User:James Cantor/Sandbox

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 20:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Gynandromorphophilia

AfDs for this article:
Gynandromorphophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renomination following the closure of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology, which was closed with a result of defer. The rationale for the last AfD still stands:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/HebephiliaIncident into scrutiny of User:James Cantor's contributions, and I defer to SlimVirgin (talk · contribs
)'s analysis:

James created Gynandromorphophilia in August 2012. We already had an article on that subject at, first, Transfan, then Attraction to transgender people, so Gynandromorphophilia is arguably a POV fork. According to MOSMED, we are supposed to use "the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." I searched for this term on PubMed, and at that time found only two examples: a paper by the inventor of the term, Ray Blanchard, a close colleague of James at CAMH, and one other from Hungary. I asked James at the AfD for other examples of its use, but there was no response. The article was kept, but it seems to be a clear example of editing to promote a little-used term (and the perspective associated with it), with the result that Wikipedia is causing the spread of it, rather than merely (or also) reflecting that spread.

From looking at the article, this analysis seems to check out. The giveaway sentence to me is in the lead section, "Gynandromorphophilia and autogynephilia have been noted to be important considerations in the assessment of Gender Identity Disorder.":

autogynephilia is only really important for its inclusion as part of Ray Blanchard's controversial fringe theory of transgender typology
.

I do also notice that the primary contributor, Cantor, is a colleague of Blanchard at the

conflict of interest outside his normal line of work on sexology. Sceptre (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre (talk
) 19:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the
czar · ·
20:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree this article should be deleted. Some of the content is interesting and has scholarly sources to back it up, but I think it could better be addressed as a subsection of the "Attraction to transgender people" article. I agree that the concept of "gyandromorphophilia" is simply a POV term for what a some researchers believe about sexual attraction to transgender people, but as this current article is written, the impression is given that these researchers' view is the sole view on this topic. Rebecca (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sceptre and Rebecca. It would be better to discuss this term and the view it represents in Attraction to transgender people, rather than to host a separate article, which is arguably a POV fork. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge Attraction to transgender people into Gynandromorphophilia.
1.
WP:MEDMOS
: "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)."
2. Scholar.google hits for gynandromorphophilia: 17. Scholar.google hits for "attraction to transgender people": 1.
3. The sources using gynandromorphophilia are peer-reviewed articles in high-end relevant medical journals and texts by major medical publishing houses. The sources using alternative terms do not use any term universally, with each employing descriptions rather than any specific term at all. It is perfectly legitimate for folks to want to "de-medicalize" what they perceive to be societal issues, but
WP is not the place
for conducting a campaign to do so. If there is a POV fork here, it is to break the lay mentions away from the expert use in order to de-medicalize the topic.
4. The sources using alternative terms are very low quality. For example, although it is perfectly fine to indicate that "In 'Diary of a Drag Queen' Daniel Harris describes four types of men interested in him while he was cross-dressed" and that porn star Buck Angel has a following, but such references to personal experiences from individual non-experts cannot serve as RS's to establish the terminology used by relevant experts and the body of RS's.
— James Cantor (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
James Cantor, are you kidding me? Rename the "attraction to transgender people" article "gyandromorphophilia"? For your information, we are not seeking to "de-medicalize" anything. Attraction to transgender people is not currently "medicalized," at all. Very few people seek any sort of medical intervention for this perfectly natural attraction, and the "technical term" for the supposedly related condition that you and Ray Blanchard have come up with is not in the DSM or in any other reputable classification of psychiatric and/or medical conditions. Furthermore, even taking your bogus, fringe concept of "gyandromorphophilia" at face value, it supposedly describes a "preference" for transgender people, not merely "attraction" to them. Or you are saying it impossible for anyone to find transgender people sexually attractive IN ANY WAY unless they have a specific medical condition (a medical condition that coincidentally enjoys very limited recognition in the medical community.) Give me a break. Rebecca (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, WP puts sexual interests under their technical names, regardless:
No one has made any argument for why this sexual attraction should be treated differently from every other one. Indeed, none of the arguments appears to acknowledge that an exception is what is being asked for. I'm just arguing for treating this sexual attraction like any other.
— James Cantor (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I certainly would not argue with you what the usual approach would be, either now or 8 months ago. However, WP policy and precedent are very clear that sexual interests have their content listed under their technical/medical/Greek-derived names, regardless of stigma or political correctness, regardless of rarity, regardless of DSM status. Your suggestions for how to proceed would put the pages farther away from compliance rather than closer to it. Withdrawing this AfD and then merging
Gynandromorphophilia, however, would bring us closer.— James Cantor (talk
) 13:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The difference, James, is that "homosexual," "heterosexual," and "pedophilia" are widely accepted technical terms for the sexual interests they describe. "Gyandromorphophilia" is a little known term invented by you and your friends that, as I've said, has not been endorsed by the DSM or anybody else. In other words, it is NOT the technical term for attraction to transgender people, although you seem to desperately want it to be. Also, you have failed to respond to the distinction I'm making between "attraction to transgender people" and "preference for transgender people" (which is what "gyandromorphophilia" is supposedly about). Do you fail to see this distinction? Rebecca (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
It is entirely true that it is a rarely used term. It is also entirely irrelevant:
1. The lay-term is used 1/17th as much by RS's than is "gynandromorphophilia." It makes no sense to make an exception to WP's rules arguing rarity, only to replace the term with one that's even more rare. For reference I have already posted the scholar.google results here.
2. List of paraphilias provides many dozens of examples of other paraphilic interests, including multiple terms much rarer than gynandromorphophilia, but which still get treated exactly as I say this topic should be: Content under the technical term. There is no policy saying to make an exception for rare terms, and the articles linked to List of paraphilias shows that WP actually does the opposite of what you are advocating when a term is rare.
3. The DSM is irrelevant. List of paraphilias and multiple RS's provide lists of several hundred paraphilias. Fewer than a dozen are named in the DSM. On WP, however, each one has its content listed on the page with its technical name, whether it's in the DSM or not.
Finally, I am not addressing the incorrect beliefs you have about how sex researchers use the terms "attraction" and "preference" (and, I will add, "interest") because your misconceptions are irrelevant to what WP policies are (none of which have you cited and none of which support your conclusion). Moreover, if you take your thought to its conclusion, you will realize that you are arguing for two pages: one for attraction and one for preference.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
James, you bring up a valid point. Wikipedia has MANY articles about bogus paraphilias that have been cooked up by fringe sexual busybodies such as yourself. You are right it's inconsistent to delete the article on gyandromorphophilia without deleting all the other ones. I say we should delete all of them. And honestly, the actual conclusion of my thought is not what you suggest. The actual conclusion is that we should delete both the Wikipedia page on gynandromorphophilia AND the Wikipedia page on "attraction to transgender people". . .after all, there is no Wikipedia articles called "attraction to cisgender people," "attraction to white people," "attraction to supermodels" and so on (because these things are considered normal and therefore doesn't get analyzed in depth by exoticizing voyeurs like you, James). Since this Article of Deletion discussion is only about gynandromorphophilia, however, I've been focusing on that. You want to know what Wikipedia policies support my argument? How about
Wikipedia:NPOV, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You know, the big ones. Your ideas are extremely fringe (not notable), your articles are biased (not NPOV), and you are using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote your bullshit (and Wikipedia is not a soapbox). . .(I guess I'm using Wikipedia a little like a soapbox right here, but I only do that in Talk pages. . .I never do it in my articles or article edits.) Rebecca (talk
) 18:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I've replied to this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autoandrophilia, as Cantor has raised the same points there. Sceptre (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia_and_autoandrophilia. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Autoandrophilia

Autoandrophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-admitted fringe theory created by

gynemimetophilia, both redirects; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia (3rd nomination). Sceptre (talk
) 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the
czar · ·
21:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Search engine hits suggest this term may be notable:

The article mentions several meanings of the term—does the nominator assert that all of them are fringe?

Blanchard's transsexualism typology has a section about this term; this article could perhaps be merged to that one. —rybec 00:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there is anything worth merging, although a redirect may be prudent in any case. The theory only comes up in relation to Blanchard's typology, which enjoys little support outside a clique of sexologists. WPATH, which is the recognised authority on transgender healthcare, reached a consensus that there is no evidence for autogynephilia/autoandrophilia to justify its inclusion in the DSM-V (see AfD), and Moser (
doi:10.1080/00918369.2010.486241, et ) has found that the theory as proposed is incredibly flawed. As to the Google Books results: most of the results are either critical of the concept or only mention it as part of the list, and compared to "gender dysphoria" and "gender identity disorder", it is numerically dwarfed. Sceptre (talk
) 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • redirect to
    talk
    ) 16:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep.
(1) The consensus at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard is that this is not fringe.
(2) Rybec's search above indicates this is not fringe.
(3) Autoandrophilia is not part of Blanchard's autogynephilia theory. (The autoandrophilia page contains no cites to Blanchard, and none of Blanchard's works on autgynephilia contains autoandrophilia.)
(4) Staszek appears to have misread the pages a bit: The autoandrophilia page includes 10 RS's about autoandrophilia, almost all high end, peer-reviewed research journals, whereas Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia_and_autoandrophilia contains two sources: a dead link, and a caption in a CBS photo essay.
(5) Regarding Sceptre's accusations of me inappropriately editing under a COI, the recently closed ArbCom case (WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology) indicates the opposite of Sceptre's claims, as other non-involved editors have tried to point out to her.[1]
Sceptre is certainly entitled to disagree with ArbCom's findings, such as here, but she is not free to disregard them and to engage in the behaviours that ArbCom just ruled against.
— James Cantor (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  1. There is no consensus either way, although little evidence has been brought up to refute the evidence I've provided that it is a fringe theory.
  2. This is a glorified
    WP:GHITS argument. Searching Murray "Bell Curve"
    brings up 48,000 results on Google Books and 214,000 on Google proper, but that doesn't that the Bell Curve theory is valid (because it's not).
  3. Nice try, but Blanchard has equated autoandrophilia as the male equivalent of autogynephilia, most notably in his proposed changes to the DSM 5 (opposed by
    WPATH
    ) as of October 2010. Although that statement also creates an argument as towards the unscientificness of the theory.
  4. Source one rejects the theory. Source two is a glorified
    WP:N
    .
  5. That ArbCom didn't vote on the issue doesn't mean you don't have a COI or aren't editing inappropriately. In 2009, you undertook the pledge on your user page not to edit in areas relating to transsexuality due to concerns you may be COI editing inappopriately; is there any reason why it is no longer valid?
Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-redundant bits of contents could go to Blanchard's and this encyclopedia would be better off. Aside from this, I regret that the loud parties here don't declare CoIs.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect to
    talk
    ) 06:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect. There are clearly some issues here, as noted above. But what this comes down to is that the target article has a much more detailed treatment of the subject, and I think it would be better to focus on that than on splitting the article. Targetting the redirect to the specific section helps as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect and keep content per 1292simon. —
    talk
    10:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:James_Cantor/Sandbox&oldid=553438158"