Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and transgender

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 as irremediable

Homosexuality and transgender

Homosexuality and transgender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article has absolutely no sources cited in it at all. This article is unencyclopedic and more or less an opinion piece on how certain people feel about transgenderism and homosexuality. There POV is presented as fact with little or no outside support to doccument this. I tagged this page as needing referecnes a full year ago and still no change at all. Hfarmer (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Hfarmer (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to
  talk) 10:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• DELETE For the reasons I gave above and the concerns that were pointed out below. To read this article it seems that the writers had the "point" of showcasing the variety of sexual orientations that transsexuals can have. That is not a reason for an encyclopedia article. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or very rapidly find some sources) - The majority of the article is unsourced, and reads like POV/original-research ramblings. The article has been around for long enough for sensible sources to appear, but none have. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per "Many concerns". Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comparing and contrasting any two things -- I think of this as the "Apples vs. Oranges" article -- is not the type of original synthesis that is encouraged on Wikipedia. The reason, of course, is that there are infinite combinations that one can make between two concepts: "Heterosexuality and masculinity", or "Deaf and deaf-mute", or "Caucasian and vertical leap". This particular article starts with the premise that people automatically assume that a transvestite is a homosexual, and then sets out to disprove it. Yes, you can write volumes about these things, but "compare 'n contrast" is a mental exercise, not an encyclopedia article. Mandsford (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Scope clearly & rewrite heavily: I think that in principle an article on this topic should exist, but it needn't be this one. It should have a more clearly-defined scope and a better title. The existing text obviously isn't considered adequate, so a heavy or complete rewrite is in order. I've previously argued
  Greg K Nicholson (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete:my reasons are stated below. Article doesn't prove its validity for existing as an independent topic, and seems biased. itinerant_tuna (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't even think that it's a good starting point. It would be appropriate to create an article on
  transsexual sexuality, but I don't think this article would form a good basis for that article. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please add your votes above this line for easy counting. Then put any discussion below this line.  :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC) I struck this out, because we do not vote but discuss and give our opinions. DGG (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True but if there is a strong consensus to delete a page it has a tendency to disappear. I prefer to call things what they are. 70% - 80% of people suggest keep or delete and articles end up being kept or deleted. You want to debate fine.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many concerns.

The title of the article, Homosexuality and transgender, is only the beginning of the problem. My overall feeling after reading the page in its entirety is that it is either:

• A plagiarized piece, "wikified" with internal links; or
• An essay written for a class of some sort.

The title simply refers to two completely different topics, and gives no clue as to what lies ahead for the reader. User Alynna Kasmira's rename is a little better; however, I am in favor of deleting the article completely.

As mentioned, it's missing specific, external citations, and the writer uses words and phrases such as "lots of" and "usually" instead of giving any concrete, figurative information. A quote from the article -

"Many lesbian transwomen for example will have had relationships exclusively with women beforehand - many, indeed, marry. Were those relationships heterosexual or homosexual?"

Not only is this confusing and vague, it reads like the author is making a "point" - and ends with a question mark. Plus the wording is so confusing, I can't figure out exactly what that "point" is supposed to be; the term "lesbian transwoman" makes my head spin and doesn't ring as a correct joining of words; if it IS correct, then I think there should be a "lesbian transwoman" article too... it's confusing in an almost comedic way - a riddle!

My greatest concern is the final "Conclusion" section, which is not only very "book reporty", but also totally out of line for an encylopedia entry. The READER is the one, if any, who should be reaching conclusions, based on what they have been provided with by the WRITER. And I wouldn't want anyone making up their mind or forming an opinion based on this article, because it's confusing, suspiciously worded, not entirely neutral, and not proving its own purpose for existence as an independent topic.

To be totally honest - I don't know what the topic is supposed to be! Humbly itinerant_tuna (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I think that the existence of this article is in a sense a response to the concept of the

Homosexual Transsexual

. "Homosexual Transsexual" (a old line clinical term for Male-to-Female transsexuals who are attracted to males) is not a new concept, in fact it is the reason you find it so hard to fathom the existence of Lesbian transwomen. Real talk that variety of transsexual is what leaps to mind when people think transsexual. They think of a boy who liked to play with dolls or to play house growing into a transsexual woman perhaps doing some hyperfeminine job.

What that article sought to address was just that perception by reporting on the facts that.

• Male-to-Female and attracted to women or who are bisexual exist.
• Female-to-Male and attracted to men or who are bissexual exist.

I used to think that such was a good use for the wikipedia and I placed a tag on the article one full calendar year ago asking it's active editors to throw in some references. In a whole year their has been no action, not even on it's talk page. Upon further thought in a real sense even creating this page was a big piece of original research, a synthesis. That is another reason for it to be deleted.

A much better article which basically covers the same topic and has a real hope of finding good external references is

Gynephilia and androphilia. I have seen those topics used in literature which could back up what it says. That article covers the same terms without making a "point".--Hfarmer (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Lesbian transwoman? Nick mallory (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is evidence for the need to have an article of this sort. I think

Transexual sexuality however is a much better covering of the topic, presenting the controversy without a "conclusion" ending, rather presenting the current mainline opinion of those in transsexual sexology... Even BBL theory, the most controversial of transsexual taxonomy theories recognize that lesbian transwomen exist --Puellanivis (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep and edit for npov. We could use a good comprehensive article on this general topic, considering the many recent somewhat acrimonious discussions at Wikipedia on related subjects, but, given that there seems to be considerable disagreement about the applicability of any of the various theories, it should be written in a representative manner. I think it could well supplement the article cited by Hfarmer. DGG (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how such an article could not be a POV synthesis. Please write up a draft of what you have in mind and put it in a sandbox so we can look at it.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite. There is potential for this article to cover helpful content in a neutral fashion, as opposed to the as-per-usual incomprehensible and fairly unique original research for which Hfarmer advocates, and which she's evidently started another article pushing. Rebecca (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please what other article? what original research? My articles have citations and are based on other people's research. You just don't like thier conclusions.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with
  Transsexual_sexuality: The two articles deal with essentially the same topics. Merge them, and point the old article to Transsexual sexuality. --Puellanivis (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Perhaps. Or perhaps it can be looked at this way. Since articles like

Gynephilia and androphilia and the one you cited exist and have sources the path of least effort to getting a better WP is to remove this content. To merge it would still requier finding reliable sources for what it says which cannot be impuned as biased one way or the other. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Simply deem what information is worth keeping, and isn't duplicated in the other two articles, and then source only that. I don't think the objective of Wikipedia should be "the path of least resistance". --Puellanivis (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ay that's the rub. I am not willing to do that. So far as I am concerned those other articles cover the territory that this one does and do a much better job. To add this stuff to them would make them worse articles. They are pretty good now. This article, the one in question, is almost total opinion. (Good job on finding the two references that all of that is based on.)

The path of least resistance means not doing more work than necessary. This same topic need not be covered two or three times. Certianly not in the form of an editorial like this article.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some validity for this topic, but ONLY because of the discussion above! I also agree that there is at least one other article that deals with this subject already. Anyway, I still stick to deleting this, because of the confusing context of it and lack of citations. This deals with very controversial topics, and some people have very volatile attitudes toward them. As such, articles dealing with sexuality issues should prove that they come from honest, nonbiased sources from the very start. If the principle write of the page believes in his/her article's validity, then they should care enough to re-present it in better order. itinerant_tuna (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I commented on the phrase "lesbian transwomen" I didn't mean that I denied or questioned the existence of such people. My difficulty with the term is trying to deduce, in my head, what the phrase is referring to - a definition (and the term is used in the article without defining it.) It's like a double-positive, the opposite of a double-negative - such as "he can't NOT do nothing" (which is probably a triple negative) in that it's like an equation that has to be solved without paper and pencil, in your mind. When I see "lesbian transwoman" and take it apart, I get "a woman attracted to other women, who has transformed from a man into a woman" - and that may be correct or totally wrong. But I still don't get it, haha, because it's like a "brain twister" and I would have to go offsite (from the page we are debating) and try to get some sort of clear definition, if one exists. I am totally a believer in sexuality being a genetic, chemical component that we either are born with, or develop at an early age, so please don't think I'm against the article on any moral grounds or personal beliefs. itinerant_tuna (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's exactly right. A lesbian transwoman is for most practical purposes (Aside from certain medical facts of life that no sane person can deny) a woman who is attracted to women. Though I suppose that's even a little simplistic. For on here I have when discussion non-op transsexual women.. been told that if they self identify as transwomen that makes them simply transgender and not transsexual and therefore are just men. (But I usually only hear that in relation to such transwomen who are attracted to men.) So it is really complex.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note from the original author:

First of all, this article is neither copied from somewhere nor was it written for anything but Wikipedia. It is entirely possible that it is too essay-like for Wikipedia, but then it should be re-written, not deleted. It should also be merged with

This article does not throw together two random concepts, but two concepts which are quite related, especially in the minds of people who are not very well informed about transgender issues. There is much confusion about whether trans is some form of homosexuality (which it is not) and there is just as much confusion about how do use the terms homo- and heterosexual with regards to transpeople. IIRC, it has been a while, I wrote this piece mainly to address the latter issue because of some discussions here on Wikipedia. This is a problem, and is still a problem, so pointing out the issue is definitely something WP should do. We do not just have to present solutions to problems, we also can and frequently do point out ongoing discussions and problems.

Oh yes, regarding the "original author". I am indeed, I changed my name, though, when somebody started stalking me a while ago. If need be, I can log in with my old name again. Err, and I hope my spelling wasn't too bad, it's late here. -- John Smythe (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.