| Revision as of 17:54, 5 July 2011 editBonze blayk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,362 edits →arbitrary break - comment on problems with organization of gender topics, [], [], etc← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:29, 7 January 2025 edit undoJuxtaposedJacob (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers2,290 edits Restored revision 1264328228 by RoxySaunders (talk): Vandalism.Tags: Twinkle Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Notaforum}} |
|
{{skip to bottom}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum|transgender people}} |
|
{{LGBTProject |class=B |old-peer-review=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
{{FAOL|German|de:Transgender}} |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=pa|style=long}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies|old-peer-review=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=top |needs-infobox=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|
{{Old merge full|otherpage=Transsexual|date=2015-07-08|result=the articles were not merged|talk=Talk:Transsexual/Archive_7#Merger_Proposal_with_Transgender}} |
|
|
{{Old merge full|otherpage=Transsexual|date=2018-01-19|result=the articles were not merged|talk=Talk:Transgender/Archive_7#Merge_Transsexual_into_Transgender}} |
|
|
{{Page views double}} |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Transgender/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Transgender/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2024 == |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Transgender|answered=yes}} |
|
== Collected references == |
|
|
|
I think it might be a good idea to add a source to the sentence that the word transgenderism was once considered acceptable. I found this article when looking it up: "https://juliaserano.medium.com/the-history-of-the-word-transgenderism-55fd9bbf65cc". ] (]) 20:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 21:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Discussion at ]== |
|
If you cite something. Place the main citation here and then a reference tag in the above. Keep this section the bottom. This way any references that are used can be easily found. |
|
|
|
] You are invited to join the discussion at ].  Please join the move discussion for a primary redirect to this article currently in progress. ] (]) 23:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> |
|
<ref name="Ts-Si_Gaughan">{{cite web |
|
|
| last = Gaughan |
|
|
| first = Sharon |
|
|
| authorlink = |
|
|
| coauthors = |
|
|
| title = What About Non-op Transsexuals? A No-op Notion |
|
|
| work = |
|
|
| publisher = TS-SI |
|
|
| date = Saturday, 19 August 2006 |
|
|
| url = http://ts-si.org/content/view/1409/995/ |
|
|
| format = HTML |
|
|
| doi = |
|
|
| accessdate = ]]}}</ref><ref name="Hemingway1">{{Citation |
|
|
| last = Conway |
|
|
| first = Lynn |
|
|
| author-link = http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/conway.html |
|
|
| last2 = |
|
|
| first2 = |
|
|
| author2-link = |
|
|
| title = The Strange Saga of Gregory Hemmingway |
|
|
| date = |
|
|
| year = 2003 |
|
|
| url = http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/GregoryHemingway.html |
|
|
| accessdate = }}</ref><ref name="Hemingway2">{{Citation |
|
|
| last = Schoenberg |
|
|
| first = Nara |
|
|
| author-link = http://www.facebook.com/people/Nara_Schoenberg/838374580 |
|
|
| last2 = |
|
|
| first2 = |
|
|
| author2-link = |
|
|
| title = The Son Also Falls From elephant hunter to bejeweled exhibitionist, the tortured life of Gregory Hemingway. |
|
|
| newspaper = CHICAGO TRIBUNE |
|
|
| pages = |
|
|
| year = 2001 |
|
|
| date = November 19 |
|
|
| url =http://web.archive.org/web/20011120185300/http://www.newsday.com/features/printedition/ny-p2cover2470306nov19.story?coll=ny-features-print }} |
|
|
</ref><ref name="Nonopexample1">{{cite video |
|
|
| people = ] |
|
|
| title = Excerpt of "There's Something About Miriam". Miriam a known non-op transsexual talks about how she see's her self, her history, and transsexuality. Compare to Gregory Hemingway then tell me Hemingway is the real post op woman. |
|
|
| medium = Television Via Youtube |
|
|
| publisher = Edemol & Brighter picture via various Newscorp properties. |
|
|
| location = Filmed in Ibiza, Spain Produced in England. |
|
|
| year2 = 2004}} |
|
|
</ref><ref name="FTMop">{{Citation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Transgender & Transsexual == |
|
| last = |
|
|
| first = |
|
|
| author-link = |
|
|
| last2 = |
|
|
| first2 = |
|
|
| author2-link = |
|
|
| title = Female to Male |
|
|
| date = |
|
|
| year = |
|
|
| url = http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Female-to-male/ |
|
|
| accessdate = }}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This question is not about people, but about terminology. Please don't flame me. I've read both articles and a goodly chunk of the archives. Maybe I missed it, but I can't find RS that really explains the difference between terms "transsexual" and "transgender" or makes a definite statement that they are the same. I find lots of opinions, but no sourcing. As a follow-on, are there particular researchers who have made a study of how use of the terms has changed over time? ] (]) 21:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Published evidence showed, demonstrated, or what? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@]: Flame! Haha, just kidding. :) |
|
On the mainpage, there is discussion of how best describe scientific findings. The page, thus far, uses words such as "show" to describe findings, such as: |
|
|
|
:Are you looking for new sources to add to the article, or sources for your own research? If the latter, I would recommend that you check out the terminology section on this article and see if there are any relevant sources there - I seem to recall finding relevant information to your query a month or two ago when I was checking some sources for this article. If the former, let me know, and perhaps I can help your search. In either case, the sources at the bottom of the article, especially the academic sources (some of the sources in "References" are sorted by type and some are not), may help you in your search. Perhaps you could check out the references in the linked sources themselves. Have a good day! |
|
:In 1997, J.N. Zhou, M.A. Hofman, L.J. Gooren and D.F. Swaab conducted tests on the brains of transgender individuals. Their tests '''showed''' that... |
|
|
|
:] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Their study was the first to '''show''' a female brain structure... |
|
|
|
::https://glaad.org/reference/trans-terms |
|
:Their study '''shows''' male to female transsexuals are... |
|
|
|
::Scroll down to "Transsexual" |
|
I am of the opinion that to maintain NPOV, one would also described Blanchard's original taxonomic finding as: |
|
|
|
::] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Blanchard '''showed''' that there were... |
|
|
|
:::more academic sources, found with google scholar: |
|
or similar.<br> |
|
|
|
:::https://quadernsdepsicologia.cat/article/view/v20-n3-aguirre |
|
I am sure that other acceptible phrases can be found for describing research findings accurately, but describing a desired finding as "shown" but undesired findings as dubious is pretty much the definition of failing NPOV. What other NPOV options for phrasing can folks suggest?<br> |
|
|
|
:::(spanish website but english pdf) |
|
] (]) 20:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ST2XEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=transgender+transsexual+terminology&ots=bO_jhuXH4Y&sig=Ks_R3H1MT8KLWTXce-YqrLaNZZY#v=onepage&q=transgender%20transsexual%20terminology&f=false |
|
:James, as an academic, you should know the difference between observed phenomenon (such as the size of a brain structure) and the result of a correlation between self-reported factors that are used as a proxy for the operationalization of a concept. So, what Blanchard has done is showing a correlation, which is still not causation. Hence, he has NOT demonstrated that there are two types, but only shown that it is possible to subdivide the group in two subgroups using his criteria suggesting that maybe his idea is correct. Furthermore, in line with your pledge not to edit autogynephilia and related articles, I am surprised to see you popping up here. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=A1emBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA173&dq=transgender+transsexual+terminology&ots=qyJWq9B-6F&sig=BJSEGZjO2N6TwInE42rhWHlEFec#v=onepage&q=transgender%20transsexual%20terminology&f=false |
|
::Kim, 1. You appear to be addressing the wrong debate. Blanchard was making a taxonomic statement (i.e., what goes with what); he did not make and his data did not show ''either'' a correlation ''or'' a causation. He merely showed that the homosexual group was very distinct from all the other groups. As a postdoc, you should be able to recognize both correlations and their absence. |
|
|
|
:::https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-29093-1_4 ] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::2. Blanchard did not take a group and divide it. Either you didn't read his papers or you are willfully ignoring their contents. Blanchard did the very opposite of dividing. He took what was then believed to be a multiplicity of phenomena and showed that they were ''reduceable'' to two. The lay literature usually gets this wrong, but the professional literature does a better job. |
|
|
|
::::You're right, there doesn't seem to be an exhaustive etymological analysis of the differing word uses, at least based on my cursory search. That's unfortunate. |
|
::So, to get back to the mainpage: The discussion relevant here is how to describe Blanchard's (and any other) findings for readers in a way unpolluted from the views of the editor providing them. So, what exactly are you suggesting to use as text? |
|
|
::] (]) 21:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
::::] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thanks for the sources. At least it's someplace to start. And to answer the early q, it's for personal research but I'd hoped to improve the article when/if I found something that really talked to the terminology. ] (]) 22:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::I'm surprised you're surprised...Actually, I'm not surprised at all. Throughout our interactions, I have had the consistent impression that you react to what ''you think'' I am saying because I am a researcher, for example, rather than react to what I am actually writing. In fact, I have found myself wondering at your hostile tone towards me when your next edit was to express (to someone else) the very same idea I had just pointed out. |
|
|
:::The pages I pledged not to edit were specifically to end a long series of edit wars with specific other editors (and my invitation that they join me in that self-imposed ban stands). This page was never wrapped up in the problem my pledge was meant to help solve. No mystery. |
|
|
:::] (]) 21:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== LatAm section == |
|
::::"In order to prevent whatever COI I might be perceived to have from affecting Misplaced Pages, I pledge not to edit article space of the pages listed below, and I invite both Dicklyon, Jokestress to do the same.... ] ... " ] |
|
|
::::Your phrasing here appears to acknowledge the (arguable) existence of a COI which may lead to an appearance of impropriety, rather than a temporary truce in edit wars on certain topics... which you will resume on another front. |
|
|
::::Do you believe that editing a section on Autogynephilia in the ] article is somehow not (by analogy) a part of the "article space" on Autogynephilia? |
|
|
::::Also, with respect to my earlier edit which you reverted: when I stated "Autogynephilia - deleted ULTRA-controversial minority claim by Anne Lawrence of relationship to aptemnophilia - THIS DOESN'T BELONG AT THE TOP!" in my edit summary, I meant to imply: ] is at a higher level ''conceptually'' than ], and again that is at a higher level than ] or the subject of "Similarities postulated between transsexualism and apotemnophilia". I don't see why such (admittedly interesting, yet recondite) arguments have found their way to the "top level" relating to "transgenderism" in general. |
|
|
::::Just to note: I find that the organization of gender-related topics in Misplaced Pages is a wretched mess, and the articles themselves foci of partisan contention, so this topic creep isn't really surprising to me. |
|
|
::::— ] (]) 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This phrase "They are framed as something entirely separate from transgender women, who possess the same gender identity of people assigned female at birth" does not make sense, and I wonder that's really what the author even hinted at saying that. I guess it could be reworded. But does this mean they are framed as cis women or trans men? Because "the same gender identity of people assigned female at birth" is not clear. Or did this try to explain what is a trans woman? Then you can just replace female with male, but would this contextualization be necessary? ] (]) 01:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::Yes. |
|
|
:::::1. I gave my pledge in response to a series of edit wars on the pages I listed. Of the three of editors involved, only I made such a pledge. It was to specific pages, not a topic. To insinuate that I am somehow at fault for not going farther, when no other editor would go as far as I, is a bit silly. |
|
|
:::::2. We are now going back ''years'' since I gave that pledge, and have held to it, without exception. To call that ''temporary'' in wikipedia time is, again, a bit silly. |
|
|
:::::3. I'm not the one who put "autogynephilia" here, nor am I the one who put the neurological data here. I merely updated it with more recent RS's. |
|
|
:::::4. I agree entirely with the poor state of this family of topics and that the articles themselves are a series of scars from edit wars with community activists who do not like the picture emerging from the research, and so scapegoat and discount the researchers. Indeed, the extent of the activists' war against science has itself become a notable topic. |
|
|
:::::] (]) 14:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] hi can you take a look? ] (]) 01:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::No. I address the right debate. No, Blanchard first made an artificial grouping using two continuous variables (degree of attraction to men and women) in a cluster analysis dividing them in four groups by using the four corners of the square as reference points. The data are quite uneven positioned across the square. Anyway, he then uses this artificial grouping to see how they scored on certain factors: |
|
|
|
::"who possess the same gender identity as people assigned female at birth" is the confusing part - how does my reword look? I just removed the confusing clause, as anything else would have required unsourced generalizations ] (]) | :) | he/him | 06:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::''Fisher Exact tests were used to compare the frequency with which subjects in the four clusters reported a history of erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing. As predicted, there were no differences among the asexual, bisexual, and heterosexual transsexuals, and all three groups included a much higher proportion of fetishistic cases than the homosexual group (p .0001, two-tailed).'' |
|
|
:::This is a correlation between sexual orientation group and ''whether or not they have a history of erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing''. So, now that we have that issue out of the way, we can find proper words for the correlation he found on which he based his topology. Words like suggest. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2024 == |
|
::::You're still not understanding your own point. You said "what Blanchard has done is showing a correlation, which is still not causation", meaning that Blanchard was not able to make any causal statements. You are entirely correct that one cannot draw a causal conclusion from correlational data, but what I seem to be having trouble getting across is that ''Blanchard didn't make a causal statement in the first place!'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Transgender|answered=yes}} |
|
::::More to the point (that you are arguing from ]): The specific paper you are talking about above is Blanchard (1985), an RS which does not even appear on the mainpage. Rather, statements about it are in the secondary sources that ''are'' on the mainpage (specifically, Bailey, 2003 and Smith et al., 2005). That ''you'' happen to] with Blanchard (1985)'s typology doesn't mean you get to change what the RS's say. |
|
|
|
Add this to ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tq| |
|
::::Next, you expressed in the above that you take neurological evidence over self-report evidence. For the record (and as a person who has published both neurological ''and'' behavioral/self-report research), I believe it is a grave intellectual error to hold neurological evidence to be automatically superior. Nonetheless, the typological question has been answered neurologically as well as on the basis of self-report. (Incidentally, very many transsexuals would not appreciate having their self-reports disregarded.) I have added to the mainpage two recent neurological studies (entirely independent of Blanchard) that show exactly the typology Blanchard predicted. |
|
|
|
The term "trans*" (with an ]) emerged in the 1990s as an ] term used to encompass a wide range of non-cisgender identities. The asterisk serves as a ], indicating the inclusion of various identities beyond just transgender and transsexual, such as ] or ]. The use of the asterisk in "trans*" has been debated, either arguing that it adds unnecessary complexity or that enhances inclusivity by explicitly recognizing non-normative gender identities. |
|
:::::Rametti, G., Carrillo, B., Gómez-Gil, E., Junque, C., Zubiarre-Elorza, L., Segovia, S., Gomez, Á, & Guillamon, A. (2011). The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A DTI study. ''Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45,'' 199-204. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.05.006 |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:::::Savic, I., & Arver, S. (2011). Sex dimorphism of the brain in male-to-female transsexuals. ''Cerebral Cortex.'' doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr032 |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Next, we have two neurological articles showing that the Zhou finding, for which you express favor, was in error. (One '''demonstrated''' that the BNST difference doesn't emerge until adulthood, and the other '''showed''' that the BNST changes in response to the hormone therapy that transsexuals take, thus '''indicating''' that the BNST difference prevously reported was due to hormonal therapy, no due to being the cause transsexualism. |
|
|
:::::Chung. W., De Vries, G., & Swaab, D. (2002). Sexual differentiation of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in humans may extend into adulthood. ''Journal of Neuroscience, 22,'' 1027–1033. |
|
|
:::::Hulshoff Pol, H. E., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Van Haren, N. E., Peper, J. S., Brans, R. G., Cahn, W., et al. (2006). Changing your sex changes your brain: Influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure. ''European Journal of Endocrinology, 155''(Suppl. 1), S107-S114. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::So, whether you use neurological vs. self-report as your criterion or independent replicability as your criterion (or anything else other than ]) the same conclusion emerges. It is a pretty clear violation of ] (and probably ]) to say Blanchard's (repeatedly verified) finding '''suggests''' but Zhou's (repeatedly disproven) finding '''shows'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Perhaps you might bring this issue up at the neuroscience project for input? |
|
|
|
|
|
::::] (]) 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Sorry James, but your flood of words does not change things as they are. If someone finds a difference in the size of a specific part of the brain, that is a direct observation and the word show is appropriate. The interpretation of that is correlative, and show is not appropriate. |
|
|
:::::I am glad we agree that ''Blanchard didn't make a causal statement in the first place!''. I agree. Hence, he has not shown that autogynephilia explains gynephilic transwomen. Therefore, the word is inappropriate. It is his inference of the data. |
|
|
:::::Contrary to your impression, I do not hold neuroanatomical evidence to a higher standard, to the contrary, I believe that they both have their value in the appropriate study. I find you statement ''Incidentally, very many transsexuals would not appreciate having their self-reports disregarded.'' curious, as self-reports of non-autogynephilic gynephilic transwoman and autogynephilic androphylic transwomen are routinely disregarded by proponents of the Blanchard dichotomy. But I guess I should read that as that you disagree with disregarding those self-reports. |
|
|
:::::Now for the suggested demolition of the Zhou et al papers. The Hulshoff Pol et al paper does not address the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST or BSTc) part at all, just general brain volume and hypothalamus volume. The latter, where the BSTc is located, incidentally changes in the same way between MtF subjects and female controls. ZHpou et al also looked at one MtF who had not yet started hormone theray, and that person was square in the middle of the other MtF's. If you hypothesis would be correct, that person whould have been an outlier among the MtF's. So, the Hulshoff Pol et al paper does NOT invalidate Zhou et al. |
|
|
:::::The Chung et al paper essentially demonstrates that the differentiation of the BSTc occurs in late puberty, but that does not invalidate Zhou et al, it just pinpoints when the differentiation occurs. |
|
|
:::::So, now that we have dismantled your 'evidence' that you molded in what was obvious ], we can go back to fixing the unwarranted strong support that you want to give your boss' hypothesis. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(Outdenting)<br> |
|
|
1. It was never clear to me how or why you are so angry. Regardless of your emotions, I recommend replacing phrases such as "your flood of words" etc. with more AGF language.<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
2. It is still not clear why you are fighting against the idea that Blanchard said (or believes) that autogynephilia explains anything. He never provided it as an explanation. All Blanchard showed was that the multiple phenomena that were being described in those days could actually be described accurately as only two phenomena. There has not been an article in the many years since showing otherwise.<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
3. I never said you held neuro data to a higher standard.<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
4. There is nothing relevant to the mainpage about "curious, as self-reports of non-autogynephilic gynephilic transwoman and autogynephilic androphylic transwomen are routinely disregarded by proponents of the Blanchard dichotomy" and I have no need to join a war of sneers and to call it a discussion. I merely point out the danger, and what you "read" into what I say is not under my control. Your mind is clearly well made up.<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
5. I cannot describe Hulshoff Pol better than Hulshoff Pol, who directly addressed the Zhou data: |
|
|
:"The bed nucleus of the stria terminalis of the hypothalamus, larger in males than in females, was found to be of female size in six MFs and of male size in one FM. All these transsexuals had received cross-sex hormone treatment before their brains were studied. Therefore, the altered size of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis could have been due to the exposure of cross-sex hormones in adult life" (p. S108).<br> |
|
|
You are free to your OR, but that's neither here nor there for the mainpage.<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
6. Your interpretation of Chung is also incorrect. Zhou et al. wrote that "the small size of the BSTc in male-to-female transsexuals...is established during development by an organzing action of sex hormones" (p. 70). Because Chung found that the BSTc difference does not exist during development, it cannot be the cause. As Chung wrote: |
|
|
:"Late sexual differentiation of the human BSTc volume also affects our perception about the relationship between BSTs volume and transsexuality....Epidemiological studies show that the awareness of gender problems is generally present much earlier. Indeed, 67-78% of transsexuals in adulthood report having strong feelings of being born in the wrong body from childhood onward" (p. 1032).<br> |
|
|
You are free to your OR, but that's neither here nor there for the mainpage.<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly, we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this any time soon. So, I repeat my earlier suggestion that input be sought from folks, such as at the neuroscience project, who can readily read the neurological data but have no stake in the topic itself.<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
(7. Blanchard is not my boss. In fact, he's retired.)<br> |
|
|
] (]) 17:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===arbitrary break=== |
|
|
:About and , perhaps a solution would be to include the material in that paragraph, but to move it to another part of the page (not in the scientific studies section) and/or to rewrite it to include sources that disagree with it. Thoughts? --] (]) 16:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::A possibility, of course. But could you flesh out your thinking for me a bit? We have the best known scientist on the topic, writing in the best known scientific journal in the relelvant field, providing an hypothesis for what the scientific studies would show. What's the logic for moving that ''outside'' the science section?...especially when it can be followed by what the scientific studies ''do'' show?] (]) 17:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Actually, I may not have that much thinking to flesh out! As you know, I came to this page as someone who knows little about the subject matter here, but who is comfortable with neuroscience and who can look at the page with fresh eyes. What I see here is discussion about Blanchard being indeed well known but apparently, um, controversial, and the editor who wanted to remove the paragraph saying that it was a prediction, rather than a research finding. What I'm suggesting really does not come from any particular insight into the source material (I don't have such an insight), but from my sense of what is good editing practice on Misplaced Pages, and how the consensus process works. Based on what you say here, is there a way to present this in a single paragraph (so as to make the relationship clearer to the non-specialist reader) as (1) here is Blanchard's prediction, and (2, same paragraph) here is what the science actually found? Or, would it be better to delete the "predictions" paragraph, keep the description of the scientific findings, and instead put a summary sentence at the ''end'' of the scientific findings paragraph that points out how the results fit with the prediction that had been made by Blanchard? --] (]) 17:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::LOL Humility is a rare find on WP. (I think that makes me a Trypo''fan''?) |
|
|
::::Yes, Blanchard is well-known, and any discussion from WP would indeed suggest he is controversial. It's more accurate to say that his research led to a conclusion about the nature of transsexualism that some (prolifically vocal) transsexuals found un-flattering and attempt to discredit. (The big explosions started in 2003 when ] was published by ], bringing Blanchard's ideas to wider attention.) That's why I often seek external input rather than to repeat the same arguments with the same WP editors. |
|
|
::::So, although our explicit conversation here is about good editing, the implicit conversation is the expectable one: Everything that agrees with Blanchard must be shot down, and everything that criticizes Blanchard must be included and emphasized, no matter how low the ] bar must go. You'll notice, for example, that the Zhou finding is based on the smallest dataset ever reported, each aspect of that study failed to replicate, but it still receives ] even though the data repeatedly agree with Blanchard's prediction instead of Zhou's ''n'' of 6. |
|
|
::::My personal opinion is that the Blanchard quote gives obvious context for the rest of the neuroanatomy section, but rather than take another ride on the edit war wagon, I'd likely follow your thus far uninvolved opinion. |
|
|
::::] (]) 00:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thanks! OK, then, what are the data that "repeatedly agree with Blanchard's prediction instead of Zhou's ''n'' of 6"? --] (]) 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Hi, again. Sorry for the delay. |
|
|
::::::For reference, these are Blanchard's prediction(s): "The brains of both homosexual and heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals probably differ from the brains of typical heterosexual men, but in different ways. In homosexual male-to-female transsexuals, the difference does involve sex-dimorphic structures, and the nature of the difference is a shift in the female-typical direction. If there is any neuroanatomic intersexuality, it is in the homosexual group. In heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals, the difference may not involve sex-dimorphic structures at all, and the nature of the structural difference is not necessarily along the male–female dimension." |
|
|
::::::The data for the first part of the prediction are in Gizewski et al. (Gizewski, E. R., Krause, E., Schlamann, M., Happich, F., Ladd, M. E., Forsting, M., & Senf, W. (2009). Specific cerebral activation due to visual erotic stimuli in male-to-female transsexuals compared with male and female controls: An fMRI study. ''Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6,'' 440–448.] and in Rametti et al. . Both studies scanned homosexual male-to-females and found that they were shifted towards the female direction in sexually dimorphic brain areas (only). The data for the second part of the prediction are in Savic & Arver They scanned heterosexual male-to-females and found that they were ''not'' different from controls in any sexually dimorphic region, but ''were'' different from the controls in several ''non-'' sexually dimorphic resions. Other neurological studies of transsexuality have been conducted (and are on the mainpage), but did not record or report whether the samples were homosexual or heterosexual, so they are not informative on this aspect. |
|
|
::::::Each of studies I cite above were several times the size of the Zhou study. Although Blanchard's idea is unpopular in some quarters, that is neither here nor there for WP purposes. I think Blanchard's prediction is more than germaine to any discussion of the neurological discussion of transsexuality. Input? |
|
|
::::::] (]) 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::OK. What I'm going to do by way of response is to adopt the position of someone who is neutral and non-expert in the editing dispute, and to try to mediate the issue according to my understanding of the consensus process. |
|
|
:::::::#''Anyone'': My reading, on face value, of what James said immediately above is that there are three published studies—Gizewski et al., 2009; Rametti et al., 2010; and Savic & Arver, 2011—that, taken together, provide experimental support for Blanchard's predictions, and are peer-reviewed reliable sources per ]. There is also the Zhou study, which provides evidence that contradicts Blanchard's predictions. Zhou is, similarly, a reliable source per ], but was a smaller study than any of the other three. Those four papers constitute the principal scientific literature that experimentally tests Blanchard's hypothesis. Is that correct, or is that incorrect? |
|
|
:::::::#''James'': Why not simply cite those three studies, and note ''briefly'' that they support Blanchard's predictions, instead of devoting a paragraph to an extensive quote of the prediction? In other words, focus on the empirical data (since it's a section about science), instead of the theorizing? |
|
|
:::::::#''Anyone'': Why not present the information as: Blanchard predicted such-and-such, and there is not yet a clear scientific answer as to whether the hypothesis is correct. Three studies, constituting the bulk of the literature, seem to support the predictions, whereas one study calls them into question. |
|
|
:::::::--] (]) 17:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Thanks, Tryptofish; I think that's a very productive suggestion. |
|
|
::::::::Re 1: Yes, those three articles are the most direct neurological tests of Blanchard's prediction. (There have long been indirect studies suggesting those findings, but these three articles are the most directly neurological.) |
|
|
::::::::Re 2: I have no problem at all summarizing instead of quoting Blanchard's prediction. (If I can trouble you to do so, my experience is that anything I write quickly gets diverted into OR or COI debates, so a summary from you instead of me would be of great help. |
|
|
::::::::Re 3: Although that summary would indeed capture those four studies, I would not put Zhou on the same footing as the other three: In addition to the sample size issue, Zhou's test that transsexuality per se shows sex reversal in sex dimorphic brain anatomy has failed to replicate multiple times. Already on the mainpage: Emery et al (1991); Haraldsen et al. (2003); Wisniewski et al. (2005); and Luders et al. (2009). All failed to find the sex reversal the Zhou hypothesis would predict. So, the overall picture is not only 3:1 in favor of Blanchard's prediction. It is ''also'' that the alternative has repeatedly failed. I am not saying that Zhou should be ignored, but as you can see from the mainpage, it's getting quite the ] treatment despite being the very clear outlier of the relevant literature. The finding is very popular in some circles, not because it is a reliable finding, but because the finding has a political implication that many people espouse. (Hence the difficulty achieving consensus.) |
|
|
::::::::] (]) 14:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::OK, thank you James. Now, the ball is in the other editors' court. Editors who see things differently than James does, please indicate what you think about his answers to questions 1 and 3. Please weigh in: what do you think? --] (]) 18:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::"Now, the ball is in the other editors' court." Tryptofish, I don't think you're going to find many editors eager to engage with ] and his abusive tactics in an effort to try to reign in his ] and POV/Truth™ -driven crusade to cleanse Misplaced Pages of ''all'' references to viewpoints on trans* issues which do not agree with his own through WikiLawyering, badgering, and just plain persistence. (Here he's trying to enlist you to certify his ]/] interpretation of primary sources! WOW!) |
|
|
::::::::::His recent activities on the ] article here are just another instance; you would need to go over his history on these issues, beginning with his anonymous exploits as ] beginning in July 2008, to ''get it''. Read his own characterizations of others just on this Talk page; go over the history on his ]; perhaps you'll see what I mean. |
|
|
::::::::::I would go over this in detail... including my assessments of his interpretations, made in his recent edit spree here, of the details related in the source articles cited; but I think it's a waste of my time... see ... I will suggest that a good ''secondary'' source on this subject, appropriate for citation in Misplaced Pages, is Deborah Rudacille's excellent "The Riddle of Gender: Science, Activism, and Transgender Rights". . |
|
|
::::::::::... and hey, do ''I'' have a COI myself? SURE DO! - Sincerely, ] (]) 11:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Bonze, thank you for your comments here. I'd like to assure you that I've had a lot experience with content disputes, agendas, and COIs, and it isn't easy to fool me. I haven't taken anyone's "side" here. I'm aware of James' recent block and the issues on both sides of it. I'm asking questions, to which there should be reasonably objective answers, in the hopes of reaching a good, encyclopedic outcome for the content of this page. I find that it's usually a good idea to approach these kinds of discussions thinking about how one's comments would appear to an objective reader unfamiliar with the case, and your response to me sounds, on the face of it, an awful lot like ]. Perhaps that's an unfair assessment, and perhaps you speak out of genuine frustration, but that's how it comes across. I asked about some specifics of the scientific literature. Telling me instead to look at Professor Misplaced Pages insults my intelligence. Instead of focusing on COIs, whether James' or your own, let's focus on the sources. You draw attention to Rudacille's book, which is a good start. Please point me to specific passages or chapters in that book, that speak directly to my questions 1 and 3. --] (]) 16:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Dear ], I'll take what's behind Door Number Three! — I.e., "It's not proven." (In my scans from The Riddle of Gender, I can find no directly relevant citations.) |
|
|
::::::::::::... but please note: when you ask editors to decide how they'd like to see James Cantor's WP:SYNTH presented here, you're asking the ''wrong question''. To begin with, this material on brain research relevant to issues of the classification and etiology of transsexualism ''does not belong in this particular article'', and the editors who would take an interest in summarizing these findings would most likely be observing posts in ]. |
|
|
::::::::::::] deals with a MUCH higher level of generalization about variations in gender identity and/or presentation than ], and in turn that subject has a broader scope than ]. ALL THESE POSTS by James Cantor are... miscategorized. A naive reader interested in finding out more about the "transgender spectrum" is going to find this article VERY misleading! E.g.: "I found my husband crossdressing... he says he's just a bit transgendered, it's OK, he's not... one of those... OH NO! OMG! In Misplaced Pages, "Transgender" is mostly about transsexualism!" (Which is kind of amusing, since Victoria Prince coined the term "transgender" to distinguish HER class of feminine but non-surgery-seeking males from "transsexuals" ... language is ''not just'' a virus; it's a rapidly-mutating one ... *sigh*) |
|
|
::::::::::::To address the claim I'm making that James Cantor's edits here comprise WP:SYNTH, here's a relevant citation from a WP:RS : |
|
|
:::::::::::: |
|
|
::::::::::::"Moreover, a highly controversial line of research has suggested that homosexual and non-homosexual MTF transsexualism are etiologically heterogeneous (Blanchard, 1989a; Blanchard, 1989b), which may be associated with differences in neuroanatomy." |
|
|
::::::::::::Blanchard's transsexualism typology is described here as ''highly controversial''. OK? If James Cantor could cite an article linking all this research together and describing it as sufficient proof that the BAT is correct, I'd have no problem. |
|
|
::::::::::::WP:SYNTH might well be correct, but is inherently problematic; I'll give one further example why: James Cantor cites Rametti et al. 2010 "The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment" as supporting the BAT with respect to HSTS subjects... |
|
|
::::::::::::"Studies have consistently shown that specifically homosexual male-to-female transsexuals, like gay men, show a shift towards the female direction in brain anatomy." - James Cantor, similar text first appearing at ... (first, note that as of yet there has been no response to the Citation Needed I posted on the "like gay men" claim...) |
|
|
::::::::::::However, that study states "The etiology of transsexualism is unknown but biological variables could play a role in its development (Cohen-Kettenis and Gooren, 1999; Gooren, 2006; Swaab, 2004)." ... and "Sexual orientation of transsexual subjects was determined by asking what partner (a man, a woman, both or neither) the subjects would prefer or feel sexual attraction to if their body did not interfere." |
|
|
::::::::::::Please note that this is not Blanchardian "homosexual transsexualism": I qualify, even though I'm a once-married fashion-mad trans-geek with offspring. (And here I am, ''active'' on the Internet, to boot! Lawrence & Bailey ("Transsexual Groups in Veale et al. (2008) are 'Autogynephilic' and 'Even More Autogynephilic'"): "MtF transsexuals who are active on the Internet appear overwhelmingly to be autogynephilic.") (NB: prudence forbids more than this remark: this self-knowledge is ''not'' based on fantasy, OK?) |
|
|
::::::::::::And in closing: Tryptofish, you note that an "objective reader" might not be impressed with the tone of my Talk post... since I'm a comedienne, and not a scholar, I tend to avoid striking poses of "objectivity" in Talk, which suit my temperament and style of expression... not. The "Professor Misplaced Pages" YouTube video I linked was not intended as an insult to you or any other editors here: I myself started patrolling various articles in order to delete vandalism, well, just because I happen to rely on Misplaced Pages for initial impressions and relevant external links on many subjects, and like to see it kept free of the worst detritus. The video is ''outrageously'' funny; there's a KILLER punch line: wait for it! |
|
|
::::::::::::It may even make you feel happy about becoming involved with the trans* edit wars... if you think about it ;-) -- "Am I WP:N yet?" - b.a.r.blayk —— ] (]) 20:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}A neuroscientist and a comedienne walk into a bar... I, in turn, got interested in Misplaced Pages because I enjoy interacting with a wide variety of people. I'm impressed that there seems to be a lack of edit warring at ], but I think that it's reasonable to have some sort of section about science here, at ]. And I think that it is abundantly clear that, however this page presents Blanchard, it is essential to do so in a way that makes clear that his hypotheses are controversial, and not to imply that they are generally accepted in the scientific literature. Anyway, please allow me to continue to focus rather narrowly on the scientific questions here. |
|
|
#With regard to my question number one, I asked whether there is further scientific literature calling Blanchard into question. James basically said that there are not other studies that ''directly'' test the hypothesis. Bonze points to Luders et al., who, I'm guessing, James will say does not ''directly'' test the hypothesis, but which I think can be considered to be a reliable source examining the anatomical issues and finding something, but something different than what Blanchard predicted, and who seem to express the opinion that Blanchard was "controversial". James: is that fair? Bonze also points out that the Rametti paper, cited by James, has issues about how the subjects of the study were categorized, and makes the statement that the etiology is unknown. James: do Rametti et al. actually state that their results support Blanchard's hypothesis—I'm looking for a verbatim quote here, saying something like "we conclude that our results are consistent with Blanchard's hypothesis" or words to that effect!—or is it your own interpretation of their results that the results support the hypothesis? Or is Bonze doing ] about how the subjects in that study were defined? |
|
|
#With regard to my question number two, James' agreement means we have consensus against a lengthy quote. |
|
|
#With regard to my question number three, I think we are going to agree that, as Bonze says, it is not proven, but, beyond that, I think we need to settle what we think about my question number one. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 21:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Re: Yes, just about. To emphasize a minor point that is hard to communicate via typing: It is not it that no one else has '''directly tested''' Blanchard's model (which several others successfully have), it is that no one other than these three teams have tested Blanchard's model using '''directly neurological techniques.''' |
|
|
:Regarding the exact terms in each text; I'd need to go back and re-read how which one phrased what. However, I have no problem telling you up front that not all three said that they were testing Blanchard's hypothesis and that calling that set of papers an explicit confirmation of Blanchard could indeed be a ] problem. My goal in coming to this page was simply to add all the other neuro-relevant findings pertinant to that section. (It contained only the exceptional finding rather than the predominant finding.) |
|
|
:] (]) 23:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank you, James. I think that answer is very helpful, and it suggests to me a way forward. First, let me say to James that I can readily understand how you feel about the issue. As an academic scientist, I too would sometimes like to see my own best judgment about issues that are currently unresolved in my own areas of expertise more clearly reflected in Misplaced Pages content. But Misplaced Pages simply isn't the place to work those issues out. ''That'' has to happen in the primary literature, and Misplaced Pages, as tertiary literature, can only follow. And my editing experience is that SYNTH can be interpreted strictly or loosely, but on pages where editors have strong opinions, as is clearly the case here, it is best to apply it strictly. |
|
|
|
|
|
::So I want to propose the following way forward, and I'd like to know what ''all'' editors here think about it. |
|
|
::*] should be sourced to, and discuss, '''only''' sources that are looking at biological aspects of brain structure, using neurological or neuroscientific techniques, and should generally refrain from discussing these findings in terms of Blanchard's typology. As for how you write the section of the page just above it, about that typology, I leave that to the rest of you, since it is above my pay grade! |
|
|
::*The brain-based studies should be discussed in terms of what the authors of those studies say, explicitly, that they concluded, and not include anything that Misplaced Pages editors might infer from those studies. It will be a lot of "this part of the brain was larger", "that part of the brain was smaller", and "this other part of the brain was the same". There may be three studies that said a particular part of the brain was larger, and two studies that said the same brain part was smaller; they should all be cited, and no attempt by Misplaced Pages editors should be made to say which was wrong and which was right (unless there was subsequent consensus in the scientific literature). |
|
|
::*The only time that Blanchard's typology should be mentioned is when the authors of the cited study said, explicitly, that they were testing Blanchard's hypothesis and concluded that it was either true or false. Commenting parenthetically that it is controversial does not count; rather, the authors must say themselves that their evidence has '''direct''' bearing on it. |
|
|
::*This probably means that the section will not have any sweeping conclusions, instead treating the subject as one that is currently unresolved. That's OK. |
|
|
::*It is unacceptable for editors to refuse to allow some reliable sources to be included, and doing so may give the appearance of POV-pushing. If there are various studies, some pointing one way, and others pointing the opposite way, they should all be included, at least briefly, so long as they are presented as above. |
|
|
::Would that be acceptable to everyone? --] (]) 20:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::That sounds good to me. Although I am happy to write a sentence summarizing instead of quoting Blanchard's idea, I would first like to invite any of the other folks who previously expressed an interest here to propose one/some. |
|
|
:::] (]) 18:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If, and I'm just saying "if", we agree on what I suggested, do we really still need that sentence (at least in this part of the article) at all? --] (]) 18:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::To my eye, it's rather bizarre without it. That is, there are a string of studies all testing the same prediction, but the prediction itself would be missing. |
|
|
:::::] (]) 19:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Please carefully re-read what I proposed. Do those sources actually say that they were testing it? --] (]) 19:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I'm sorry if I've misread you (wouldn't be my first time). |
|
|
:::::::The original articles vary in their explicitness. Some articles seem to have accidentally tripped upon the androphilic/gynephilic distinction just by luck whereas others cite Blanchard explicitly as the reason for the research design they chose. I don't think that either Blanchard (or anyone else) has said or used the neurological data as an explicit test of the Blanchard typology. Rather, there have been predictions made ''on the basis of'' the Blanchard typology (and those predictions have, thus far, been correct). Thus, I believe the predictions are very relevant here, but should be cast either as proof or disproof. |
|
|
:::::::] (]) 20:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Then, to repeat what I suggested: "The only time that Blanchard's typology should be mentioned is when the authors of the cited study said, explicitly, that they were testing Blanchard's hypothesis and concluded that it was either true or false." In this case, I don't necessarily see a need for a summary sentence; instead, I would just state what the authors concluded. --] (]) 20:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::To close the loop then, you're saying you think the current mainpage should stay as is? |
|
|
:::::::::] (]) 20:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I don't have a problem with further edits. I made a suggestion with five bullet points just above, and those five points are what I suggest. I would advise against writing the section as though it were a literature in which various investigators have tested Blanchard's predictions. --] (]) 20:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{od}}Keeping stupid ] bot-archiver at bay: I will be returning to this topic, and the preceding discussion is relevant. - ] (]) 22:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
_____ |
|
|
|
|
|
Tryptofish, I think your approach to incorporating James Cantor's edits here is good... except I think that they don't belong in the ] article at this level of detail. Where ''do'' they belong? As I commented earlier, "I find that the ''organization'' of gender-related topics in Misplaced Pages is a wretched mess"... and I believe that's because it's a challenge to sort out appropriate categories when working alone... much moreso when trying to form an consensus on the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
E.g., some of the research now in this section doesn't fit into the ] article; there is currently not an article such as ] which could serve to gather research in different areas into one article. ??? |
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of weeks ago, I assessed the current character count in a number of articles which seem to me to relate to gender and trans* issues as a part of trying to figure out how they all relate to each other; currently, ] totals 10,739 characters, while ], the "main" article linked, contains 10,137 characters! Naturally, there is duplicated content; also, it's arranged in a different fashion (by category sexual preference, rather than date), so a straight merge is difficult (I have no stong preference either way; chronological cites are easier to update; I think James' organization here makes more sense in interpreting the findings). (One thing to note: Lawrence's apotemnophilia article is not included in ]; it seems like it should be incorporated in the section with Ramachandran's "phantom limb" research.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Reference sections are not included in these counts; I made no attempt to consider articles on sexuality which may be related, and of course, feel free to criticize how I categorize the articles. |
|
|
|
|
|
<dl> |
|
|
<dt>- Articles relating to categorization of types of transsexuals |
|
|
<dd>] - 28,417 |
|
|
<dd>] - 5,461 |
|
|
<dd>] - 8,919 |
|
|
<dd>] - 10,582 |
|
|
<dd> Total 53,379 |
|
|
</dl> |
|
|
|
|
|
<dl> |
|
|
<dt>- Articles relating to GID and transsexualism in general |
|
|
<dd>] - 10,137 |
|
|
<dd>] - 10,407 |
|
|
<dd>] - 36,000 |
|
|
<dd>- ] - 1,628 -> ] |
|
|
<dd>] - 4,677 |
|
|
<dd> Total 61,221 |
|
|
</dl> |
|
|
|
|
|
<dl> |
|
|
<dd>] - 9,290 |
|
|
<dd>] - 4,113 |
|
|
<dd> Total 13,403 |
|
|
</dl> |
|
|
|
|
|
<dl> |
|
|
<dt>- Articles relating explicitly to transgender topics, which are ''much broader'' than transsexualism |
|
|
<dd>] - 10,084 |
|
|
<dd>] - 44,613 Total |
|
|
<dd>- ] - 10,739 -> ] |
|
|
<dd>- ] - 9,628 |
|
|
<dd>- ] - 6,223 |
|
|
<dd>- ] - 1,994 |
|
|
<dd>] - 8,821 |
|
|
<dd>] - 3,913 |
|
|
<dd>] - 1,621 |
|
|
<dd> Total 69,052 |
|
|
</dl> |
|
|
|
|
|
<dl> |
|
|
<dt>- Articles relating to types of gender role, orientation, and presentation |
|
|
<dd>] - 9,263 |
|
|
<dd>] - 2,362 |
|
|
<dd>] - 3,042 |
|
|
<dd>] - 2,163 |
|
|
<dd>] - 2,231 |
|
|
<dd>] - 17,396 |
|
|
<dd>] - 14,876 |
|
|
<dd>] - 8,557 |
|
|
<dd>] - 2,395 |
|
|
<dd>] - 2,453 |
|
|
<dd>] - 40,227 |
|
|
<dd>] - 10,947 |
|
|
<dd>] - 19,956 |
|
|
</dl> |
|
|
|
|
|
<dl> |
|
|
<dt>- Articles relating to gender at the highest level of conceptualization |
|
|
<dd>] - 55,399 |
|
|
<dd>] - 63,906 |
|
|
<dd> Total - 126,963 |
|
|
</dl> |
|
|
|
|
|
<dl> |
|
|
<dt>- Miscellaneous |
|
|
<dd>] - 2,274 |
|
|
|
|
|
<dd>] - 19,833 |
|
|
<dd>] - 5,687 |
|
|
|
|
|
<dd>] - 33,468 |
|
|
</dl> |
|
|
|
|
|
And I just found recently that there is an article on ]... some 5,693 characters in length. I'm not sure I ''want'' to know what that's about, but am reassured to see that "Trigenderism" "does not equate to Multiple Personality Disorder" .-) |
|
|
|
|
|
-- ] (]) 17:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "To Family Members" Subsection of "Coming Out" == |
|
|
|
|
|
This section feels very colloquial and perhaps a bit on the personal side. The sources give examples of the phenomenon discussed, but the style does not feel encyclopedic. In addition, there is a specific section already devoted to Transgender issues involving "Coming Out" in the coming out article. Perhaps the two should be merged to keep all of the information together after some restyling? {{unsigned2|08:18, 16 June 2011|173.88.20.32}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== hermaphrodite == |
|
|
|
|
|
I was very suprised to see absoltely no mention of hermphrodites, which is a natural phenomonon whereas people are born with a combination of sexual organs, somwtimes, even two complete sets. It would seem to me that this is an incredibly key part of "transgender." It should really be in the lead, with a key distinction made between a biological hermaphrodite and a transvestite who has surgically altered their genetils to appear of the opposite sex ] (]) 23:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
: I think the term is ] rather than ]. However, I think transgender relates to people who have a mismatch (great or small) between their genetic sex and gender identity. Intersex people may or may not have this mismatch. If you read on it says "Intersex people have genitalia or other physical sexual characteristics that do not conform to strict definitions of male and/or female, but intersex people are not necessarily transgender, since they do not all disagree with their assigned sex at birth. Transgender and intersex issues often overlap, however, because they both challenge the notion of rigid definitions of sex and gender." ] (]) 12:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
I have actually never heard the term intersex before. Perhaps it is used in Europe? Either way, it still seems to me that it is a very key part of what transgender is] (]) 15:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
: Hermaphrodite is generally used in these parts when talking about snails and such. Where are you from? Would be interesting to know how this kind of language differs over the world. But the point still stands I think, that transgender is about your gender identity - ie. how you feel - as opposed to what bits you happen to possess between your legs ] (]) 21:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
I don't really care what you call it, I just have never heard the term before. But it just seems to me that if we are trying to have an encyclopedia page about people who consider themselves in-between sexes, certainly some mention should be made of people who are actually in-between the sexes in a medical sense should be made. Current medical theory as to the nature of the transgender population would also seem to need to be discussed, IE hormone level and genetic studies, physcological and socioligical explanations ect. ] (]) 04:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Concerns regarding this document. In the section... "Androphilic MtF transsexuals == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello I have some concerns regarding this document. In the section... "Androphilic MtF transsexuals |
|
|
|
|
|
Studies have consistently shown that specifically androphilic male-to-female transsexuals (sometimes called homosexual MtF transsexuals) show a shift towards the female direction in brain anatomy." |
|
|
|
|
|
The wording "(sometimes called homosexual MtF transsexuals)" should be removed... transgender is about Gender and Gender Identity if someone has a female gender identity they are not homosexual. That word is clearly defined as Men that love other Men. To effectively label a transsexual woman "homosexual MtF Transsexual" is effectively calling her a "Gay male, male to female, person whom has transitioned." This could be seen as violating (NPOV) by asserting/labeling the MtF as homosexual and making a value judgement / assumption as to her "true" gender and "sex". Androphilic is sufficient and descriptive to stand on it's own. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sources to use (since they are many, only use the most reliable and highly reputable ones): |
|
This is redundant in the extreme and completely invalidating of the transsexual woman gender. Not to mention such references used in that way are antiquated and possibly even discriminatory. If some way to educate the reader what Anrophilic means it should read... "...studies have consistently shown that specifically androphilic ((Greek for man-loving) MtF transsexuals...) or androphilia should link to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/Androphilia_and_gynephilia |
|
|
|
#{{cite web |last=Steinmetz |first=Katy |date=2018-04-03 |title=The OED Just Added the Word 'Trans*.' Here's What It Means |url=https://time.com/5211799/what-does-trans-asterisk-star-mean-dictionary/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=TIME |language=en}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |title=Why We Used Trans* and Why We Don't Anymore - |url=https://transstudent.org/issues/asterisk/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=transstudent.org |language=en-US}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |title=Why do you include an asterisk in Trans*? » The Safe Zone Project |url=https://thesafezoneproject.com/faq/why-do-you-include-an-asterisk-in-trans/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=The Safe Zone Project |language=en-US}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |last=Middleton |first=Josh |date=2014-07-16 |title=QUEERSTIONS: What Does it Mean When There is an Asterisk After the Word "Trans?" |url=https://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/07/16/queerstions-mean-asterisk-word-trans/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=Philadelphia Magazine |language=en-US}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |title=What does the asterisk in “trans*” stand for? - ❤ It's Pronounced Metrosexual |url=https://www.itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/05/what-does-the-asterisk-in-trans-stand-for/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=It's Pronounced Metrosexual |language=en-us}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |last=Levenson |first=Claire |date=2018-10-15 |title=Transition des jeunes trans*, quand science et militants divergent |url=https://www.slate.fr/story/167366/sciences-recherche-etudes-jeunes-trans-militantisme |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=Slate.fr |language=fr-FR}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Prieur |first=Cha |date=2019-12-16 |title=Les violences envers les personnes trans* à l'université. Des conséquences sur la santé mentale aux pistes pour s’en sortir |url=https://journals.openedition.org/gss/5726 |journal=Genre, sexualité & société |language=fr |issue=22 |doi=10.4000/gss.5726 |issn=2104-3736}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Delage |first=Pauline |last2=Lieber |first2=Marylène |last3=Chetcuti-Osorovitz |first3=Natacha |date=2019-07-18 |title=Lutter contre les violences de genre. Des mouvements féministes à leur institutionnalisation:Introduction |url=https://shs.cairn.info/revue-cahiers-du-genre-2019-1-page-5?lang=fr |journal=Cahiers du Genre |language=fr |volume=66 |issue=1 |pages=5–16 |doi=10.3917/cdge.066.0005 |issn=1298-6046}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Iazzetti |first=Brume Dezembro |date=2022-01-01 |title=Políticas institucionais voltadas à população trans* no ensino superior brasileiro e alguns de seus limites e desafios |url=https://www.academia.edu/95784280/Pol%C3%ADticas_institucionais_voltadas_%C3%A0_popula%C3%A7%C3%A3o_trans_no_ensino_superior_brasileiro_e_alguns_de_seus_limites_e_desafios |journal=Cultura, Política, Sexualidade e Gênero na América Latina}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Guerrero McManus |first=Siobhan |date=2024 |title=Los estudios trans en México |url=https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S2448-57052024000100011&script=sci_arttext |journal=Inter disciplina |language=es |volume=12 |issue=32 |pages=11–24 |doi=10.22201/ceiich.24485705e.2024.32.86915 |issn=2448-5705}} |
|
|
#{{cite book |last=Radi |first=Blas |url=https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/handle/11336/143541?show=full |title=Epistemología del asterisco: una introducción sinuosa a la epistemología trans |date=2020 |publisher=Universidad Nacional de Rosario |isbn=978-987-702-385-5}} |
|
|
#JONES, Nash. Bridging the gap-trans*: What does the asterisk mean and why is it used. '''PDX Q Center''', 2013. |
|
|
#Garvin, P. (2019). What’s the asterisk in “trans*” mean and why do some find it offensive?”. ''The LGBTQ+ Experiment'', ''18''. |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Lewis |first=Nancy M. |date=2019-01-01 |title=Open to Possibilities: Gender Variability and the Importance of the Asterisk. |url=https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA611260115&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=25760750&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Eecb3b175&aty=open-web-entry |journal=Resources for Gender and Women's Studies: A Feminist Review |language=English |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=7–8}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Tompkins |first=Avery |date=2014-05-01 |title=Asterisk |url=https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article/1/1-2/26/91872/Asterisk |journal=TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly |volume=1 |issue=1-2 |pages=26–27 |doi=10.1215/23289252-2399497 |issn=2328-9252}} ] (]) 02:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Hey @], |
|
] (]) 02:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Could you choose some of the best sources and add them as inline citations? |
|
|
:If you don't get to it, I can, but you may be more familiar with the source material. |
|
|
:Thanks! |
|
|
:] (]) | :) | he/him | 05:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] I think 1, 11, 15, and 14 are the best sources and should be there. I guess that's a reasonable number and they cover what the sentences are saying. ] (]) 05:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I could not read number 11 (foreign language) or 14 (limited access), but after changing the paragraph headings, etc. for more logical flow () and adding bullets to the relevant paragraph (), I made your edit, with the following modifications: |
|
|
:::-converted quotation marks to italics |
|
|
:::-added clause about the transgender umbrella after agender to clarify how trans* includes other identities under the transgender umbrella |
|
|
:::-clarified summary of argument over use of the term |
|
|
:::-I read the sources and added them as ] where I though they fit best. |
|
|
:::-serves as -> represents, because I think that wildcard has a specific meaning (could be wrong) in computer searches, as referenced by source number 15 |
|
|
:::If you disagree with any of my choices, or want to add more information/make more changes to the article, please feel free to continue recommending them here! This was a great recommendation! |
|
|
::::P.S., in the future, you can add inline citations by surrounding your citation template with ref tags like this <nowiki> <ref>{{cite web}}</ref>, </nowiki> but that may have been too much work on a talk page. However, regardless, if you want to recommend any future changes, I would ask that you just put which sources you are referencing, like this: |
|
|
:::::"] is the greatest" |
|
|
::::::: The truest book |
|
|
:::just so it is known which sources you want to use. |
|
|
:::Again, thanks! Have a good day. |
|
|
:::] (]) | :) | he/him | 05:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks for that all. Yup, that's perfect cause I have problems sometimes with syntax or grammar. And here's an open PDF for 11: https://notablesdelaciencia.conicet.gov.ar/bitstream/handle/11336/143541/CONICET_Digital_Nro.632f17dd-d63f-4e3e-89dc-46a7306a31c9_A.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y ] (]) 05:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thanks also to @] for removing the quotation marks; I neglected to do that. |
|
|
:::::] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{already done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] completed the request ] (]) 12:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
This question is not about people, but about terminology. Please don't flame me. I've read both articles and a goodly chunk of the archives. Maybe I missed it, but I can't find RS that really explains the difference between terms "transsexual" and "transgender" or makes a definite statement that they are the same. I find lots of opinions, but no sourcing. As a follow-on, are there particular researchers who have made a study of how use of the terms has changed over time? Bitten Peach (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
This phrase "They are framed as something entirely separate from transgender women, who possess the same gender identity of people assigned female at birth" does not make sense, and I wonder that's really what the author even hinted at saying that. I guess it could be reworded. But does this mean they are framed as cis women or trans men? Because "the same gender identity of people assigned female at birth" is not clear. Or did this try to explain what is a trans woman? Then you can just replace female with male, but would this contextualization be necessary? LIrala (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Sources to use (since they are many, only use the most reliable and highly reputable ones):
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Trans § Requested move 15 November 2024. Please join the move discussion for a primary redirect to this article currently in progress. Raladic (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Already done User:JuxtaposedJacob completed the request The AP (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
