Talk:Attraction to transgender people/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Transfan" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Transfan. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"Transfans" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Transfans. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Blanchard point is irrelevant?

That point seems to refer to cross-dressers, and unless I'm missing something they're different from trans people. Also, Ray Blanchard has been *heavily* criticised for his work regarding trans people (particularly the typology of transgender women), that ought to be noted. Amekyras (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it says the study was of profiles indicating an interest in cross-dressing or cross-dressers. It is relevant because it found that 42.9% were gynandromorphophiles, who "sought cross-dressers, transvestites, transsexuals," or individuals with both "male primary and female secondary sexual characteristics". The study was from 1993, so the way people were categorized by researchers, society, and potential partners is different from how things are usually done now, but it is on topic. And no, mentioning the typology is not relevant, and would come across as POV. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Increasing Accuracy, Decreasing dehumanization

Crossroads, in response to your reversion and edit summaries:

1) No, "gynandromorph" is not just a "technical description of a body type." It's a specific term used in entomology and ornithology to denote an arthropod, bird, or reptile which displays a split (bilateral, axial, or mosaic) male and female phenotype AND genotype. The term is not applicable to humans, and in addition to its inaccuracy, it is extremely dehumanizing to refer to trans women as "gynandromorphs" given the fields the term is actually applicable to. Nor is it anywhere near common nor accepted terminology to refer to trans women: not in scientific disciplines, not in other academic disciplines, not in society, and certainly not by trans people. Regardless of the terminology Hsu and Blanchard use (and they are the exceptions in its usage, not the rule), we don't have to (nor will we) replicate it in wikivoice. For all these reasons, I am replacing all instances of the term in the article with "trans woman" or "trans female," as appropriate in the context.

2) I did, in fact, check the Laws & O'Donahue source, and they did not base their statements on any classifying body. Their statements (they use Money's archaic "gynemimetophilia" term) cite only Money (already discussed in the "alternate terms" section of the wiki article), and all statements can be found on page 408 of their book. Also, for someone so eager to call admins on others for "casting aspersions," you are guilty of the same charge with that "I very much doubt you checked the Laws and O'Donohue source" line in your edit summary. Take a step back.

3) Contrary to Laws and O'Donahue's opinion, attraction to transgender woman is not classified as a paraphilia either by the DSM-V or the ICD-11. Laws & O'Donahue are objectively incorrect (unless you have another classifying body besides the DSM and ICD by which to base their claim on) about their paraphilia claim, and their line should be removed in light of this. Right now, the paragraph reads as completely contradictory. The first line says it IS a paraphilia, the next line says it is NOT. Again, according to the DSM and ICD, the second line is correct. The "list of paraphilias" tag also needs to be removed from the article as a result.

4) As to whether these sources are speaking about trans women specifically or not, "trans women" is literally in the title of the Hsu/Miller source (reference 7), and are referenced in the first couple paragraphs as synonymous to the "gynandromorph" term erroneously used by Hsu. Reference 8 is closely related to reference 7, and copy/pastes paragraphs such as the one referenced in the wiki article from the previous study. Yes, they are talking about trans women, their own studies say so.

5) The term "except" in the lede paragraph directly implies that men's attraction to transgender women is incompatible with heterosexuality: this is false and is POV. The replacement "and" is neutral, without changing the meaning of the rest of the sentence or paragraph.

6) When content is specifically about cisgender men or women, "cisgender men" or "cisgender women" will be used.

---

I'll be changing the article to reflect the above. Don't accuse me of "edit warring" for editing a second time: it's necessary after you (again) reverted every single improvement change I made the first time.

---

Separate from this edit, this article as a whole needs serious improvement in a few different ways: 1) Almost all current content relates only to trans women, not trans men. The title either needs to be changed to "Attraction to transgender women," or more content about attraction to trans men needs to be added. 2) There is currently undue weight on a few pathologizing studies. There needs to be more sociological content, whether from academic or from media sources. 3) ALL current article material is about men's attraction to trans people. There is currently no mention of women's attraction, and this needs to change: it definitely isn't only men who are attracted to trans people. 108.31.146.220 (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

will be used That's not how Wikipedia works, we reach WP:CONSENSUS. Also please stop WP:EDITWARing and see WP:BRD. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

In reply to the IP, and regarding their recent changes and my adjustments:

1) We can't just say "trans woman" for that study, as trans women vary in body form, and that study regards only one. I tried another wording.

2) I'll have to look closer at that source overall, and related ones, later on. I am surprised you checked because you never said you did so in the edit summary and did not fix the "page needed" issue. Sure, I should not have said that in the edit summary. But please, if you have checked a source, say so.

3) "Paraphilia" and "paraphilic disorder" are two different things. The DSM-V will need to be checked.

4) As stated above, yes it is about trans women, but a specific body type of trans woman.

5) It does not imply that. This group has in fact been found to have a different arousal pattern, and putting "and" implies this finding does not exist.

6) Seems fine.

Now, on to your 3 further suggestions:

1) The article does have content about trans men. However, essentially no research and very little discussion has been done on attraction to trans men. We reflect the WP:RS. We are not going to add poor sources or cut relevant sources to achieve artificial parity. The problem is out there in the research and is not ours to fix. The article should not be retitled, as it is about this topic as a whole, and is meant to be.

2) WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI mean that we do focus on scientific findings when discussing science, not putting activist, political, or similar sources on par with them. Whether the existing sources are "pathologizing" or not is just an opinion. But other scientific sources, including sociological ones, can be used. With regard to sociology specifically, we do have the Weinberg and Williams study. Sociology does not encompass media sources. Sources that fall under the sociological umbrella, but take a "cultural studies", non-scientific approach, would need to go under the "social analysis" section. And that section is big enough as it is. We are not going to make a WP:FALSEBALANCE between science and politicized speculations.

3) Unfortunately, in sex research in general, more has been done in many areas about men than about women. This article is bound to reflect that, as that is the case for this area. Again, we are not going to make parity of length the all-important thing. But, if scientific research has been done on women's attraction to trans people, or on anyone's attraction to trans men, then it could certainly be added. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to this article and should not be used as a bludgeon. It's a guideline for articles about Wikipedia:Biomedical information: disease, medicine, health effects, etc. This article, about attraction, does not fall under any of those categories. If it did fall under MEDRS, the primary source studies it is largely based on currently could not be used (Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content.) Even as it is, the focus on primary source studies needs to be reduced, per WP:PSTS: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS absolutely does apply to many, but not all, aspects of this topic. Measurement of sexual arousal with the penile plethysmograph, paraphilias, the DSM-V, psychiatry, and mental health in general are all medical topics. And MEDRS does not forbid primary sources entirely; the WP:MEDDATE subsection states: These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published. (Emphasis added.) But yes, I fully support WP:PSTS and think this article should be based on secondary sources more than it is, which is why I didn't fight that tag being added. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding paraphilia, James Cantor stated the following in a previous discussion: "[...] The 2007 RS was written before the current DSM-5 (in 2013). Under the current systems, the sexual preference for transpeople is a paraphilia, but it is not a paraphilic disorder (unless it causes harm or the kind of distress that makes the person want to come in for therapy to help come out and integrate into his life)."

As for retitling the article, I stated before that titling the article "Gynandromorphophilia" is a WP:NEO matter. I stated, "Yes, that term is used by some sources, but I don't see that it's enough to title the article that. In this case, the title should be descriptive/plain (as in common) English. And although we could title the article 'Attraction to transgender women,' I don't see that the article should be limited to just discussing attraction to trans women. Although attraction to trans men is not subject to the same type of scientific study, it is subject to social commentary (as is clear by the book sources I cited [...]). There is no need to have this article be primarily or solely a scientific article." But then again, people's idea of "scientific" can vary. Above, Crossroads notes sociological sources, which fall under social science (which is broad in its scope).

Sourcing. One the sources I pointed to before is this 2017 "The Wiley Handbook of Sex Therapy" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 298, which says, "For gay, bi, and queer trans men, cisgender gay men are not always open to trans male bodies, or may negate their masculine identity by hyperfocusing on genitalia (Bockting et al., 2009; Erickson-Schroth, 2014)." I'm not against media sources being added if they are kept to a minimum and added to a "Social views" section, since the "Is it transphobic or a form of discrimination to not want to date or have sex with a transgender person?" debate exists and is very much an online media topic, but "attraction to transgender people" is not a topic where we need to overly rely on media sources. That is why, in this case, media sources can be kept to a minimum; with regard to attraction to transgender people, they mainly focus on the aforementioned debate I just mentioned. I agree with Crossroads that "we reflect the WP:RS. We are not going to add poor sources or cut relevant sources to achieve artificial parity." Media sources are the poorer of the sources to use and we shouldn't use them to try to rebut or challenge the academic literature; see WP:MEDPOP and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

_____

References

Quick note about a recent edit

DIYEditor: the reason that IP editor mentioned Tumblr in their recent edit summary is that the Huffington Post source they removed and you put back sources "skoliosexual" to a Tumblr blog. (However: I agree with your edit because the Advocate source is strong enough on its own, plus HuffPo relying on this Tumblr blog is definitely more reliable than a Tumblr blog by itself.)

Also: maybe we oughta get an admin in here because IPs appear to be edit-warring that line. Loki (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

How does huffpo linking to a tumbr blog make it any more authoritative? Also, it was a OPINION piece, not from a scholarly source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandors (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That line about "skoliosexual"

While the page is protected, let's figure out whether to include that line about "skoliosexual". It relies on two sources: this HuffPo article, and this Advocate article. The HuffPo article in turn sources it to this Tumblog; the Advocate article sources it to "The Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health", which appears to be these people (Google cache because their website appears to be broken currently). IMO these sources are sufficient. I wouldn't like relying on the HuffPo source alone but the Advocate is a reasonably reliable source which seems to be relying itself on a reasonably reliable source. Loki (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The huffpo source isn't even a valid secondary source. Secondary sources refer to another source. Huffpo is literally a nothing burger. The other link links to a now defunct organization that had a couple thousand likes on facebook. If that is a valid source, I could make a page like that in a day on facebook and now is my claim valid because I have 5k facebook likes as they had? Bandors (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

We're not basing their reliability on their Facebook likes. We're basing their reliability on the fact that the Advocate is generally reliable (and so probably vetted the source at least somewhat), and from the source's cached webpage, they appear to have been run by a genuine expert in the field. Loki (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The advocate's page does not link to where they are sourcing that from. From their cached page it does not look reputable. I could make a site like that very easily, would it be a reputable source then? No. Wikipedia has higher standards. Also, I can not find the word "skoliosexual" anywhere in their cache, it may have just been a opinion piece such as the other source that calls Zucchini a sexuality. These are not authoritative sources making up sexualities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandors (talk • contribs) 11:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Bandors (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Generally we're not in the business of second-guessing secondary sources here. It's quite possible, and indeed likely, that the Advocate talked to the people behind the Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health by email, on the phone, or through some other method that we can't independently verify. The fact that the Advocate is a mainstream publication with editors to check factual mistakes is enough for us to trust it. See WP:SOURCE for more. (Also: please indent your comments.) Loki (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The source is so bad. It does not meet WP:SOURCE source standards at all. I do not think what you are suggesting is likely at all. Is there a way to raise this issue further? I've never actually been in a back and forth like this on the site, and I don't think we are getting anywhere here. If a Wikipedia moderator were to read the sources I think they would agree it's a bad source.Bandors (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

As LokiTheLiar said we generally do not question what a reliable secondary source says. It doesn't matter what they are reporting on or where it came from. If Huffpost and the Advocate want to report on something from a blog or facebook that is up to them. You can take this to WP:RS/N if you want. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Romantic and sexual attraction to transgender people

The article needs to reflect that not only sexual attraction but also a romantic attraction to transgender people has been the subject of scientific study and social commentary:

• Commitment, Interpersonal Stigma, and Mental Health in Romantic Relationships Between Transgender Women and Cisgender Male Partners
• Romantic Relationships of Female-to-Male Trans Men: A Descriptive Study
• Trans*am : cis men and trans women in love
• Transgender exclusion from the world of dating: Patterns of acceptance and rejection of hypothetical trans dating partners as a function of sexual and gender identity

Proposed edit: to start the article with "Romantic and sexual attraction to transgender people has been the subject..." (and then optionally, if and when needed, to consider reflecting this existing aspect of the subject further in the article).

Vadzim (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You stated, "The article needs to reflect that not only sexual attraction but also a romantic attraction to transgender people has been the subject of scientific study and social commentary." What academic sources are specifically about romantic attraction to transgender people, in the sense that "romantic" excludes sexual attraction? I ask this because the literature on romantic relationships usually does include, or focus on, discussion of sexual attraction and/or the couple's sex life. It usually does encompass a sexual component in one way or another. Except for discussion on asexual identity, a sexual component is usually intertwined with what romance/the term romantic encompasses. Otherwise, it would simply be platonic love. That is why the Romantic orientation article currently states that "[The term romantic orientation] is used both alternatively and side by side with the term sexual orientation" in the lead and "The implications of the distinction between romantic and sexual orientations have not been fully recognized, nor have they been studied extensively. It is common for sources to describe sexual orientation as including components of both sexual and romantic (or romantic equivalent) attractions." lower in the article. It's why the "Romantic identities" section is mainly sourced to material speaking on asexual people/their identities. The "Transgender exclusion from the world of dating: Patterns of acceptance and rejection of hypothetical trans dating partners as a function of sexual and gender identity" source you included above, for example, clearly has a sexual component. When you state "not only sexual attraction but also a romantic attraction", I'm not sure what you mean. What are the sources specifically stating on romantic attraction? And unless the source specifies, how are you distinguishing that from sexual attraction? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I haven't made any statements regarding the mutual exclusion of the terms "romantic" and "sexual" and/or regarding the contradistinction of the terms "romantic" and "sexual". Please do not attribute these statements to me — I am not going to be drawn into defending the statements I have never voiced.

Please, refer to "Romance (love)" in addition to sources you use as references, and please try to see that this edit is needed to reflect the existing fact that the subject of the article is being studied from a wider and more comprehensive perspective than "sexual attraction" in its narrow sense. References do illustrate this.

I invite you, and everybody interested in improving this article, to help to find the best form and wording to reflect this fact in the article (if exact "Romantic and sexual attraction to transgender people has been the subject..." is problematic for some reason).

Vadzim (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Attribute statements to you? I made sound and valid points: When you state "not only sexual attraction but also a romantic attraction", what do you mean, given that "the literature on [what romance is and] romantic relationships usually does include, or focus on, discussion of sexual attraction and/or the couple's sex life. It usually does encompass a sexual component in one way or another." I clearly asked you, "What are the sources specifically stating on romantic attraction? And unless the source specifies, how are you distinguishing that from sexual attraction?" Can't answer that? I have nothing else to state on this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to be pointed to the very poor Romance (love) article, which is another Wikipedia article that I watch (as indicated by my presence in its edit history). And I certainly need no education on the romantic literature or sexology. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I think I understand you better now.

"Commitment, Interpersonal Stigma, and Mental Health in Romantic Relationships Between Transgender Women and Cisgender Male Partners" is a study on romantic relationships you are asking for. Authors do not state that they use "romantic" as a replacement for "sexual". Authors consciously and constantly use "romantic" everywhere throughout the study, even in the title itself. "Sexual relationships" are mentioned there only once in a sense of a custom requirement for participating couples to be considered fit for the study.

Stating that authors meant to say something else ("sexual") instead of what they wrote in plain text ("romantic") is just a private assumption, presented as a fact and not backed by anything.

Regarding your request on specifying the ways of distinguishing "romantic" and "sexual", this might be of use for us in our attempt to approach this question in a more organized manner: "Romantic Love: A Mammalian Brain System for Mate Choice". (Please note that authors use "romantic attraction" and "romantic love" interchangeably there).

Vadzim (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You commented: "Stating that authors meant to say something else ('sexual') instead of what they wrote in plain text ('romantic') is just a private assumption, presented as a fact and not backed by anything." I never stated or implied that. And, also, I focused on the "Transgender exclusion from the world of dating: Patterns of acceptance and rejection of hypothetical trans dating partners as a function of sexual and gender identity" source. Anyway, it seems that you are interpreting the "Commitment, Interpersonal Stigma, and Mental Health in Romantic Relationships Between Transgender Women and Cisgender Male Partners" source's use of "romantic" in a way that is not specified by the source and in a way that is not typical when it comes to the research on romantic relationships. And by "not typical", I mean the assumption that "romantic" is used to the exclusion of a sexual component. To reiterate: When it comes to the research on romantic relationships, rarely ever does "romantic" exclude a sexual component. The dating and intimate relationship research, for example, significantly concerns sexual activity even when the source presents "dating" and/or "romantic relationship" or "intimate relationship" without "sex" or "sexual" in the title and when that text ("dating", "romantic relationship", or "intimate relationship") is thoroughly used throughout the source. Sure, as noted in the Intimate relationship article, an intimate relationship isn't always sexual. But (among both laypeople and in the literature) the term intimate relationship is most often taken to mean/most often used to mean "sexual relationship" or that sexual activity is (or was) involved. Furthermore, the "Commitment, Interpersonal Stigma, and Mental Health in Romantic Relationships Between Transgender Women and Cisgender Male Partners" source is not about attraction to transgender people. This article should only be about attraction to transgender people.

I have no issue with the article speaking of romantic attraction if WP:Due, even if it's just another word for sexual attraction (as it very often is per what I stated above). But it's best to propose the type of text you want to include and why. You can also propose it via your WP:Sandbox and then post a link to your sandbox here for review. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Since you are still not so far away from here (you just replied), I would like to apologize if my voice sounded a bit harsh - I took something like a decade-long vacation from Wikipedia and completely forgot how heated and opinionated discussion can become here even over the slightest discrepancies in positions. I wanted to make this addition before your last reply, though. Hope it's not too late :)

Vadzim (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Please take a look at the edit proposal in the sandbox. This edit should look very modest, unpretentious, distant from attempts to alter previous work, but at the same time present the topic of the article more objectively and comprehensively, while incorporating relevant pertinent sources. Vadzim (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

That looks like just adding the word "romantic" again, with the same source and in the same way that Flyer22 Frozen already explained was not necessary. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

___

References