Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

James Cantor (talk · contribs) / Banglange (talk · contribs) / Starburst9 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/James_Cantor)

Blanchard's transsexualism typology received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

The content of Autogynephilia was merged into Blanchard's transsexualism typology on 11 September 2010. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Becker, Judith V.; Perkins, Andrew (2014). "Gender Dysphoria". In Hales, Robert E.; Yudofsky, Stuart C.; Roberts, Laura Weiss (eds.). The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Publishing. p. 688. ISBN 978-1-5856-2444-7.
Rider, G. Nic; Tebbe, Elliot A. (2021). "Anti-Trans Theories". In Goldberg, Abbie E.; Beemyn, Genny (eds.). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies, Volume 1. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. pp. 39–43. doi:10.4135/9781544393858.n12. ISBN 978-1-5443-9382-7.

Controversy

Nowhere in the article is the explanatory status of the typology according to modern medicine indicated. Shouldn't the lead or body indicate the fringe or historical nature of the theory?

If one looks at other articles on fringe theories that have long been disproven, their academic status is clearly indicated.

The page for social degeneration does not say "controversial" for example. Adherents to that theory, and this theory, are ideological in nature, as there's no empirical data to support their validity. Many modern nazis adhere to the theory of social degeneration. The article simply refers to the theory matter-of-factly as historical, not controversial.

What is the general rule on Wikipedia for this sort of thing?

96.60.79.128 (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources worth considering

A user wrote the below on here yesterday but had their comments wiped as WP:NPA. It's a shame that the entirety of a person's post gets deleted in such instances, and not just the offending parts that contravene WP:NPA. One can easily miss such a comment, unless they have the Talk page on their watchlist.

The person included the following text which stood out to me: "Show us independent and reliable sources that assert it's a notable topic"?!? Alice Dreger wrote a very popular article that was published in a major journal, followed by a pretty good selling general interest book, about how activists attempted to cancel Michael Bailey for discussing autogynephilia. That book was reviewed in a New York Times review that discussed autogynephilia. Bailey himself wrote a book about the subject that won an award from a major gay rights organization. Deborah Soh has written a book partially about it that sold well. Anne Lawrence wrote a paper that was published by the National Institutes of Health and is still up on their website, plus wrote a book about it herself. Rational Wiki has an autogynephilia page. You can't be serious that there are no reliable sources that consider this concept notable.

Just wondering if anyone has read any of these and if they might be worthwhile additions to the page? Gazumpedheit (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve read The Man Who Would Be Queen. It’s flat pseudoscience that says that if someone works as a scientist they’re an autogynephile but if they work as a prostitute they’re an HSTS. It’s not a reliable source, and it didn’t actually win an award;

it was going to, but that was retracted with an apology. Snokalok (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]