Talk:Autogynephilia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggestion to restore page[edit]

Multiple new RS's have become available covering this term and topic, including a full length book. For any editors interested in restoring this page, I have provided a list of such new RS's below.

  • Bettcher, Talia Mae. (2014). When selves have sex: What the phenomenology of trans sexuality can teach about sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, 61, 605-620. doi:10.1080/00918369.2014.865472
  • Carroll, Richard A. (2014). Review of Men trapped in men's bodies: Narratives of autogynephilic transsexualism. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40, 73-75. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2013.854561
  • Hsu, Kevin J. (2014). The "auto" (self) in autogynephilic transsexualism. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 234-236. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.842354
  • Hsu, Kevin J, Rosenthal, A. M & Bailey, J. Michael. (2014). The psychometric structure of items assessing autogynephilia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, No Pagination Specified. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0397-9
  • Knudson, Gail, De Cuypere, Griet & Bockting, Walter. (2011). Second response of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health to the proposed revision of the diagnosis of transvestic disorder for DSM 5. International Journal of Transgenderism, 13, 9-12. doi:10.1080/15532739.2011.606195
  • Lawrence, Anne A. (2011). Do some men who desire sex reassignment have a mental disorder? Comment on Meyer-Bahlburg (2010). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 651-654. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9720-2
  • Lawrence, Anne A. (2011). Further validation of Blanchard's typology: A reply to Nuttbrock, Bockting, Rosenblum, Mason, and Hwahng (2010). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1089-1091. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9742-4
  • Lawrence, Anne A. (2013). Men trapped in men's bodies: Narratives of autogynephilic transsexualism. Men trapped in men's bodies: Narratives of autogynephilic transsexualism. New York, NY, US: Springer Science + Business Media, US; doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-5182-2.
  • Lawrence, Anne A. (2014). Veale's (2014) critique of Blanchard's typology was invalid. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1679-1683. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0383-2
  • Levine, Stephen B. (2014). What is more bizarre: The transsexual or transsexual politics? Sex Roles, 70, 158-160. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0341-9
  • Lothstein, Leslie M. (2013). Controversy at ground zero: Transsexualism as female essence or male paraphilia? A human right or something to be treated? PsycCRITIQUES, 58, No Pagination Specified. doi:10.1037/a0033499
  • Nichols, Margaret. (2014). Review of Men trapped in men's bodies: Narratives of autogynephilic transsexualism. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40, 71-73. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2013.854559
  • Nuttbrock, Larry, Bockting, Walter, Mason, Mona, Hwahng, Sel, Rosenblum, Andrew, Macri, Monica, et al. (2011). A further assessment of Blanchard's typology of homosexual versus non-homosexual or autogynephilic gender dysphoria. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 247-257. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9579-2
  • Nuttbrock, Larry, Bockting, Walter, Rosenblum, Andrew, Mason, Mona & Hwahng, Sel. (2011). Sexual arousal associated with private as compared to public feminine dressing among male-to-female transgender persons: A further response to Lawrence (2011). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1093-1096. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9815-4
  • Veale, Jaimie F. (2014). Evidence against a typology: A taxometric analysis of the sexuality of male-to-female transsexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1177-1186. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0275-5
  • Veale, Jaimie F, Clarke, David E & Lomax, Terri C. (2012). Male-to-female transsexuals' impressions of Blanchard's autogynephilia theory. International Journal of Transgenderism, 13, 131-139. doi:10.1080/15532739.2011.669659

— James Cantor (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Favor restoring the page I didn't realize the page was merged, must have been when I wasn't paying much attention to Wikipedia, nice work/research James Cantor! -- Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
James, as you know, the page redirects to Blanchard's transsexualism typology#Autogynephilia and autoandrophilia; I don't see the problem with that. WP:Spinout articles should ideally only be created when needed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, first, autogynephilia (as a topic) is not a subset of of Blanchard's transsexualism typology; it is a topic unto itself. For example, autogynephilia motivates transvestic fetishism, which is not part of Blanchard's typology (which is of transsexuals, not transvestites or cross-dressers).
  • Autogynephilia is much more RS'd than other paraphilias which have their own pages.
  • I believe that restricting autogynephilia to within Blanchard's transsexualism typology#Autogynephilia and autoandrophilia is a WP:POVFORK. Relatedly, I believe "Blanchard's transsexualism typology" is WP:NEO. The content belongs on the transsexualism pages themselves. The phrase "Autogynephilia and autoandrophilia" is also a WP:NEO WP:POVFORK. There is a great deal of empirical research on autogynephilia, essentially none on autoandrophilia, and essentially none one their combination. The RS's support autogynephilia as an independent topic unto itself.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
James, restricting autogynephilia within Blanchard's transsexualism typology#Autogynephilia and autoandrophilia is not a WP:POVFORK. And titling the article "Blanchard's transsexualism typology" is not a WP:NEO violation. That is a title matter, and is allowed per WP:Precise if there is going to be a Wikipedia article specifically about Blanchard's typology. Having a section titled "Autogynephilia and autoandrophilia" also is not a WP:NEO violation. I don't like seeing unnecessary WP:Content forks; that is my point on this matter. Ideally, we should be directing readers to one article that covers all of this, and only split content into separate articles when needed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like WP:POVFORK states, "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And as for covering Blanchard's typology at the Transsexualism article, the Transsexualism article is big enough, and Blanchard's typology is WP:Notable for a Wikipedia article. At most, given the lengths of these two articles (the Transsexualism and Blanchard's transsexualism typology articles), Blanchard's typology should only have a WP:Summary style piece at the Transsexualism article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And some sources you cited above state "Blanchard's typology." Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All that stated, I'm not strongly opposed to you creating the Autogynephilia article. Once you create it, you should significantly cut the section on that material in the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article; this is per WP:Summary style. And renaming that section Autogynephilia would obviously be fine. But having the section titled Autogynephilia and autoandrophilia is more accurate in the case that the section significantly covers both terms; right now, it clearly does not. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm hoping that someone other than me decides to restore the article. I prefer to keep my activities on this topic to the talk pages as per my user page pledge.— James Cantor (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, from your initial post above, I figured that you weren't looking to create the article yourself. I'm not interested in creating it. Maybe KateWishing would be interested in creating it. Or she might think that the topic is fine where it is already covered, without needing a separate article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion. Autogynephilia can be discussed separately from transgenderism, but that rarely happens. All but one of the above references are about Blanchard's typology. If we're going to keep both articles, wouldn't detailed information about autogynephilic transsexualism (including most of these references) still belong in Blanchard's transsexualism typology, since that article is more specific? Either way, I might help incorporate these sources somewhere after I'm finished with Necrophilia. KateWishing (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the DSM-5 itself discusses autogynephilia outside of transsexuality: Autogynephilia is used as a specifier in transvestic disorder, which is entirely outside of the gender dysphoria section. (I know KateWishing said "transgender" rather than "transsexual," but Blanchard's typology pertains to transsexuality narrowly, not transgenderism broadly.)— James Cantor (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to a separate Autogynephilia article, I'm just saying it would be short if the details about autogynephilic transsexualism are absorbed into Blanchard's transsexualism typology (which seems appropriate, if that article is going to exist at all). KateWishing (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, per above, you know how I feel about unnecessarily creating WP:Spinout articles. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, as you know, I discussed WP:Spinout articles at the Animal sexual behaviour talk page. I'm usually consistent when it comes to whether or not a WP:Spinout article should be created. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the issues are probably too deeply intertwined in most sources to work as separate articles. We would have to pick out individual sentences from the same sources and split them between the articles. However, the current situation isn't ideal because most autogynephiles are not transsexual. One option would be to move Blanchard's transsexualism typology to Autogynephilia. The downside is that Blanchard's typology also covers non-autogynephilic transsexuals. However, non-autogynephilic transsexuals are mostly known for their relation to autogynephiles, so it should be fine to briefly discuss them on Autogynephilia. Again, here are the possibilities:

KateWishing (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’d be perfectly fine to keep both, with each page emphasizing its own aspect of the overall topic (and linking to the other). That is, something like:
Autogynephilia
main section for the experience/phenomenon
main section for non-transsexual autogynephilia; links to cross-dressing and transvestism
summary of autogynephilic transsexualism and link to Blanchard's transsexualism typology
Blanchard's transsexualism typology
main section for history of typology/ies
main section for autogynephilic transsexualism (terminology, DSM-5, etc.)
criticisms, transsexual community reaction
— James Cantor (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no such thing as "non-transsexual autogynephilia"; autogynephilia in cissexual people is known as "feeling sexy". I'm strongly opposed to James' presence on Wikipedia as the very model of a civil POV pusher, let alone another article to peddle his friends' crackpot theories. Sceptre (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are men who fantasize about having female characteristics but have no desire to transition. Transvestism is the best known manifestation, but some men also fantasize about anatomical transformation, menstruation, lactation and so on. Anne Lawrence's book has a chapter called "Narratives by Nontranssexual Autogynephiles". The existence of these people is unrelated to the transsexualism debate, though unfortunately they're rarely discussed outside that context. KateWishing (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kate is exactly correct wrt non-transsexual autogynephilia. — James Cantor (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that the statement "most autogynephiles are not transsexual" is accurate (and sourceable)? If so, then directing those people to a page specifically about how to classify MTF transsexual people makes me uncomfortable. It feels a bit like redirecting Cancer into Breast cancer: breast cancer may be the subtype that gets the most attention in the popular press, but general subjects shouldn't be merged into more specific ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Autogynephilia: An Underappreciated Paraphilia, Anne Lawrence states: "Transvestism is the most common manifestation of autogynephilia." She goes on to review studies suggesting a 3% prevalence for autogynephilic arousal in men, and a much rarer prevalence for transsexualism. KateWishing (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drama[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sceptre's opposition is duly noted; however, the ArbCom decided otherwise in its Sexology decision. So, if Sceptre would like to appeal that decision, ArbCom is where to go. Barring that, uncivil comments and disruptions of otherwise productive (multiple) editors would likely be deemed a violation of the discretionary sanctions to which this page remains subject.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to claim you don't have a COI when you admit to one. You're pushing the limits of your personal pledge. Sceptre (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything to say about the page?— James Cantor (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (Redacted) [1]Sceptre (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported the above to WP:AN/I: [2]— James Cantor (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • James: I've removed the personal attack above. Let me know if you would like me to revdel it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kevin; that should be fine.— James Cantor (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANOTHER suggestion to restore page.[edit]

I have restored the content of this page, and two people said I should first seek discussion here. As noted higher up on this page, there has already been such discussion, and no one opposed re-instating the content. So, how much more discussion/agreement is enough, exactly?StarLightBright (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Per above, editors (me included) opposed the article being recreated. there was some objection to re-creating the article. I didn't see a need for creation back then and still don't, and issues with re-creating the article were cited. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also disagree with your statement that there was no opposition to recreating the article. What can be said without doubt is that there was no consensus to recreate it in 2015, and so it wasn't recreated. Most of the points made then, for and against, are as true today and the discussion could certainly be continued. This is best done by tagging this page to give the widest possible visibility before performing the split. Of course, it is always possible to be bold but probably best to keep that option for cases where disagreement hasn't already been demonstrated so it isn't just seen as a red flag asking for a revert. Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC that would restore this page[edit]

For anyone interested, there is an RfC about restoring this page, at

Talk:Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Request_for_Comment_on_material_in_Autogynephilia_vs_Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology_vs_Transsexualism.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autogynephilia&oldid=1199208935"