Talk:Homosexual transsexual/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I and a team of others wrote this article and never has this quesiton came up. The closest I can recall is one editor or the other wanting to characterize the level of acceptance of this term in psychology...never has anyone until now questioned that it is used in at least one subfield of psychology. My only argument is based on references. Look at them and judge for yourselves.

• Smith, Yolanda L.S. (
  doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2005.01.008. Retrieved 2007-06-26. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
  )
• Cohen-Kettenis, Peggy T. (February 2003). "Gender-Dysphoric Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Problems". Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 31 (1). Netherlands: Springer Netherlands: 41–53.
  doi:10.1023/A:1021769215342. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
  )
• Zucker, Kenneth J; Blanchard, Ray (October), "Birth order and sibling sex ratio in homosexual transsexual South Korean men: Effects of the male-preference stopping rule", Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 61 (5): 529–533,
  doi:10.1111/j.1440-1819.2007.01703.x {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link
  )
• A google scholar search of ... homosexual transsexual psychology... turns up dozens of hits.

Therefore I believe we can say at the very least the word is used in psychology. We can't say how well it is accepted or not... There are two users likely to show up here who would say different things. I will let them speak for themselves.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That is the rub. Plenty of words are "used". That is why those of us in Psychology are continually cleaning out the category. For example, that is why we work to keep Category:Emotion out of Category:Psychology, as editors are constantly trying to put terms into Psychology that have no business there. If it can't go in the category, then leave psychologists out of the many cited in the article does not mean it is a psychological term. Almost none of the researchers mentioned in the article are psychologists, and because you can find three journals that mention the term "transsexual homosexuals" out the many referened does not mean the term is accepted in Psychology as a diagnostic term. The article isn't even in the Category:Psychology. Use Category:Sexology or, if you must, Psychiatry and Psychiatrists instead. Google search is not a substitute for valid research. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse. You are correct. While the term has been used occasionally, it has never been widely used. It is not a formal diagnosis or official diagnostic category. It's used primarily by people associated with the

WP:OWN issues when people question Hfarmer's POV or Hfarmer's attempts to get this decidedly bad article declared "good." Jokestress (talk

) 03:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

But fundamentally we agree at least that it is used by at least some psychologist? right? Jokestress you and I disagree about using the word widely or rarely or whatever.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is used by a very few psychologists, who apparently consider themselves sexologists, does not mean the word is condoned by the field of psychology. If you look at the disciplines of the authors of the papers you use as references, you will find only a few are psychologists. One reason is that practitioners in the field of sexology benefit from having a medical degree. Psychologists do not have a medical degree, have no expertise in biology, endocrinology, genetics etc., and therefore do not have the training required for an in depth understanding of the field. The diagnosis is not recognized by the field of psychology, and in fact such diagnoses are actively discouraged by the American Psychological Association and other professional groups. Why not use psychiatry and psychiatrists (psychiatrists have a medical degree). —Mattisse (Talk) 14:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

@ Mattisse: I have proposed many times that the opening sentence say the term is used by some psychologists, to make it clear to readers that this term is controversial and not generally accepted. I have further suggested we note that most proponents are associated with a school of thought emerging from CAMH. That change has been consistently rejected by User:Hfarmer and others, which I consider an NPOV violation. The term has probably been used in publications by no more than two dozen psychologists in the past 50 years. For perspective, the American Psychology Association has 150,000 members, so we are talking about something less than 0.02% of their members (well under 1 in 5000). The number of transsexual people who use the term favorably in reliable sources is 0.00% (0 out of many millions). This is an obscure term that's part of an obscure debate. The only reason it gets so much attention on Wikipedia is because of two editors who very strongly advocate for its use. They are outliers and not representative of consensus, but this has gone on for years because of their strong personal/professional stakes in the outcome of the debate. I have published work critical of the term, and I am familiar with the literature, so I have been trying for years to keep these editors from misrepresenting this debate on Wikipedia, with limited success. Jokestress (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am having some trouble understanding Mattisse' point of view. Although I can't say I have any strong opinion one way or the other, Mattisse' argument includes some falsehoods:

• It is true that few psychologists write on this topic, but only because so few scientists write on this topic: No profession has written more on this topic than have psychologists.
• I am also at a loss to see on what basis Mattisse can say that Blanchard does not identify as a psychologist. I have known and worked with Blanchard for a decade, and this would be news to me.
• The phenomenon of homosexual transsexuality is, of course, part of what some activists call a "Blanchard-Bailey-Lawrence Theory" of transsexuality. Both Blanchard and Bailey are psychologists. Another proponent is Ken Zucker, who is the Chief Psychologist at his (that is, my) hospital and was appointed by the American Psychological Association to serve on their recent task force on gender identity issues.
• It is specious to argue whether homosexual transsexuality "is accepted in Psychology as a diagnostic term." A term does not need to be a diagnosis in order to be a phenomenon that psychologists study.
• I do not see the basis on which Mattisse can say that "practitioners in the field of sexology benefit from having a medical degree." Of the members of the major professional sexological associations (International Academy of Sex Research and Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality) only very few are physicians. Moreover, the physicians in sexology (in my experience) tend to identify as members of their medical specialty (endocrinology, psychiatry, etc.) rather than as sexologists.
• It is also incorrect to assert that because psychologists do not have a medical degree, they "have no expertise in biology, endocrinology, genetics etc., and therefore do not have the training required for an in depth understanding of the field." It is, of course, true that comparatively few people who plan on a purely clinical career in psychology will take an entire course in each of those fields; however, people who plan on research careers that require knowledge of those topics most certainly do. (Conversely, it is an error to assume that a physician, whose only exposure to genetics is a course in med school, is at all an "expert" in genetics.) A psychologists' range of expertise needs to be considered case by case, one cannot assume either expertise nor ignorance from having a degree (or license) in psychology or anything else.

As I said, I do not have any strong opinion about whether "homosexual transsexual" is a term in psychology, but the arguments against have not been (in my opinion) compelling. I think the discussion would get closer to the root the disagreement if Mattisse explicated some criteria for what constitutes a term in psychology so that folks could discuss those criteria and whether homosexual transsexual meets them.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I fail to understand your points. Psychology is one field that individuals in which individuals may gain a degree. You will find that the few psychologists that write on subjects related to "homosexual transsexuality" identify as
  sexologists or who do not coauthor articles with psychiatrists or others with medical training. Also, the google hits are misleading, as they return all hits with "homonsexual" + "transsexual" in the same article, regardless that they are not used in conjunction. Please remember that the field of Psychology considers it unethical to label people with terms such as "homosexual" etc. Why insist on using "psychology" and "psychologists" in the lead, when it is sexologists who are interested in the field. If including psychologists, then why not include the others. This is a quote from the sexology
  article."

• It is wrong and misleading to single out psychologists. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, let us consider this case: A person has a PhD in psychology. His specific subspeciality is the psychology of sexuality. He identifies both as a sexologist and a psychologist. Does this person "count" as a psychologist in your books? Because it sounds like you're only willing to take the opinions of psychologists that are NON-experts in the relevant subspecialty -- say, people that only do talk therapy with kids, or people that have specialized in psychological reactions to physical trauma. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• This RfC is malformed, IMHO, I'm not sure exactly what the question is but it's certainly not neutrally presented. As to answer this generalized concern, at least partially, no one disputes that some researchers use the term but what weight and how to accurately convey the information is a part of NPOV. We don't state ____ is disputed, fringe, rejected, etc. unless it is so. Also we don't suggest or alude that it's widespread, gaining momentum, heavily cited, etc if it's not.
  -- Banjeboi
  16:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Banjeboi. I don't want to get too far afield from the important issues raised by Mattisse regarding the neutrality and accuracy of stating "The term homosexual transsexual was defined in sexology and psychology to describe..." This suggests some sort of consensus or official position in these fields which does not exist. The term came into use in 1974 via

DSM-III. The term has never been widely used by anyone, though psychologists are among those who use it. Perhaps saying it is used by "some sex researchers" or "some behavior scientists" or "some theorists" or "some clinicians" would be a better way to proceed, since this doesn't single out any one academic/professional discipline and clarifies that the term is not widely used. The term is well-known to be controversial and reviled by the people it is intended to describe. Jokestress (talk

) 16:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that Jokestress did not write the above without political loading, but I do agree with her actual recommendation: "Some sex researchers" or "some behavior scientists" are both neutral and accurate to my eye. (The terms "theorist" and "clinician," however, are less accurate and relevant.) — James Cantor (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with "Some sex researchers" or "some theorists" (as it is clear that the field includes more than "behavior scientists") or similar wording that avoids the connotation that a particular discipline or field condones the use of the term. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok we have a consensus on the word some....I think. How about this? In the lead sentence it will say...

homosexual transsexual is a term used by some

transmen who are attracted to women.--Hfarmer (talk

) 18:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that as we've discussed before is that these terms are used by other psychologists and sexologists to describe the opposite, so that is not accurate. I have proposed this: Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some sex researchers to describe transsexual people with a "homosexual" sexual orientation, defined by their sex assignment at birth.

FYI: The plural of scientist, physicist, or any other word that ends in -ist takes an S. Scientists. Physicists. Since you want to be those things some day, I thought I'd point that out. You repeatedly misconstrue the plurals of these terms when editing and commenting. Jokestress (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You should have let me elaborated as I have below and composed before the edit conflcit. But before I do....

First of all you should refrain from personal attacks but I can excuse it because..... Second you are wrong! The word physicist is a construction of the word physics, with the suffix ist. As websters dictionary says of the word physics Function:noun plural but singular or plural in construction[1] Anyplace where you have seen the word "physicisists" they have been incorrect. furthermore according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Physicists[2]"phys·i·cist (fz-sst) n.A scientist who specializes in physics." Note webseters mentions no plural form, which if one existed it would. Really you english majors just have such a need to prove that you know more than us physicist... You just cannot stand that we have such cache, what other field can get the govt. to spend billions for the sake of our curiosity? By the common rules of scrabbel you don't get your triple word score and I penalize you 5 points. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestl we physicist joke about teaching the 101 102 level's of non-calculus based physics for liberal arts majors by calling it "physics for poets". They would rather debate why momentum is called momentum rather than just call it momentum and do the calculations. [http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley It's Time to End 'Physics for Poets'

April 13, 2006 By Edward Morley] Or even a U Hawaii where the actually call it that.[3] lol. Really stop trying to prove your mental or other supeiroity to me. It's pointless. Just recognize that and move on as equals. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(A correction for me I did find this http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physicists [4] but it defines the word as a noun "a person who specializes in physics")--Hfarmer (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to point out you are wrong about something you added to an article. Ask all the physicists you know and all the scientists you know. You can even ask chemists, psychologists, sexologists, optimists, or any other ___ists to tell you the plural of the noun "physicist." It is "physicists." There is no alternate spelling or version, either. You are completely wrong. One physicist. Multiple physicists. If you don't believe me, that's fine. Just thought you should know so you won't continue making that regrettable mistake in front of people who are actual physicists.

Now, can we correct that in the opening sentence? It's yet another example of why this article is an ongoing embarrassment to the project. Even James Cantor and WhatamIdoing will agree with me if you cannot accept that I am correct. As discussed, let's use "some sex researchers" anyway, which is more accurate and avoids the whole problem. Jokestress (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have shown you webseters dictionary in which the word physicist, and your spelling phyicists both lead to the same sigular definition "a person who specializes in pshysics." Stop making a fool of yourlself in trying to make me look bad. I actually like you too much to let that go on. I mean think about it... would you write breasts? Or pronounce it physcist..s come on. Your not talking to your brainwashed true beleiviers in the cult of Andrea here.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

← (outdent) I agree. This is a very minor point and of no relevance to the major issues being discussed. There is nothing to be gained in trying to put another editor in an unflattering light. I believe that Hfarmer's participation is in complete good faot and I personally would like to find a solution that would satisfy him. I do believe the topic is worth of an article. So I agree with him in this regard. And I thank you Hfarmer for your restained and appropriate participation in this discussion. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at my userpage... I'm a her. I am sure nothing was meant by it.--Hfarmer (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed upon sentence In the context of a implemented lead paragraph

Here it is

Homosexual transsexual is a term used by some

Here is what I think and why I wrote this....

1. The first sentence seems to me to be what we are agreed upon. Some sexologist,and some psychologist and physicans, endocrinologists, linguists and biologists... often the same people are both do use this words. By no means is there consensus, nor has the field not evolved to use different words to basically describe the same concepts and ideas.
2. I beleive we hashed out the hirschfeld thing in the GA review. Hirshfeld basically defined the words in german, in a book which he published and updated version of every year. At first not writing about TS/TG type people at all... then calling us all transvestitien and clearly deliniating that they were of all four cardinal flavors of sexuality... then speccifiying some people as just being transsexuals. Other references i.e. to Benjamin specify that back in the bad ol days being attracted to men was supposedly what made a transsexual different from a transvestite. Kurt freund then took this and restated it in english.
3. The term has been used in articles, books and papers by many, not just blanchard and bailey...
4. The alternative terms using androphilia and gynephilia are mentioned in the lead quite promiently. Though they respect gender identity... reading the articles they do still find difference between androphilic and gynephilic transsexual subjects. i.e. and already cited in the article...

"Sexological research has been done using these terms by researchers such as Sandra L. Johnson (1990) and Uwe Wolfradt (2001).^[1][2]" The words that back up that assertion are in Johnson 1990. "Results indicate a significant relationship between social gender reorientation and the feature of androphilia and between work adjustment and gynephilia. This differential adaptation is explained in terms of the different course that transsexualism takes within each typological subgroup."

The above I think represents all the pertinent parts of this subject in microcosm. That the word was used in the past, how it's use evovled as the professsions came to understand transssexuality and transgenderism better. How terms which (at least currently are thought of as) more sensitive by some transsexuals have come to be used in conjunction with or instead of them.

The sociopolitical arguement over these words... homosexual transsexual at least... to me belongs in the article on the book

Can we all live with this lead sentence and paragraph as describing the term homosexual transsexual, it's use and the evolution of it's use, at least in microcosm?--Hfarmer (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Remove psychologist from the lead. As far as I can tell, there is one psychologist in the article that used the term. He is atypical. The term is not used by "psychologists". If you can find some support that the term is accepted by the field of Psychology, then I will support it. I will remind you that until about 15 years ago, a pet hamster could be registered as a Licensed Psychologist in the state of Florida. The term "psychologist" is thrown around loosely. Also, because a person has a Ph.D. in Psychology does not mean they practice in the field, comport with the ethics, and can be considered a psychologist. As I mentioned above, the president of the university near me has a Ph.D. in Psychology but obviously she is a University President, not a psychologist, although trained in psychology. Having a Ph.D. in psychology is not enough to be called a psychologist. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry. I didn't mean to disfigure your list above. That was a mistake as I though I was altering the initial paragraph suggestion. My point is there are other fields, namely medicine, that are more representative than psychologists of researchers and theories who study this and use the phrase. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There is such a thing as consensus, which means what most of us can agree on is what is done. Jokestress would like it if the article said that the word was fringe, and crackpot, James cantor would like it if we made it sound like the word was just about to be in the DSM... Banjeboi says we can't say crack pot or fringe or accepted based on what evidence we have... You yourself said "some theorist" Or some researchers... theoriest and researchres in what. James cantor and Jokestress actually agree on the word psychology. All the rest of us agree at least on the first sentence., some psychologist not all... not a lunatic fringe just some. understand. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There is not such a thing as consensus when it comes to discussing medical and scientific articles. Wikipedia has

WP:MEDRS if you want this to be scientific rather than a sociological or linguistic discussion. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk

) 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Mattisse regarding following
  WP:MEDRS
  .
• I think it odd to saying that Blanchard is not a psychologist. His having a PhD in psychologist is a matter of record; the website of the regulating body for psychologists in Ontario has him listed as having a current license in psychology: [5]
• I don't see the basis for saying there is only a single psychologist cited on the page who uses the term homosexual transsexual. The main page cites not only Blanchard, but also Bailey, Chivers, Cohen-Kettenis, Clemmenson, and Zucker.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I object to the field of psychology being connected with this term, while other fields are not, regardless whether a few psychologists opine on the subject. The term was apparently coined by a physician and enlarged upon by an endocrinologist. Blanchard many have a Ph.D. in Psychology, but his mentor was Kurt Freund, a physician who was was conducting research in chemical castration for sex offenders, he was employed by Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, he is a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and serves on a board of the American Psychiatric Association. Psychiatry does not equal Psychology. They are two different disciplines, one requiring a medical degree. As far as I know, there is no evidence, in any event, that Blanchard used the term in question. If we follow
  WP:MEDRS, many of these problems will disappear. We wrote a whole article on Major depressive disorder without having to affiliate MDD with a particular discipline. There is no need to do so here, except Sexology which specifically concerns itself with these issues. —Mattisse (Talk
  ) 20:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse: I am emailing you a chapter Blanchard wrote in Clinical management of gender identity disorders in children and adults in which he indeed uses the term homosexual transsexual. A lot.
As I said previously, I have no strong feeling about using the word psychology here, but some of the arguments being presented here are simply counter-factual.
(If anyone else would like a copy of the chapter, feel free to back-channel me.)
— James Cantor (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I, too, am confused by this insistence that these people somehow don't "count" as psychologists because they once worked with people that had medical training, and that the leading proponents of the concept don't use the term. Mattisse, is it possible that you need to spend a bit more time reading about this issue before we proceed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict - reply to James Cantor)

Great! As I said, I have no objection to an article about the term, following

WP:MEDRS, then fine. As I said, we wrote a whole article on Major depressive disorder without having to ascribe it to specific disciplines. I think it is a waste of time to do that here. It is clearly a term of use to sexology, which is a multidisciplinary field. Most of the names included so far in the article are not psychologists. This article isn't even categorized as Category:Psychology. This is not primarily a topic of concern to Psychology. Rather, researchers and theorists of many disciplines are interested in it, and study and write about it. Psychologists, in my experience, are concerned with these cases in a limited way, usually. That is because often there is a question of endocrinology and other medical issues. I think the topic is interesting. If you can find evidence that it is primarily of interest to psychologists only, then OK. But I do not think you will find a psychologist working in this area that is not affiliated with a medical/psychiatric institution. —Mattisse (Talk

) 22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, every singe category in the article is a branch from Category:Psychology. The first cat tree I checked runs like this:

:Psychology:Branches of psychology:Social psychology:Human behavior:Human sexuality:Gender

Do you want to reconsider your assertion that this article is not categorized under Category:Psychology? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, No. Um, everything in Category:Social sciences is included under that reasoning. Um, I'm just glad it doesn't, um, show up in Psychology. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the thing about WP med RS is that I think the psychiatry/psychology thing is a sort of grey area... Any psychologist worth a salt now knows that when it comes down to brass tax...the mind/brain is chemical/physical interactions. Interactions which can be studied from any number of perspectives. Some works, like, for instance, Smith 2005 have a psychologist, psychiatrist etc involved. Mattisse consider a reference like this one and look at the people involved and what they did...

Hulshoff Pol, Hilleke E; Cohen-Kettenis, Peggy T (2006), [HTML[6] Changing your sex changes your brain: influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure], vol. 155, Department of Psychiatry, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, University Medical Center Utrecht,Department of Medical Psychology and 2 Department of Endocrinology,: European Journal of Endocrinology,

doi:10.1530, 1.02248 {{citation}}: Check |author-link= value (help); Check |author2-link= value (help); Check |doi= value (help); Check |url= value (help); External link in |author-link=, |author2-link=, and |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: location (link

)

As you can see we have a psychiatrist, working with a psychologist (Those are just the top two authors, you can check the article and see that there were a number of other specialist who contributed to this). Who did the work at institutes, of psychology, psychiatry, and endocrinology, then published in a journal of endocrinology... You will note this finding of this research team...

Indeed, in transsexuals, cross-sex hormone treatment induces changes in behavior and cognitive performance on tests that are known to manifest differences between males and females. In MFs, 3 months of estrogen addition and testosterone suppression resulted in a decline in anger and aggression proneness, sexual arousal, sexual desire, and spatial ability (usually males outperform females) and in an increase in verbal fluency (usually females outperform males) (24, 26, 27)

Though the words homosexual transsexual do not appear, one of those references is "Van Goozen SHM, Slabbekoorn D, Gooren LJG, Sanders G & Cohen-Kettenis PT. Organizing and activating effects of sex hormones in homosexual transsexuals. Behavioral Neuroscience 2002 116 982–988. http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=10.1037%2F0735-7044.116.6.982&link_type=DOI [CrossRef]]cgi/external_ref?access_num=000179691300005&link_type=ISI [ISI][Medline]."

Mattisse would you call the above references psychological, psychological, endocrinological, or some combination of all of those things?.--Hfarmer (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Study of these issues is multidisciplinary. I am not denying that psychologists are involved. I have been involved at various times in my career. I object to the formalization of "homosexual transsexual" as a "psychological term". I do not mind its use as a descriptive term if its meaning is agreed upon by the researchers using it. Psychology is inordinately sensitive to public perception and condemnation over issues involving sex. About 10 years or so ago, a perfectly sound methodological study was published in an American Psychological Association journal showing that in a sample of adults who were "sexually abused" as children, most did not have pathological effects lasting into adulthood. The negative public reaction to this one study was so great, accusing APA of condoning child sexual abuse, that APA apologized for the study and instituted procedures to prevent a recurrence of such publications. Can you imagine, in another discipline, a scientific article on a methodologically sound study being withdrawn because the public did not like the outcome? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can. In biology some places still teach creationism over evolution... because the people involved don't identify as the upright walking naked ape's we all essentially are according to Darwin et al. Or in physics/energy policy why not make every mode of transport in the USA electrical and power it all with 100 more nuclear plants? Public opinion. This controversy is kind of like that. Right now Jokestress says she would like it if we called "homosexual transsexual" deprecated...and declared androphilic male to female to be better... in ten years androphillic may not sound good because them it's too focused on liking men...or some such... It just goes on and on.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As a professional person, there are many terms in my field that the persons labeled with the terms don't like. That is only relevant to a degree. People don't like the term "Borderline personality disorder". Many professionals don't like the term either, but it will not be changed because those so labeled don't like it. If it is changed, it will be changed because professionals don't feel it is properly descriptive of the condition, and the name would be changed to be more be more accurately reflective. I don't know what Jokestress's investment in this particular term, the article's title, is. But neither "homosexual" nor "transsexual" is a derogatory term, to my knowledge. So I am not clear why the combination of the terms should offend. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In this particular case, the transwomen will (I believe) eventually be successful in getting the term killed because they don't like its reference to themselves as men that are attracted to other men. Some of the proponents of the concept (many of whom avoid or apologize for the term) seem to think that transwomen are significantly male, but I suspect that these "neurobiological technicalities" will be considered less important than not needlessly offending transwomen. There are, after all, other ways of describing this group that are equally accurate and less offensive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. This will be cyclical though. At one point in time long long ago, homosexual transsexual was not offensive, now it seems that to many it is. Flash forward 20 years and after the term androphilic transsexual has had time to gather some baggage... it too will be offensive. What is more interesting is what will become of the underlying concept? The concept that it makes a difference weather a transsexual is congenitally and terminally androphilic, or not.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

arb break

There seem to be few, if any, sources outside of Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence and Zucker in the last 20 years that actually use this term. Is there actually any evidence it is still used in the way presented in this article outside of that small circle? (I'm unclear on the Smith et al. reference - they refer to "homosexual transsexuals" as having been married - which would suggest they use it to refer to someone who is homosexual according to their gender identity post-transition, not pre-transition as is the case with this article.) All four of the people mentioned have been discredited, had to resign from posts due to investigations and/or been attacked by their peers for bad work. The lead paragraph should probably indicate that it was a phrase used by psychologists etc - it was certainly in use by Benjamin and his peers, but the world has moved on and the phrase is considered archaic and offensive nowadays. ~Excesses~ (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You asked for evidence that this term is used outside of Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence and Zucker. Here it is.

• Smith, Yolanda L.S. (
  doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2005.01.008. Retrieved 2007-06-26. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
  )

• MacFarlane, D. F. (August 1984). "Transsexual prostitution in New Zealand: Predominance of persons of Maori extraction". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 13 (4). Netherlands: Springer: 301–309.
  doi:10.1007/BF01541903. Retrieved 2008-02-26. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help
  )

That's just two in the last 20 years who are not any of the people you mentioned. That is just what is in this article already. I did a Gooogle Scholar search resitrcted to the term "homosexual transsexual" without blanchard bailey zucker or lawrence, restricted to the dates 1989-2009 [7] There are 42 hits. Now some of them are not exact matches. But two that I found in this way, using google scholar are. [The transsexual syndrome in males: Primary transsexualism http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7_RUsd-lvyUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA110&dq=+%22homosexual+transsexual%22+-Blanchard+-zucker+-bailey+-lawrence&ots=yNORAjNsIS&sig=1Dzz6F_8ZjE3g9NgAIzWr0cuLPU] dated by Google Scholar to 1989. Homosexuality in families of boys with early effeminate behavior: An epidemiological study B Zuger - Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1989 - Springer. Those are just two which I cared to point out of a long list.

The point is there is evidence of this being used outside of that small circle in the last 20 years. As for claiming that all four of the people you mention hainvng been discredited. There is the fact that Blanchard and Zucker have enough of the professional respect of their peers to be appointed to the working groups which will write the portion s of the DSM which deal with gender issues and such.[8] Which as the link I have provided demonstrates some people are up at arms about that. This proves that Blanchard and Zucker are not discredited by their peers at all. Though this at the same time does not mean that their ideas are genenerally accepted. The above refutes the assertion that these terms are archaic, or that Balanchard Bailey etc are discredited.

Now it falls to you Excesses to provide sources which say that this term is archaic, and/or that the people who use it are discredited.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• WP:MEDRS. You must show not only does a majority of the scientific community involved in this subject use the term, but that they use it in a technical sense, as a term, and not merely that they use the two words together. Also, it seems that there are other terms that mean the same thing, so perhaps this article should be {{merge}}d with one of the others. Or else, rename the article "Controvery over the term homosexual transsexual. A Google search does not measure scientific relevance. Do a search for "good night". That gets 131,000,000 Google hits. —Mattisse (Talk
  ) 00:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, the context of the Smith et al. quote in relation to marriage suggests they may be referring to "homosexual transexuals" in relation to their post-transition sexuality, which is the opposite sense to this article. The MacFarlane article is 25 years old and, unless you have access to the full article, we have no way of establishing how the phrase "homosexual transsexual" is used within it. I accept your point on Zucker and Blanchard - I would not regard the APA DSM-V working groups as any form of endorsement of anyone given their troubled history, but that's definite

WP:POV. ~Excesses~ (talk

) 01:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect to smith et al this is what they say on the second page of their text..

"In the present study, the terms homosexual and heterosexual refer to erotic attraction to members of the same or the opposite biological sex, respectively." (page 2 column 1 of the PDF which is linked and you can download)

Also mattise, I was not trying to say that the term is used by the majority or a minority. It was excesses who was asserting that only sexologists x,y,z used it. I proved that more than that small group used it by showing that a larger circle than them used it. To call something archaic and the people who use it discredited there have to be reliable sources for that as well. --Hfarmer (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by Smith et al. The abstract states: ...a lower percentage of the homosexual transsexuals reported being (or having been) married and sexually aroused while cross-dressing. This doesn't make any sense, in 2005 if someone was married they have to have been heterosexual according to their pre-transition gender identity, which is at odds with what they state on page 2. This is in complete contradiction to their use of language at the top of the first column on page 3 which is referring to married "nonhomosexual" transsexuals. The article cites 2004 and 2005 work, so it's definitely contemporary and not just a recent reprint of something old either. Does this indicate confusion in the use of the term by the journal that, or that the journal rejected the use of the term "homosexual transexual" to mean what the authors used it for?

Perhaps for the lead, "Homosexual Transsexual is a term used by some scientists and doctors but one that is regarded as potentially controversial and because of this and a potential to cause confusion, one that is falling into disuse...". I believe we probably have enough evidence to back the use of the phrase "potentially controversial" and it certainly doesn't appear to be used as much as it was? Renaming the article as Mattisse suggested seems too much - there's no doubt the phrase was used extensively in respected academic circles for many years. ~Excesses~ (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, following up on my comment immediately above - I've been playing with Google scholar. The cut-off date for the use of the phrase "homosexual transsexual" seems to be about 1990-1991, there are a few references for those years so it would seem to be about 18 years ago the phrase fell into general disuse. I didn't exclude BBL&Z when searching as I figured that might remove legitimate work that referenced them - I was quite surprised by the results. Most of the hits are "...blah, homosexual, transsexual, blah" - i.e. part of a list so one has to filter out the cruft fairly heavily. Smith et al seems to be the only one using the term recently that I could find and verify - I checked the journal it's published in and it's peer reviewed but the abstract is supposed to have been written at the same time the article was submitted by the authors so who knows how the confusion crept in. What surprised me was the number of papers in there that are basically highly critical reviews of TMWWBQ in particular and references to "homosexual transsexual" being confusing - I knew the scientific community wasn't too fond of Bailey but I hadn't realised how much so! From what I can see the term has stopped being used because it's confusing rather than offensive as there wasn't much of a trans rights movement in the 1980s to object to it's use. The backlash has come later and is mostly focused on TMWWBQ's use of the term and BBL&Z. ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you share with us the URL of how you did your search. Where did you place the cutoff dates? Because with what you are saying about I am basically a liar. Whereas I can present the evidence [9] of these words being used in sexology not by BBL and Z not in reaction to TMWWBQ as you demanded. Furthermore the assertion that even Blanchard ann Bailey have not used the term since 1990-91 is patent nonsense

WP:PN. Anyone who does a cursory and casual google search would see that. --Hfarmer (talk

) 12:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My search was this one. We can't assume that if we have not had sight of the original paper or book extract that it's using the term "homosexual transsexual" in the same way as this article - of the ones we can see, many fall into the category of critiques of TMWWBQ or lists that happen to include the words homosexual and transsexual next to each other. I didn't intend to assert that Blanchard and Bailey hadn't used the term since 1991 - clearly Bailey has as it's used in TMWWBQ. Sorry if I gave that impression. ~Excesses~ (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so, the work in 2005 from Smith et al uses the term just as it is used in the article. In that article many of Blanchard's assertions are tested and found to be true in regards homosexual transsexuals. (Blanchard's more controversial assertions deal with non-homosexual transexuals. Who he claims are motivated by

Autogynephilia. Aside from psychich power I don't see how one can really know for 100% certain if such a thing was true of any given transsexual.) To declare the word to be archaic, or current, accepted or rejected we need sources that claim that, We can't just do a buch of OR and use that OR to make the declaration ourselves. --Hfarmer (talk

) 19:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that in the Google Scholar search as well. Browsing through the hits, there seem to be few usages of "homosexual transsexual" as Blanchard, et al., use it. As you said, most seem to be part of lists, where the words homosexual and transsexual are separated by a comma. --Cornince (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

another

I also think psychologist should be removed from the lead, as it gives too strong a link to the discipline, immpling greater acceptance. "some sexologists and other theorists" or something would be fine. Also, *ist words pluralise with an -s.YobMod 09:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have weighed in. As I have been stating for years, this term is controversial, confusing, archaic, and not widely used. The term was not "proposed" or "coined" by Hirschfeld (his "transvestiten" terminology further confuses matters) and is vehemently opposed by transsexual people as a group. Hfarmer and James Cantor have personal and professional reasons they do not want the article to reflect these facts. The term has rarely been used outside of the

iatrogenic artifact. Jokestress (talk

) 18:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be equally accurate to say that you have "personal and professional reasons" for wanting to see the term discredited, but could we perhaps focus a little more on the content, and a little less on trying to marginalize and disparage individual editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree as well. The fact is the people we cite through the article who use the word are psychologists. Saying that some psychologists use the word does not imply acceptance. That implication is read into the words by you. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)