing them as an accident of what her readers happened to be commenting on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Being known to the small community of sexologists, most of whom seem to be editing wikipedia these days, is not being known to the public, so there's certainly a relevant weight issue here. As for the notion of "really only being an innocent tool in the hands of the community who didn't really mean to do anything in particular," that's absurd; Conway is an activist and a part of the community, and there's no particular transgression to be innocent of; she supported the community reaction, but that's not a reason to label her the leader of it. Obviously she owns her actions, and reports them on her site. Dicklyon (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Conway's name turns up half a dozen times in The New York Times for prominent actions in the scandal. I'd say that is pretty much my definition as being "known to the public" for a role in the scandal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, "half a dozen times" in one 2007 article by a journalist Conway criticized in 2005 for his coverage of Bailey. Most NYT coverage of Conway is about her many accomplishments in her field and her film listing. Her criticism of Bailey and his out-of-print book which sold 4200 copies is a pretty minor part of her life's work, and this article should reflect its general insignificance in the grand scheme of her life and work. Jokestress (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dickylon and Jokestress that Conway's role in the scandal should be mentioned only in passing. For the record, I personally disagree with Bailey/Blanchard's model of transsexualism and regard Lynn Conway as a very feminine and attractive woman. Andrea Parton (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at J. Michael Bailey. There is an entire section on the controversy, detailing accusastions, etc. Although I do not necessarily believe a section is needed here (although it might be), the brevity of what is here is indefensible. Conway stands accused in good sources of orchestrating false charges against a scholar in order to ruin him because she didn't like what he had to say. It is infuriating (but predictable) that several people here (especially, Dicklyon, Jokestress, Nogladfeline, and Andrea Parton) believe that there should be no mention (except "in passing") of her role in the controversy. How is that fair? How is it accurate that the controversy be linked strongly to Bailey but barely to Conway? It is so infuriating, in fact, that I am hereby initiating an adequate expansion of the relevant paragraph in the current article. Specifically, the article should include the information (citing reliable sources) that Dreger found that Conway was the instigator of a suite of accusations against Bailey and that these accusations were false. Dicklyon, every time this has happened in the past, you have run to administrators to complain. (You have also broken your agreement to stay off of WP pages dealing with this controversy.) Please let me know if you intend to do that now, so we can involve them from the getgo. We can certainly begin the discussion here. One thing that must be addressed up front is Dicklyon's false insistence that Alice Dreger's important article cannot be used because Dreger is "a principal." The fact is that Conway made Dreger a principal because Dreger was writing the article, and in any case, it's irrelevant to WP policy, provided that the source is reliable, and it is, highly. We can, and should, obviously link to Conway's pages telling her side of the story, and that provides all the balance that's needed. Knowing Jokestress' penchant for inaccurate reporting, I checked her assertion that Conway is mostly in the New York Times for computers and her theatrical efforts. I did indeed find two articles primarily about Carver Mead that mentioned their collaboration (once per article) but no mention of her plays. In any case, no one is suggesting that the controversy receive the attention that Conway's computer career gets. But it could be a solid paragraph, with more specific information, and still be proportional. One alternative, of course, is that Bailey's page receive less attention to the controversy than it currently does. Discuss. (Perhaps someone will also explain to me why Conway and James spent so much time, effort, and computer ink on their campaign against Bailey and now seem to be so ashamed of those efforts.)ProudAGP (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

ProudAGP, you may add content to the article regarding Conway's role in the controversy and accusations of unethical conduct on her part, provided that you cite reliable sources and write using a neutral point of view. I cannot promise that others will not revert, but I hope that we will get to a point where you see this article as being more "balanced" than it is right now. Out of curiosity, why do you describe Lynn Conway as "one of the most masculine transsexuals you have ever met?" Have you met very many transsexuals? Are you calling her "masculine" because she enjoys dirt-biking/motocross racing and other outdoor activities or because she was interested in trains as a child? Or is it just about your perception of her appearance? Granted, she did look fairly masculine for a woman before she had facial feminization surgery in 1999, after coming out. Despite this, she was very successful as a woman in a male-dominated field for many years. Maybe that's another reason for you to perceive her as "masculine" just because she worked in a male-dominated profession? If these (her occupation and hobbies) are your reasons for describing Conway as "masculine," you clearly subscribe to a lot of gender stereotypes which I do not subscribe to, but that would not be surprising considering that you identify as autogynephilic. Andrea Parton (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

ProudAGP, your handle suggests you are a WP:SPA here to defend the Bailey/Blanchard autogynephilia theory. As Andrea says, that may be OK if you can do it from a neutral POV. But there's no need to include personal attacks; I'm sure that if I had broken by agreement with User:James Cantor, he would have pointed that out; we were basically in agreement to keep the controversy coverage to a sentence or two, just lacked agreement on his wanting to puff up Dreger a bit. As to the substance of the facts on which to base an article, again as Andrea says, sources are key; relying primarily on Dreger will only show one side of the story, and the whole controversy is better covered in articles on the controversy. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon, on this page you are clearly a WP:SPA, because your every edit works to diminish any negative information about Conway. In the past you have removed information that is both notable and true, namely accusations that she orchestrated a campaign of lies against Bailey and his book. You have no evident expertise regarding the controversial material. And as for your breaking of your and James Cantor's agreement, all you need do is look below. He writes: "For reference, here is the agreement that Dicklyon and I made with each other not to edit the controversy section of the Conway page , but which Dicklyon has declared he will simply violate as he sees fit." Several other complaints by James Cantor about you in this regard too.ProudAGP (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you haven't actually read WP:SPA; probably that's not what you meant. But yes, my "every edit works to diminish any negative information about Conway" because what attracted me here was all the negative information being placed by people who are on the side of Bailey in the controversy that Conway is tied up in. I don't know how you can claim it's "true" that she "orchestrated a campaign of lies against Bailey and his book." It's not clear to me that she "orchestrated" a campaign (though perhaps some sources express that opinion); it's even less supportable that the charges are "lies," though opinion too may be sourcable. If you believe I have broken my agreement with Cantor, you provide a diff to illustrate that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow well how did I miss this. Since I have no life but wikipedia as someone who talks on this page wrote I should have been all over this. Where to begin? I have read all of these and here is my considered opinion.

This is a biography and if one reads WP:BLP and WP:SPS they both concur that information on a persons personal blog, website, press release, or autobiography, can be used in an article about them. For the purposes of a persons own biography their website is a reliable source. There are limits to this however. We could not for instance take what is written on her website Re:Bailey as being anything more than an opinion. Based on those facts and policies I see no reason that some information about Dr. Conway's personal life could not be included. I also see no reason for this article to not say that she was in stealth for all those years unless an RS report is found which contradicts that. (Though many transsexuals will tell you that people always claim to have known once they are told. Even if that totally contradicts how they behaved. I would personally be suspicious of someone after all these years saying they knew all along for that reason.)

Furthremore as for Connway being an activist. It has been claimed by DickLyon that Conway was an activist, but that she was just going along with the community in the process of the Bailey affair. That can't be both ways. Either she was an activist taking action or she was a bystander. On her own website she has the doccuments with her signatures! That is enough for this BLP to say that she was a prime mover in the controversy. For the same reasons that information about her personal life and her stealthy ness can be included.

That is my carefully considered opinion of what is the neutral action to take. Write about the controversy using what's on Connways website as this is a BLP. Write about Conway's personal life as she reports it using her website as a RS because this is her bio. I have actually as I often do disagreed with James Cantor. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a rule against being abrasive; I do get that way when annoyed. Anyway, it would be more productive to keep the discussion on the article content issues, and avoid the personal traits of the editors. As for your characterization of my position above, I disagree. But back to sourcing: what source says "orchestrate" or something equivalent? What source says "campaign"? What source says it was against Bailey and the book, as opposed to against the book and/or the Blanchard theory? The sources you can cite will determine what you can say; yes, you can use Conway's own pages a source for statements about herself; but you can't WP:SYNTH based on your readings of them. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Lyon please refer to . As you have been recently topic banned from another area of wikipedia it is somthing you really should read. You being annoyed is no excuse for insulting me for not editing in line with your POV. Furthermroe in this case you should also read Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. Have a nice day.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my long-term friendship with Dr. Conway puts me in a conflict of interest situation. I am only striving to keep the article well-sourced, neutral, and free of BLP violations. If you believe that any of my edits are inappropriate, or that there's reason to think that I have a conflict of interest that is detrimental to the process here, please do specify. As to whether I'm a Dick, blame my parents, or my genes; your choice. Dicklyon (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation

Per the sourcing discussion above, I took another look at what the article says, and at what the cited sources say. In particular, here:

She was also a key person in the controversial campaign against J. Michael Bailey and his controversial book The Man Who Would Be Queen.

Carey, Benedict (2007-08-21), "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege", New York Times {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Dreger, A. D. (2008). The controversy surrounding The man who would be queen: A case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the Internet age. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 366-421.

The idea of a "controversial campaign" is inherent in Dreger. But she never says the campaign is against Bailey (where she mentions an "anti-Bailey campaign", she is not saying there was one, but was referring to a question about an alleged one). Dreger says that Conway "sent me a reply encouraging me to support her campaign against the book." She also reports a private email about "the campaign of a university professor to relegate a book to a kind of Orwellian non-history," where again the campaign is against the book, not the person.

Carey details Conway's involvement, but doesn't make her a campaigner against Bailey: "But by the end of 2003, the controversy had a life of its own on the Internet. Dr. Conway, the computer scientist, kept a running chronicle of the accusations against Dr. Bailey on her Web site."

So this statement seems to accuse Conway of a "bad thing" for which there's no reliable source. Supporting it by a novel synthesis of sources is not a viable alternative. Therefore, it's a WP:BLP violation. I expect y'all to fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

First let me look at a couple of sources from Lynn Connway's own website. An investigation into the publication of J. Michael Bailey's book on transsexualism by the National Academies by Lynn Conway, Timeline of the unfolding events in the Bailey investigation., and The Bailey Investigation: How it all began with a series of e-mail alerts. Looking at those threee sources each of them list who did what when, but in different ways. The second and third ones get down to brass tax that much sooner. The second link is to a spreadsheet which list who did what when. The third one is a narrative of how "the communities" investigation got started. It says and I quote verbatim.

This page documents the onset of the trans community's investigation into the publication of J. Michael Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, by the National Academy Press.

It all began when Lynn received a message alerting her to the publication of Bailey's book, on 4-10-03. Immediately realizing the seriousness of the situation, Lynn alerted her friend Andrea James (webmistress of the widely-read TS RoadMap) about the book, and they began digging into what had happened.

Within a few days (on 4-12-03), Lynn began posting information about the book on a new page in her website (that page became the "Bailey Investigation website) and alerted Andrea and their mutual friend Becky Allison. The next day (4-13-03) Andrea posted a review and other information about the book (that new page later scaled up to become the BBL Clearinghouse website). Meantime, Becky Allison began posting information about the book into her Blog.

Based on what they had all learned so far, Lynn alerted a wider circle of friends on 4-18-03 about the book, and Becky posted a review of the book that she'd sent to Amazon.com that day. These alerts and the reviews by Andrea and Becky triggered a wave of follow-on negative reviews by many prominent trans women and men (more).

Now realizing the true gravity of the situation, Lynn began spreading the alert more widely in messages to trans advocacy groups (such as in this message to GLAAD) on 4-21-03. Responding to those alerts, Christine Burns at Press for Change (PFC) in the UK then spread the alert worldwide by posting it in the widely read "PFC News", on 4-22-03 (more)

Almost immediately a widespread collaborative internet-based movement formed to investigate and figure out what had happened to cause this book to be published, and to investigate in depth the "science" and "scientists" behind the book.

The very following day (on 4-23-03), we learned from Prof. Joan Roughgarden that Bailey had promoted his book while mocking gay men and transsexual women in a psychology department lecture at Stanford University.

Not long after that (on 5-04-03), Bailey's research subject Anjelica Kieltyka e-mailed Lynn and began telling her story of how Mr. Bailey exploited her and the young trans women she was mentoring in Chicago - using them as unwitting research subjects without their knowledge - and then publishing intimate details about their sex lives in his book without their permission.

As the full gravity of the situation sunk in even more deeply, including awareness that a serious exploitation of research subjects underlay the book, prominent trans women began openly alerting the National Academies: Joan Roughgarden wrote an open letter to the Presidents of the National Academies on 5-05-03, followed by Christine Burns' writing one to the Academies leaders on 5-06-03 Those letters were followed by many many more to the Academies leaders, from trans people all around the world.

And thus the Bailey investigation was launched, and was on its way.

So there it is in her own words from her own website. She alerted Andrea James, she alerted Various groups etc. She read about how dirrtttyy old Mr. Bailey exploited those helpless transsexual women. (Makes him sound like a priest caught in the confessional with an altarboy. HA. Both people involved were consenting adults there are no angels here. Nor is sex devilish.) Farther down the page in the email correspondence that is there she says some pretty nasty things about Bailey. I.E. Comparing that book to anything done by the Klu Klux Klan.... All of which lead her to help file those complaints against BAILEY, not his book. While I sympathize with Dr. Connway's reaction to this book and understand where it's comming from, there is just no other way to look at this. She was either THE or one of a small number of prime movers in this matter.

As a black studies professor once said of Martin Luther King and the times he lived in. "The 60's were like a washing machiene the soap and water were ready to wash away Jim Crow, but Dr. King was the aggitator, Without the agitator to move things around your draws don't get clean." The transgender community would have reacted to Bailey's book to an extent. However what Connway did and was able to do becuause of her proximity to Chicago was to stir up things to a great degree. Adding that sexual miscounduct charge, which she helped to file, really kicked things up many notches. In that respect and that respect only Lynn Connways actions on this matter were simmilar to those of Martin Luther King.

What I propose to do as far as Dr. Conway's involvement in this matter is to summarize into a four or five sentence paragraph what I quoted above. WP:NOTOR backs up my doing this. Summarizing that passage from Connway's website is simply gathering information under a common heading which is not synth nor is it or or anything. However I don't see how it could not be mentioned. It would be like not mentioning that Martin Luther King was involved with the march on washington.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to using her own words, all of which refer to it being about "the book", not about Bailey. Four or five sentences is probably quite excessive. It would be even better to focus on reliable sources that react to what she's done. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

:-/ The book was not accused of having sex with JSM now was it? :-\ --Hfarmer (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Neither did Conway accuse Bailey of having sex with anyone, did she? Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So Conway's website says, "The Book Investigation"? Funnily enough, I remember that webpage saying "The Bailey Investigation" -- and I remember it going rather beyond the book, into (for example) filing legal complaints against him that had nothing to do with the book.

Dick, it might be worth remembering that not everyone believes that Conway's efforts to discredit Bailey (the human, not the book) were inappropriate. Your efforts to make Conway look blameless to one group are also suppressing Conway's hard-earned glory among supporters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This isnt the first time he has done this. I miss my AJ at least her edits made some kind of sense to me.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It still mentions "The Bailey Investigation" in places; but it's not a campaign "against Bailey." It's about the book he wrote and the ideas being pushed in int. As to whether opinions differ, of course they do; that's not what's at issue here. We just need to say what's supported by reliable sources. In this case, as the extensive quotes that H put above make clear, it's about the book, and the mention of a "campaign against Bailey" is not supported by any reliable source that I can find. So it should be out unless someone comes up with a source, which so far nobody has. Right? Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Any neutral editors around?

Since I don't edit this section, someone else needs to remove the WP:BLP violation, the assertion that she was involved in a "campaign against J. Michael Bailey." The campaign was clearly about the book; none of the sources support saying that she was in a campaign against Bailey (of course, it is easy to see why many interpret it that way, but that's not enough for putting accusatory info into her bio). Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Again Dick there is no BLP violation here. Connway did not accuse a book of having sex with s research subject. She also declared it a victory when Bailey was no longer the departmetn head of psychology at NU. What you are trying to do here is obvious to the casual observer for it's non neutralness. Sure the book was a part of the campaign. But there is no real denying that the man who rote the book, was also attacked and that Connway was a prime mover. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is a key policy that I follow, even when I have my own point of view. I agree with you that Conway did not accuse a book of having sex; she also didn't accuse Bailey. And the statement that she ran a compaign against Bailey needs to be verifiable in reliable sources if it's to stay in the article. If you want to keep it so badly, show us the source instead of questioning my motives. It would be even better to write the article from sources, rather than writing your interpretation and then looking for sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"She did not accuse Bailey?" Then just who did she accuse of having sex with JSM? Why did she accuse that person of having sex with JSM? Furthermore Connway's own website shows that she did in fact orchestrates a campaign against that book and it's Author.

You know what I find really funny. I am sure that if I removed that content some fan of connway's would come here read that this information is not here and assume that mean ol internet faker Hfarmer removed it. :-| --Hfarmer (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted HFarmer

If this is the section that I had agreed with User:James Cantor to not edit, then that at-will agreement is cancelled herewith. Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

HFarmer has added a bunch of sentences on Conway's involvement in the Bailey investigation, most of which is correct, but has been synthesized and spun from primary sources, when there are reliable secondary sources (the Carey NYT article) that give a still biased but somewhat more careful and balanced view of it. In particular, H added a long quotation that I could find not basis for in the cited sources, and left an ambiguous sentence about who filed what complaints.

If there's a consensus that more needs to be said in this section, let's have someone less wierd and biased write it, OK? Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Conway, Lynn. (2008-03-28.) Retrieved on 2008-07-27.
2. Dreger, A. D. (2008). The controversy surrounding The man who would be queen: A case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the Internet age. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 366-421. Also available at .

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Science and academia work group articles needing infoboxes
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles