Blanchard's transsexualism typology: Revision history


For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

28 April 2024

7 April 2024

6 April 2024

31 March 2024

11 February 2024

7 February 2024

26 January 2024

15 January 2024

  • curprev 16:4116:41, 15 January 2024Belaishia103 talk contribs 74,587 bytes +10 Clarification that the questionnaire was given to exclusively cisgender women. It seems that the section is directly quoting the abstract of the study, yet fails to mention that the ASW was created "to test the possibility that natal women also experience autogynephilia" (citation 47 on the page). It may be more beneficial to explain this when defining the ASW, but since this is the only time it is mentioned in the article, I thought it acceptable to clarify here. undo Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit

31 December 2023

29 December 2023

26 December 2023

24 December 2023

  • Undo
    Reverted

23 December 2023

19 December 2023

14 December 2023

12 December 2023

5 December 2023

17 November 2023

15 November 2023

13 November 2023

8 November 2023

28 October 2023

4 October 2023

  • curprev 20:3620:36, 4 October 2023Dlobr talk contribs 74,610 bytes 0 No edit summary undo Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
  • Undo
  • curprev 20:2820:28, 4 October 2023Dlobr talk contribs 74,684 bytes +74 Activist users shouldn't be able to make broad claims like "many scientists" &/or research claims in an Intro section that is not substantiated anywhere in the article. It's clear on the talk page that many are raising an issue here. Please provide citations, otherwise, this is simply activist opinion. undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
  • Undo
  • curprev 20:1220:12, 4 October 2023Dlobr talk contribs 75,164 bytes +554 Since activist opinion must be placed in the intro, adding representative example & citation elucidating the faults in such an opinion. The majority of widely accepted concepts in the field of psychology can be consider "unfalsifiable", yet it's only this page that requires such a disclaimer :) undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
  • curprev 06:1506:15, 4 October 2023Zenomonoz talk contribs 74,610 bytes +4 work –> typology, better undo Tag: Visual edit
  • Undo
  • curprev 04:3804:38, 4 October 2023Dlobr talk contribsm 73,679 bytes −48 Slight reword for clarity; no changes to content or intent. undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit
  • curprev 04:3204:32, 4 October 2023Dlobr talk contribs 73,727 bytes −879 Unsourced & dubious opinion, verging on activism. This logic can be applied across all of psychology to "disprove" most concepts. For example, the concept of gender has never been validated in any systematic review or even a high quality study, yet it is widely accepted since it was redefined in 1955 by a sexologist. One could even more easily say that the concept of gender is unfalsifiable, among many other related theories. undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit

18 September 2023

13 September 2023

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)