Talk:Feminine essence concept of transsexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feminine essence concept of transsexuality article.
	This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 January 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WPMEDmedicine articles	WikiProject Medicine	(Rated C-Class, Mid-importance)
	Medicine portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctors' mess.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

SexualityWikipedia:WikiProject SexualityTemplate:WP SexualitySexuality articles	WikiProject Sexuality	(Rated C-Class)
	Sexuality portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject 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.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:LGBTProjectLGBT articles	WikiProject LGBT studies	(Rated C-Class)
	LGBT portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies (talk), which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Contents 1 Disclosure 2 Dubious 1 3 Request for comment 4 Ref formatting 5 Page move proposal 6 Pointy tags 7 Dubious 7.1 This idea was first called the "feminine essence narrative" by Alice Dreger 7.2 implications of the feminine essence theory have been discussed relatively frequently 7.3 The most complete description of the theory was written by Ray Blanchard 8 Suggestion to rename 8.1 "Strawman only Blanchard writes about" 9 What is this article about 10 Bailey and Kiira 11 Added more from Dreger 12 First sentence 13 Literal 14 Perfect, but unusable source 15 Progress? 16 Looking for a source 17 Other sources 18 Article is still very messed up 19 Citations "needed" are right there 20 'Lists and refutes' is ambiguous 21 Style 22 Grammar, again 23 Basic logic 23.1 break 24 More work done 25 Dicklyon’s page relocation in direct violation of consensus 26 Article title survey 27 Dicklyon's now-repeated violation of consensus on page location 28 Book links 29 "Rv most of Dick's changes"

[edit] Disclosure

In the interests of disclosure, I am a professional sexologist and a colleague of Blanchard, who published several RS's on this topic.
— James Cantor (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If your "disclosure" were more complete, you'd note that Ray Blanchard made up the "feminine essence theory" in these so-called reliable sources, by listing an unattributed set of "tenets" of it that he then proceeded to knock down. Nobody believes the theory, nor likely many of its so-called tenets, and he knows it, since they're a bit absurd. His reason for putting it forward to knock it down is obvious: to prop up his controversial Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of transsexuals. So to call this a theory, to help your boss spread his nasty propaganda, by writing this horribly misleading article, is the worse kind of WP:Conflict of interest. Dicklyon (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious 1

The article is really about the strawman theory that Dreger and Blanchard made up to defend Bailey in his popularization of Blanchard; actually, on checking the Dreger ref, it's clear that she only made up the "narrative" term, and credited Bailey for the idea; Blanchard took off from there and made up the "theory" and "tenets"; I find no evidence in either source that the "narrative" was to be interpreted "literally" as the intro sentence says; that's just James Cantor's strawman extension to help bash the idea as a way of further propping up Blanchard and Bailey alternative stupid ideas. Nobody actually espouses such a theory, they just use it ridicule trans women and others who feel gender dysphoria and object to being classified by the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. Another view on Dreger's work can be found here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Dreger uses the exact words "feminine essence narrative" in her recent paper does not mean that the idea is hers. Consider what Dreger writes about the idea before introducing the term as a short-hand for it:

• "Most interestingly to me, a surprisingly large number of transgender women wrote to tell me that they had been harassed and threatened by James for daring to speak anything other than the standard ‘‘I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body’’ story." (page 369, column 1)
• "Kieltyka explained to me that she used this video in Bailey’s class to show an important part of her profound transformation from man to woman. In producing the video, "I was freeing that woman that was trapped inside my body. Just as Michelangelo would free the image from the block of marble, or Pygmalia, the carving became the woman that he desired." (page 373, column 2)

Do these snippets from her paper sound like she's inventing a new concept? They don't to me: they sound like she's reporting a widespread idea.

Consider the popular dominance of the idea reflected in statements like these:[1]

• "For all intents and purposes, I am conducting myself like the standard vanilla "woman trapped in a man's body", and the prospect of my carrying out a successful transition, including changing gender in my present job, seems to be good. But throughout all this, I have been haunted by a question which neither my therapist nor I can answer. In contrast to the so-called "true transsexuals", I do not believe myself to BE a woman, nor did I ever believe myself to BE a girl while growing up."
• "It is true that I've never truly felt myself to be a woman trapped in a man's body. I've always regarded manhood and womanhood as either biological definitions or descriptions of a social identity that really never had anything to do with the state of one's psyche or soul. To be honest, the thought of being one gender trapped in the body of another seems a bit delusional, like believing yourself to be the Queen of England. Wanting to be the Queen of England is another thing altogether."
• "When I first sought treatment with Dr. Ira Pauly at the University of Oregon, I lied my little butt off in order to paint for him the picture of someone who was simply a miserable "woman trapped in the body of a man" who didn't care at all about sex."

If the "feminine essence" idea -- a biological male with 'a woman's soul', or otherwise somehow being female at the essential level -- didn't exist until Dreger published her paper last year, then why are these people talking about it on a nine-year-old webpage?

If your only complaint is with the title, then please feel free to suggest a better one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the article is about the strawman interpretation of these narratives that Dreger defined so that she and Blanchard could knock them down. The title is not the issue. The lead sentences make it clear what the article is trying to do. Cantor's "literal" strawman in the lead is just another step in that campaign to prop up his boss's silly theories. Dicklyon (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And what reliable sources can you provide that demonstrate that this article is not presenting a generally accepted description of the idea? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not quite the same thing as violating WP:NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What about a reliable source for the existence of such a theory. Dreger drones on at length about a "standard feminine essence narrative" being discussed by Bailey, but never says what it is or whether Bailey actually mentioned or defined such a thing. If he had, I kind of suspect that Cantor would have referenced him. But instead he pretends that the theory that Dreger treats as pre-2003 is newer than that, it seems. Is there any source for this so-called theory? It's mighty easy to tear it to shreds when it doesn't exist. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The article, as currently written, appears to be based on articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. That type of source is specifically called out in Wikipedia's policies as a highly reliable kind of source. If you can find any reliable sources that contradict this, then we need to make WP:DUE changes. However, in the absence of other reliable sources that contradict it, then we pretty much have to report what the reliable sources say, without including a bunch of whatever we happen to believe ourselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it was written to appear that way. Yet it's pretty much made up; even the lead sentence that frames the topic is just made up: "The feminine essence theory refers to the idea that male-to-female transsexuals are, literally rather than figuratively, females inside male bodies." Can you find any support for this absurd idea in the cited articles? Dicklyon (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with Dreger on this is that she never really says there's a theory, but says that Bailey talks about this narrative. But she's not very explicit, and seems like maybe she's saying she made up "feminine essence narrative" as a way to describe what Bailey talks about. And the Blanchard paper, assuming it's about like the similarly titled one in the "peer commentaries", turns it into a theory of his own making, which lists "tenets" as if the theory comes from someone who believes it, but of course he makes up tenets just for the convenience of shooting them down; he introduces "literally" into one of them. If you really wanted an article on this "theory", it would have to be treated as pseudoscience, since it's rejected by anyone who knows anything, and then maybe explain where it came from, and try not to imply that the sources are reporting on a theory as opposed to making up a strawman to shoot down. The strong implication of the article as it is is that some trans women believe this theory; yet, there's not a shred of evidence for that, especially since it's a newly articulated theory, made up by their enemies to further ridicule them. Or haven't you read the Blanchard commentary? Dicklyon (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the tenets appear to be taken from the Blanchard commentary (first page free here), but he is a relevant expert, and the description is presented as his description, not as the be-all and end-all of the theory. That complies with policy on self-published sources.

Like I (and others) have said repeatedly: if you have any other reliable sources that connect to this idea, PLEASE provide them! Wikipedia is best served by a well-referenced, neutral article, not by "one side's story" -- or by one non-expert complaining that he doesn't like the idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no better sources to Blanchard's novel "theory" because he just made it up to ridicule the idea that there might be alternatives to his two-way classification of transexuals. By making it a "literal" theory he dismisses and ridicules the "essence" narratives; there's no shortage of sources on those ideas, but they don't fit the topic of this article that Cantor made up. Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If this idea is just a strawman then how does 7 year old Jazz know about it? Let me suggest this which I already put on the VFD page. We could either rename the article "brain sex" theory of transsexualism, or re write it into a much more complete article, one which as I often advocate for looks at non-western intellectual and cultural traditions for some of it's coverage. Consider the "two-spirit" identity. They are Native Americans who have both male and female spirits. Some of these individuals are without question transsexual as we would define them. Just a suggestion. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

{{RFCsoc }}

What do you think of this article?

Well, what do you want me to comment on? As someone with some sort of gender identity something, I don't agree with the topic of the article but I think it's a good article. What did you want me to comment on? Whiteflame74 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping you'd read some of comments, see what Cantor is doing here, and be as appalled by it as I was. It's really quite vicious to present this as if it was a theory held by transsexuals, just for the purpose of saying what a stupid idea it is. That what Cantor does here, just as his boss Blanchard did in the real world. The appearance of sourcing disguises what he has done. I guess it was unrealistic to expect someone not familiar with the controversy to be able to help, though. Thanks for looking anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon has every right to disagree with me as he would like. To refer to someone's edits as "apalling" and "vicious," however, is violates WP:civility.
— James Cantor (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's about your article and your editing behavior, which I repeat I find appalling and vicious; not to mention WP:COI. Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in this article that says this idea is supported by all, or even a majority of, transsexuals. It does say that some transwomen claim to have a female soul or a female brain, and I believe that fact is undisputed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he doesn't specifically say so, does he? In fact, nobody adheres to such a theory, as it was made up by Dreger and Blanchard just for the purpose of attacking transwomen; Cantor reports to Blanchard and does his dirty work on wikipedia. Are you not appalled by that? Is it not vicious of Blanchard and Cantor to do what they've done, making up this absurd idea just to attack it, with the implication that people with gender disphoria believe it? Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just look at what Blanchard says:

... My purpose in writing it is to present the feminine essence theory in a form that facilitates its comparison with other theories of male-to-female transsexualism, including my own view. The remainder of this commentary has three main parts. First, I will list what I consider to be the central tenets of the feminine essence theory. There is no ‘‘official version’’ of this theory, and another author might come up with a shorter or longer list of tenets, or state some of them in different typical men and women.

Tenets of the Feminine Essence Theory

1. Male-to-female transsexuals are, in some literal sense and not just in a figurative sense, women inside men’s bodies.

2. There is only one type of woman, therefore there can be only one type of (true) transsexual.

3. Apparent differences among male-to-female transsexuals are relatively superficial and irrelevant to the basic unity of the transsexual syndrome.

4. Male-to-female transsexuals have no unique, behavioral or psychological characteristics that are absent in typical men and women.

Elaboration of the Tenets

Women Trapped in Men’s Bodies

The popular description of male-to-female transsexuals as women trapped in men’s bodies has sometimes been interpreted to mean that they feel like women or that they wish to be women. The feminine essence theory proposes that they are women. This proposition is usually paired with the notion that there exist one or more sex-dimorphic structures of the human brain that can be regarded as the seat of gender identity, and that key parameters of these structures (e.g., neuron number or density) are similar in male-to-female transsexuals and natal females (see Bailey & Triea, 2007). Contemporary proponents of this view also generally hold that the female-typical structure of the gender identity center(s) is congenital, so that male-to-female transsexuals are and always have been female where it counts—in the brain.

He's not hiding the fact that he made it all up. At the end he refers to "Contemporary proponents of this view", but doesn't cite anything to suggest that anyone would be a proponent of this nonsense that he just made up. He cites his buddy Bailey who made up a lot of the controversial nonsense that he's trying to support by this attack on sensibility.

Is there any reason why we should allow his underling James Cantor to bring this nonsense to wikipedia? You don't see how vicious it is? Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You say no transwomen believe this, it has been called a riddiculous straw man. Yet if one goes to tsroadmap.com and/or lynnconway.com and googles (in the search boxes you would see on their pages) "brain sex" they will get many hits. "It appears that if those brain and CNS structures are masculinized in early pregnancy by hormones in the fetus, then the child will have male percepts and a male gender identity, independent of whether the genes or genitalia are male. If those structures are not masculinized in early pregnancy, the child will have a female percepts and a female gender identity, again independent of the genes or genitalia. As in the case of intersex infants having ambiguous genitalia, there are undoubtedly many degrees of cross-gendering of brain and CNS structures, so that while some infants are completely cross-gendered others are only partially cross-gendered.(verbatim)" This is basically the feminine essence theory. When one adds that there is only one way to be cross-gendered in the brain, and that cross gendering must be totally separate in any and every way from sexualorientation. That there is in essence one way to be feminine; that is the feminine essence theory.

Interestingly if I understood JamesCantor correctly in a conversation we had on my talk page. This is very close to what he and sexologist like him belive. However they contend that the way in which a brain is cross-gendered depends on sexualorientation. Thus take a homosexual male. Homosexual males have been shown to think and have some brain structures like those of straight women. A homosexual transsexual is just a case where there is enough female brain structure present to make a person mentally female. While non-homosexual transsexuals, if I understood correctly, also have cross gender structures in their brains, just not the same as a homosexual transsexuals. The non-homosexual MTF transsexual brains retaining more masculine brain structure. That is the crux of the problem isn't it now. That Blanchard's theory not only contradicts the feminine essence/ female brain sex theory of MTF transsexualism....but it then says ok one kind of transsexual really does work that way. So much heat and anger caused by so little.  :-( --Hfarmer (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• This RFC is improperly formatted. It is not at all clear what the question is. Article RFC's are not about editors, they are about the article. Before re-filing the RFC, please identify clearly what the question or concern is about the content of the article. Precisely what content issue is requested for comment? In other words, please ask a specific question about the content of the article so responding editors have the information they need in order to respond to the request. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reported user:Dicklyon's repeated incivilities on this page to the Admin Noticeboard here.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

James, I understand that you disagree with me about your boss Blanchard's strategy in making up this nonsense theory just to debunk it; it was an attack on the transsexuals that he is fighting in the real world (I can mail a copy to anyone interested in seeing more why this is so obvious), and you are obviously here to promote his view of things, in blalant violation of WP:COI. In my opinion, the whole thing is vicious, and your bringing the fight to wikipedia this way is appalling. We have policies against such things. I don't know a way to express that in a way that you will find civil, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't express it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Blanchard is not my boss.
2. You are entitled to believe whatever you want about my COI no matter how many other editors say my edits have been entirely appropriate (which the great majority has indeed said in every instance).
3. You are even potentially entitled to note my COI at the same time as ignoring your own and Jokestress'. Whether your incomplete descriptions of the situation constitute a hypocritical gaming of the system is up to other editors to decide.
4. You are not, however, entitled to engage persistantly in incivilily.

— James Cantor (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, if Blanchard is not your boss as previously reported by others, what exactly is your relationship with him, and why do you keep pushing his ideas on wikipedia? And what would be a more civil way to describe your behavior, and his? Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

These questions belong in our mediation. I would add only that you mistake your role as a WP editor. It is your role to describe my edits, not Blanchard's behavior. To the extent that any editor has commented on my edits, the great majority have said that I have acted entirely appropriately. In fact, after discounting you and Jokestress for your own COI's on this topic, the conclusion that I have been editing appropriately has been unanimous. (Even DarlieB ceased her COI accusations after she was told/reminded by several people (including you) that I do not edit the controversy sections of pages you and I agreed to.) As I said, all this belongs in our mediation, not here. This talk page about is about the main page, not you and me.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that you represent Blanchard's ideas on wikipedia, and have co-authored numerous papers with him in real life, the intertwined relationship is something that we need to examine carefully here. Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is the most egregious example of your COI, and a complete and toxic misrepresentation of the topic. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Egregious," "blatant," "obvious," and another "obvious"...And yet, no one else sees it. I wonder why?
— James Cantor (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They see it. It is just that the admins seem to think it is OK to behave the way he does. He is excused. While Mr tough guy there can't even bear the mention of this own first name let it be taken as an insult. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha, ha, looks who's testing to see if she can get blocked again by some more theatrics! Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing theatrical or uncivil about what I wrote Mr tough guy. You are the one who chooses to tick people off. You are the one who complained consequently I will not refer to you by name. That is the consequnces of your action. Yes your actions can have consequences.--Hfarmer (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, feel free to call me Dick, or the more dramatic Mr tough guy; it's only when you play with alternate meanings and capitalizations of my name that you are being incivil (people do that now and then, but not usually 6 or 8 times in a weekend). As for the dramatics, I'll just watch... Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you comment on the fact that I can find this supposedly fake straw man of a theory being talked of by Lynn Conway, Andrea James and 7 year old Jazz? The basic idea is that transsexuals have a "boy body and a girl brain." Blanchard just gave it a fancy name. Just the same way he has to name things in latin for some reason. --Hfarmer (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Blanchard made up the "literally" as way to make it easy to shoot down the old concept of a female soul or identity in a male body. Nobody believes it his strawman literal version that turns the "gender identity" issue into a brain morphology issue. Can you not see through his ruse that Cantor brought into wikipedia to ridicule people like you? Here are a few hundred books that discuss the concept that co-authors Blanchard and Cantor are trying to ridicule by this strategy. Dicklyon (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have posted enough links to websites on which transsexuals ourselves describe some sort of feminine essence/brain sex. That is what Dr. Blanchard talks about in his commentary? I don't feel ridiculed by the very questioning of that idea, and I have made it clear that I don't feel highly offended by his theory. (Leaving alone the fact that for some reason harmless autogynephilia is labeled the same as zoophilia etc.) Let me ask it this way if Brain sex is not the competing better accepted theory then what is. Please someone enunciate it clearly. This will be an issue for mediation because WP:FRINGE is an issue. Saying a theory is fringe implies that there exist a better established theory. Thus far I see none offered anywhere.... except possibly brain sex. Which has recently had much doubt cast upon it by the revelation that the brain like all other soft tissue is subject to change due to hormones. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I believe it would be wise to put the rest the conversation in our mediation.
• Blanchard uses Greek, not Latin. The only reason (other than to help make the literature precise) is to stick to what is now a century-old tradition in sexology.

— James Cantor (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ref formatting

Does anyone object to converting the refs to {{cite journal}} using this handy tool, or at least adding the PMID numbers to the end of the refs? PMID is a magic word on Wikipedia, so if you typing PMID 17951886 automagically creates a clickable link to the article's PubMed entry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Page move proposal

[edit] Pointy tags

Dickylon tagged some aspects of the article with the comment "a few tags to point out some of the made-up assertions in this stupid article". This appears to be an extension of his efforts to delete the page. More tagging followed. This does not appear to be an effort to achieve consensus, but rather disruption to prove a point (presumably that the article is "made-up" and "stupid"). There are better and more accepted ways of operating on this collaborative project, such as trying to reach a consensus. I suggest the issues be worked out on the talk page, and dispute resolution be used. NJGW (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, There was a dispute resolution in progress which includes this page, though it seems to failed and restarted. While the tags were definitely pointy, this article as it currently stands is mostly about a strawman argument, which should probably be made a bit clearer. PaleAqua (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable sources that say that? Or any sources that give a better description of the general idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a strawman more because of how it is presented. Defining a theory for deconstructive purposes is creating a strawman. Just a little tweak in the overview section and intro is probably all that is needed, unless there are better source for proponents. For example for the Overview "A description of the theory was written a noted sexologist Ray Blanchard to compare with his own theories", followed by the quote from page 434. As an aside the list of 4 tenets should probably be made more clear that they are a direct quote, using something like Template:Quote. PaleAqua (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Did the just quote template for now, I want to finish reading more of the sources before I try to make or suggest additional improvements. I still think the wording of the overview can be cleaned up a bit. PaleAqua (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

Let's take the dubious issues one at time then.

[edit] This idea was first called the "feminine essence narrative" by Alice Dreger

Dreger said nothing related to Blanchard's theory about a "literal" female in a male body. This statement is false, not dubious. But I don't want to get into a content-tweaking fight with Cantor on an article that is total bullshit, but I'll just tag it and see if anyone can find a way to reconcile this with the article's asserted topic. Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you think Dreger applied her term, 'feminine essence narrative', to, if not to the idea that this article is supposed to be about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's pretty clear, actually, from Dreger, which you have a copy of; I'll happily email a copy to anyone else that wants to review it. She never says anything about the "literal" theory that Blanchard made up later. She says TMWWBQ’s title and cover explicitly contrasted with those books on transgenderism which adhered to the ‘‘woman trapped in a man’s body’’ narrative of trans-gender identity, or what I will call hereafter the ‘‘feminine essence’’ narrative. Obviously, it's about a feeling, a story, a narrative, about identity, not a literal brain theory. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't mind a copy of the papers. PaleAqua (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So you agree that FET is the general idea that a transwoman is a "woman trapped in a man’s body"? I consider that to be progress in our discussion.

I don't believe that Blanchard's description requires adherence to any beliefs about physical brain structures (which what I assume you intend by a "literal brain theory"), although believing in a biological basis for "having a woman's soul" appears to be common in our modern era.

I agree that the "literal" language is infelicitous; the only place you'll see letters on brains is in an anatomy lesson. However, I think we can all understand what he's trying to describe, which is that this idea asserts that transwomen are women in whatever sense the speaker believes most True™, and not simply that they feel similar to women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe there is such a "feminine essence" theory for non-trans women? Why aren't we busy deconstructing that? Saghani (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's called Femininity in natal women and Effeminacy in natal men, and Gender studies students the world over have spent a lot of time deconstructing it. Really, I don't understand the vitriol thrown at the idea. Blanchard may be anathema, and his description may not be the best, but the basic idea here is that transwoman really are women (despite being genetically male), and specifically that they are not "pretending to be women" or "acting like women" or any other statement that suggests something less than true womanhood. FET is an effort to counter genetic reductionism (of the Gattaca dystopian variety). Do you have a problem with that idea? Do you think Wikipedia should present the other ideas, such as Blanchard's autogynephilia and homosexual transsexual ideas, without any place for the most common transwoman story, namely "I am a woman"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The vitriol is not about the feminine essence idea; it's about this article acting like Blanchard's "literal" strawman represents the idea; it doesn't. Dicklyon (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] implications of the feminine essence theory have been discussed relatively frequently

If sources were provided for this, it would be clear that what has been discussed before is NOT the Blanchard strawman theory that this article is about. This sentence is there to make it look like the topic of the article existed before Blanchard formulated it; if that's the case, then what is this topic? Certainly not what the lead says it is. Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You're asserting facts. Per WP:PROVEIT, please provide the reliable sources to support them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm saying that no sources support the statement that "implications of the feminine essence theory have been discussed relatively frequently". Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The most complete description of the theory was written by Ray Blanchard

As far as we can tell from the sources, Ray Blanchard made up the theory recently and is the only person to have given a description of it. How is it appropriate to call that "the most complete"? Are there other descriptions of this theory? If so, let's cite them. And if so, why would we want to assert which is "most complete"? Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Along those lines he even states in the article that the quoted definition comes from that is is only a definition and that other authors would have different definitions. PaleAqua (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet no such others are in evidence. If there are some, we should add them and talk about them. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dreger describes it. Bailey describes it. This information is already present and sourced in the article. And everyone agrees that "woman trapped in a man's body" -- which, as Dick noted above, is the exact description that Dreger gives this idea when she gives it a new name -- has been around much longer than the new name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was not able to find a description or discussion of this theory in Dreger; can you point it out? I saw where she quoted Bailey on the feminine essence narrative; that was also not about the "theory" of Blanchard described in this article. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So you've read what Bailey, Dreger, and Blanchard have written about the same idea -- and you've read that they explicitly assert that they are specifically writing about the same idea, as Dreger says that she is describing what Bailey says about this idea, and Blanchard says that he's writing about what Dreger describes in Bailey's work -- and you conclude that they each are writing about completely different ideas? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The underlying common idea is topic B. Are you saying that's the topic of this article? That's not the way Cantor wrote it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

To repeat what I, and others, have consistently and repeatedly told you, on this page and elsewhere:

• This article is about the broad, general, widespread idea of a transwoman being a "true woman" in essence despite having a genetically male body.
• This article is not restricted solely about the exact words that a very small number of experts used when they were describing it recently. The idea has many names and many descriptions. It is present in different forms in older scientific works and in popular culture. All of this information is welcome in this article.
• The article, as currently written, is not complete and you, and other editors, are invited to expand it by adding information from reliable sources.

I'm not going to ask whether you understand these points, as that would probably be received as an insult to your intelligence. Instead, I want to know whether you believe me yet? If not, I could post this message to your talk page every day until you let go of your deliberately narrow-minded conception of this article, if you thought that simple repetition would help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There is some sleight-of-hand going on with this article. The idea of having a "woman's soul" is not interchangeable with Blanchard's poorly-concocted strawman, despite efforts to make it so here. Taking the hypothetical feelings of unnamed masses of "transwomen", and applying them as justification for Blanchard's unfounded musings is quite a stretch. I'm not sure how someone can talk about "female spirits" in a scientific sense and expect to be taken seriously, but it appears some of the editors here want to have that conversation. I'd like to hear some thoughts on the "genetic male" versus woman's soul, in particular. It sounds like a POV argument brewing. I don't know why we would need to expand this article to make it more complete when it really is just a bunch of disinformation in the first place. Saghani (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to rename

This is just a suggestion from someone who's been watching from the sidelines (for 2 days), but if, as you say, "This article is about the broad, general, widespread idea of a transwoman being a "true woman" in essence", then maybe the article should have the term "theory" removed. Theory implies a tested scientific basis for the concept, rather than a widespread popular belief. I would suggest Feminine essence and transsexuality as a very neutral term that can encompass all the ideas I've seen discussed here, including those of any source which presents it as a genuine psychological/neurological hypothesis. NJGW (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have necessarily applied the term theory to it myself, but there are multiple valid definitions of that word, and the one you name is one of the most restrictive. For example, music theory is a non-scientific theory. The first Wiktionary definition at wikt:theory is the relevant one: "An unproven conjecture." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This does seem to be used in a somewhat scientific context. Given that, and that you wouldn't have used the term "theory" yourself, and that this might help diffuse some of the battling here by making the scope of the article less restrictive (to include the "broad general... idea" rather than just an "unproven conjecture" by some author), would you support the name I suggest above? NJGW (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that Feminine essence (transsexuality) would most closely follow Wikipedia's naming conventions, but I really don't care what the article's name is. I further doubt that changing the article name will have any significant effect on Dick's problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Feminine essence (transsexuality) is actually more along the lines of what I had in mind. Dick (and others), do you think that name would allow a more inclusive scope of article, where both frameworks (a "broad general... idea" and an actual psychological/neurological hypothesis) can be discussed together? I realize this won't cure everything (given the that some of the issues surrounding this disagreement seem to be spread across several articles), but could it help create a more cooperative atmosphere at this article? NJGW (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the idea has been variously referred to as a narrative, a theory, an hypothesis, a view, and a model as well as just "feminine essence". (I am not aware of anyone calling it "an argument" or "a strawman" etc., except for WP editors.) The italics in the following are my own.

"Strawman" is just a description of how Blanchard pitches his specific version of the theory, setting up its definition and implications so that he can knock them down. The basic idea of feminine essense is not used as a strawman by others, as far as I know, and that's certainly not what I meant to suggest; it's just Blanchard's so-called "theory" version that is a strawman, which is why it's so odd to have the article written from his POV. Dicklyon (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• From Dreger (2008): “TMWWBQ’s title and cover explicitly contrasted with those books on transgenderism which adhered to the ‘‘woman trapped in a man’s body’’ narrative of transgender identity, or what I will call hereafter the ‘‘feminine essence’’ narrative. The feminine essence narrative is summed up by Bailey this way: Since I can remember, I have always felt as if I were a member of the other sex. I have felt like a freak with this body and detest my penis. I must get sex reassignment surgery (a ‘‘sex change operation’’) in order to match my external body with my internal mind. (Bailey, 2003, p. 143)”

• From Blanchard (2008): “In Dreger’s history of the controversy surrounding Bailey’s (2003) work on femininity in biological males, she refers to the popular view of male-to-female transsexualism as the feminine essence narrative. Because my commentary considers the feminine essence view as a set of propositions rather than as a story, I will refer to it as the feminine essence theory.”

• From Rind (2008): “He [Bailey] specifically rejected the explanation favored by many therapists and trans persons of ‘‘feminine essence,’’ that MTF transsexuals are women trapped in men’s bodies…”

• From Serano (2008): “She [Dreger] creates a false dichotomy between trans women who buy into an overly simplistic ‘‘woman trapped inside a man’s body’’ model and psychologists like Bailey who simply reject that ‘‘feminine essence’’ narrative.”

• From Wyndzen (2008): “When I was first coming out, there were few accounts of transsexuals’ lives that differed with the feminine essence narrative….My experience was so at odds with the ‘feminine essence narrative’ that it was one of the things that kept me from considering an identity as a transsexual….some who disagree with the feminine essence model also disagree with Blanchard’s model.”

• From Meana (2008): “If an image ever communicated against the feminine essence hypothesis of transsexuality, this would be it.”

(Because it has been a matter of contention, I am not making any assertions about which of the above are RS's.)

— James Cantor (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Conceptualizations of transsexualism would be the best place for this neologism. We could then discuss all of the conceptualizations, including psychosexual pathology, psychopathology, pathology, demonic possession and other concepts put forth by psychologists over the years, as well as the "trapped" cliché, brain sex, soul/spirit and other conceptualizations used by laypeople. That would also be inclusive of all transsexualism, not just trans women. Jokestress (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure "neologism" is the proper term for this phenomenon, only the application of the term to transsexuality (hence "Female essence (transexuality)"). Conceptualizations of... could be a parent article from which this would branch (after all it seems to be a fairly large article at the moment, so it may be preemptive to attempt to demote it to a section somewhere. NJGW (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

While the idea of an essence/spirit/soul etc. is nothing new, the "theory" as applied to transsexual people was first published last year in Archives of Sexual Behavior, the folks who brought us the "exorcism" article I cited below. As Dicklyon has pointed out, this term has been put forth as a straw man to attack objections to the work of James Cantor's friends. Most of the existing article is not about the "theory," which has been published only once by Ray Blanchard. In fact, one critic, physician Charles Allen Moser, put scare quotes around it to show Blanchard's tendency of dressing up his beliefs as "theories." The article as it stands is primarily about conceptualizations, which is why I believe this obscure term would be better organized under a general article. It's certainly not a notable theory. Jokestress (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind starting a 'parent' article (perhaps in a sandbox or your user space until it's ready to be edited by others) to help sort this out? NJGW (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is part of a pending mediation involving pretty much everyone commenting here but you. I don't think any of us should be editing this or any other topics related to sexuality or transgenderism until the dispute is resolved, but I am happy to start working on an article into which this material can be merged. Jokestress (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've started a sandbox for anyone who would like to work on that article in public: Feminine essence theory of transsexuality/Transgenderism theories sandbox. Maybe you and WhatamI can work there together; if the outline and lead are created by editors who feel at odds with each other, it may help build common ground for other articles. Anyone that wants to work it out alone can do so in their user space. NJGW (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Misuse of the word "theory" is one of the content issues to be mediated. Can we move your sandbox to a more value-neutral title like Feminine essence theory of transsexuality/Conceptualizations of transgenderism sandbox? I'll start adding in an outline once it's moved. Jokestress (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I should have thought of that. Done: Feminine essence theory of transsexuality/Conceptualizations of transgenderism sandbox. NJGW (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Just added a preliminary outline. Let me know if you have questions. It's good to get feedback from uninvolved editors. Jokestress (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Left a quick comment on the sandbox talk page. I'll try to take a closer look later. NJGW (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the creation of a 'parent' article that points to separate articles on each significant idea, but I do object to merging in all of the relevant ones. That would require, at minimum, the inclusion of this article plus Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory (which is itself a parent of Autogynephilia and Homosexual transsexual). This is likely to be very long and unwieldy.

Also, the page Brain sex is a redirect for a pop sci book of the same name, which is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, all that conceptualizing should be compiled in one place so people can see that Blanchard's is just the latest in a long line of naming fads. There's a rich literary history of conceptualizing transgenderism as (inter)sexed brain, as put forth by the psychologists above. See Simon Baron-Cohen for a recent iteration.Jokestress (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

Whatam, do you have time to create your own version of the parent article, or at least an outline? I think that an article about the theories/hypotheses/significant ideas about transexuality would be very informative to the uninitiated, such as myself. NJGW (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just quoting the "scientists." Barlow DH, Abel GG, Blanchard EB (1977). Gender identity change in a transsexual: An exorcism. Archives of Sexual Behavior 1977 Sep;6(5):387-95. PMID 921523 This research was supported in part by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH-20258. Jokestress (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The content of the article Jokestress cited is:

“In the summer of 1973 Judy [the patient’s name in her female role] requested to commence surgery. In view of her excellent adjustment, we agreed and referred her to a medical center in a nearby state…After leaving our offices and journeying to the gender identity clinic in the nearby state where [she] was expected, [she] kept a promise [she] had made…The physician administered a total physical examination and said that [Judy] could live quite well as a woman, but that real problem was possession by evil spirits. After some discussion of this, John [the patient’s name in his male role] reported a session which lasted 2-3 hr and involved exhortations and prayers over John by the physician and laying on a hands on John’s head and shoulders….John was followed for 2-1/2 years after the exorcism and measures of gender identity and gender role behavior were administered at each follow-up session. All data are presented in Fig. 1 and reflect the clear reversal of gender identity after the exorcism and during follow-up” (p.392).

“Obviously, this case has little relevance for therapeutic intervention at this time since most transsexual are unlikely to flock to the nearest faith healer. But the fact that it did occur could extend the student of the effects of social influence variable to what has been the most intractable of all psychiatric disorder to determine if it is possible to develop psychological intervention to replace surgical treatment in at least some cases” (p. 394).

There is nothing in that source offering demonic possession as a psychological theory explaning transsexualism. If anything, the authors of that article said the changes that the patient (and the physician) attributed to exorcism were actually due to mundane factors.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a rich literary history of conceptualizing transgenderism as supernatural possession, as put forth by the psychologists above. Jokestress (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

James, you aren't addressing Jokestresses' main points, only calling her biased. Let's stay focused.

1. What do you think of the suggestion of a parent article?
2. Are there sources besides Blanchard which explicitly use the term "feminine essence" in reference to something within some biological men which makes them (?feel like/want to be/try to become?) women? NJGW (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Even the suggestion to move it to Feminine essence (transsexuality) presupposes that the "feminine essence" idea is primarily about transexuality; I'd rather see it framed and discussed more broadly, as book evidence suggests that this idea (term and concept) was common in explaining some forms of homosexuality long before it was applied to transexuality; same with the concept/term "female...in a male body". I agree that Jokestress's suggestion of a new article on Conceptualizations of transsexualism also makes good sense. The present article is, however, not a useful starting point for either, as it's very confused due to the biased POV that is written from. Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, putting this at plain Feminine essence and the filling it with information solely about TS issues is presupposing that the FE idea is primarily about transsexuality. Putting this idea at Feminine essence (transsexuality) indicates that this is the article about FE as it relates to TS, and suggests that there might be other things (for other articles) that FE relates to (natal women, for example). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we are in at least partial agreement for a change; making "feminine essence" all about TS does not agree with the actual history of this concept. I would not make a content split to focus on the TS aspects until we had an article on the concept that's big enough to justify a split. Splitting even further to focus on Blanchard's "theory" as Cantor has done is even more ridiculous. Dicklyon (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You have hit upon one of the key reasons this is a straw man. Because Bailey & Co. are essentialists, they seek to frame this debate within their worldview. They think transsexual women are really men, so they assume their critics assert transsexual women are really women. They fail to acknowledge that the criticism is their essentialist framing of the debate. It's easier for them to mock this straw man rather than acknowledge that this is a philosophical debate that pits biological reductionism against social constructivism. It's a common problem when dealing with people whose rigid scientism doesn't allow for any other way to look at things. They look to the body for absolute truths. It's a major issue in philosophy of science. We need to frame this within their conceptualization, which is a dogmatic belief in things like racial realism, sexual realism, and other absolutist neo-eugenic philosophies. The title Feminine essence (transsexuality) fails WP:NPOV policy. Jokestress (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to this, I'd just like to add that the interpretation of data in such a fashion is no more "scientific" than the social constructivist theory it opposes. Essentialist labeling schemes are just as dogmatic as any religious argument no matter how grounded they are in facts. It is not the science or the facts that are in question: it is the *social* weight that scientists give to them that stands in opposition to the social constructivist position. *Both* sides of this debate are firmly in the social realm, and giving one side the imprimatur of science gives unfair advantage to that position. It is an attempt to win the argument through appeal to authority (science over "feelings") among other things, when in fact they have no such claim. Saghani (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how this could be biased, but can you and Dick agree on a more neutral name? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress has every right to disagree with whatever I say, but she violates WP:civility when calling me rigid, dogmatic, or neo-eugenic. — James Cantor (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

She did not apply that adjectives to you; if you would consider and respond to what people actually say instead of casting every complaint as an incivility, we might make progress. Dicklyon (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with what Jokestress just said is that not all transsexuals agree that gender is socially constructed. i.e. the transsexuals who came up with "Harry Benjamin Syndrome". Or who argue that they are in fact intersexed. Or the many many websites which talk of zhou and his BNSTc result. Then there are the scientific studies which have found there are in fact some differences between MTF transsexuals and males. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been wondering if model might almost be a better way to describe both this theory and Blanchard's, as in Feminine essence model of transsexuality? PaleAqua (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, model is much better and more scientifically accurate to me. It encompasses all the uses and meanings. Jokestress (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but proceed cautiosly; to rename this article on Blanchard's theory to sound like it encompasses more than that would not be a net improvement. If the article is to be about the "model", the present Blanchard-based lead and framing needs to be flushed and the article rewritten (i.e. changed from topic A to topic B that I described). Dicklyon (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Strawman only Blanchard writes about"

Blancahrd wrties in his commentary...

This proposition is usually paired with the notion that there exist one or more sex-dimorphic structures of the human brain that can be regarded as the seat of gender identity, and that key parameters of these structures (e.g., neuron number or density) are similar in male-to-female transsexuals and natal females (see Bailey & Triea, 2007). Contemporary proponents of this view also generally hold that the female-typical structure of the gender identity center(s) is congenital, so that male-to-female transsexuals are and always have been female where it counts—in the brain.

Now compare this to a passage from a...well respected TS information website.

Recent neurological theories of transsexualism Except for the behaviorists (who unfortunately are still dominant among "sexologists" and "gender theorists"), most schools of psychological thought have ruled out causes related to upbringing, social interactions and sexual practices as leading to transsexualism. As in other fundamental areas of personality, most scientific researchers now believe that the formation of gender identity most likely occurs at an innate neurobiological level. Serious scientific research on the formation of gender identity is now focused on understanding the processes of CNS neurological integration of the fetus during pregnancy. Recent research indicates that MtF transsexualism may result from a female differentiation in a genetic male of the BSTc portion of the hypothalamus, during interactions between the developing brain and fetal sex hormones; this brain region is essential to sexual feelings and behavior. The first such research was reported in 1995: See NATURE, 378: 60-70, 1995 (this paper is also web accessible at http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm ). Significant extensions of this earlier work have just been reported, in May 2000 (see following abstract and link to the full paper) :

Consider this in opposition to this from another source which Jokestress, and those who agree with her would brooke no criticism of.

The publication of "A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality" by Zhou, Hofman, Gooren and Swaab (1997) in the on-line peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal, "International Journal of Transgenderism" is often cited within the transsexuality community. .... I guess the idea of a clear physical 'cause' of transsexuality brings a sense of legitimacy to some of us. Transsexuals aren't the only ones who seem to feel these findings legitimate transsexual lives. Those who traditionally criticize transsexuals are quick to find flaws (despite their generally poor backgrounds in neuroscience). Personally, I feel the most important aspects of our identities are our interpersonal relationships and our introspective thoughts and our feelings. Causality is of considerable importance to our scientific theories, but distal causes should not really matter when we seek: civil liberties, protection from hate crimes, or acceptance. ....The BSTc finding can not be easily attributed to sexual orientation, hormones, or other seemingly plausible incidental causes. Transsexuality is the most plausible explanation for the difference. However, finding a difference in the brain is not always evidence for a cause. It is possible that transsexuality (or other potentially social causes of transsexuality) causes the brain difference. The brain is not as static as our brain to computer analogies sometimes suggest.

Last but not least the Pias de Resistance, a website by HBS "Women born transsexual. (HBS or "Harry Benjamin Syndrome. A idea that was widely accepted among transsexuals though it is now not popular to claim it sentiment for it remains in some sectors.

I am just one of many people born transsexual who reject the confusion, caused by a rejection of biology. I distinguish between gender, sex, and presentation. For me:

• Gender is innate. It consists of a person’s internal awareness based on neurobiological conditions in the brain and central nervous system.
• Sex is anatomical. It involves the determination of female or male on the basis of genitalia. Intersex people can have the physical attributes of both sexes. Typically, the characteristics of one sex can be more pronounced than the other, but there can be a great deal of ambiguity.
• Presentation is window dressing. It is the outward expression of one’s inner sensibilities, given one's anatomical features and social practices.

(Yes yes I am sure the "attack" of mine on this article for it's derrogatory tone towards non-op transsexuals will be noted. But I was not alone in commenting to that effect, nor is that really relevant to the conversation.)

The bottom line is that this is not just something Blanchard came up with. Nor does his horrible scientist (one who views the world through scientism :roll: ) POV set him apart as a kooky lunatic who no one else thinks like. He could have entitled his article Deconstructing "harry Benjamin Syndrome and it would have been no less on the same points.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You make my point perfectly. Blanchard chooses only to dismantle arguments by other essentialists holding the opposite view. That is the very definition of a straw man. Jokestress (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Part of being a strawman means that the one doing the writing made it up. The biological essentialist arguement, based on anatomy and neurology, is at least incomplete and is weak. That does not make it a strawman.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually a strawman argument is an incomplete/weak one. You take your opponent's position and change it to something that is easy to attack. It looks like you're striking really powerful blows, but really you're only beating up a defenseless dummy (ie an indefensible position). NJGW (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The naming is going to be problematic. This whole "theory" is a blatant attempt to give Blanchard ownership of an idea in order to destroy it, and it does violence to the very idea of "theory" itself. If Blanchard wants to propose that there is a theory of brain sex, he needs to do so. Arguing about what kind of soul somebody has, shifting the discussion to brain sex, and then stating the obvious while attaching your own conclusions is not a "theory". It is disingenuous argument. Saghani (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I think it is OK to report that Blanchard does this (nails down the theory, so he can nail it up), but we shouldn't let him frame how the broader topic is reported. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What is this article about

To have a framework for resolving the "dubious" items above, we really need to decide what the topic of this article is. It could be either:

A. Ray Blanchard's 2008 strawman theory that he made up and published in his commentary in response to and in support of Alice Dreger in their ongoing dispute with transsexuals who sometimes use a feminine essence narrative in describing their gender identity; specifically, it was articulated as a strawman so that he could ridicule "feminine essence" as the supposed alternative to his other explanations, "homosexual transsexual" and "autogynephilia".

Or

B. The notion of a female soul, mind, personality, heart, or "essence" in a male body, which has been around for over 100 years as a part of various attempts to describe homosexuality and gender identity.

The present article conflates there two topics. Let's pick one. Then we could also write an article on the other if we like. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is conflated here. They are both one and the same thing. Blanchard was writing about the ideas that had been around for the last 100 (actually simmilar notions go back father) years. It's latest incarnation is about brain sex and all that.

Leaving the need Dicklyon has to call blanchard's writing of it a straw man. I can agree that a broader writing is what is needed. A whole lot of option B, and a pinch of option A. What this article does now is not to conflate Blanchards writing with anything but it does make it way too prominent in it's discussion of such an old old idea. IMHO.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're supporting the idea that the article is about the idea that has been around for a long time; in which case Blanchard's modern "literal" strawman should be taken out of the topic definition in the lead and relegated to a minor subjection, as a recent argument that the idea should not be taken literally. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Relegating the most recent (and possibly only complete) "expert description" of this broad idea to a minor role, on the grounds that the expert doesn't believe this idea himself, is not necessary. I'd accept Peter Piot's description of common assertions made by AIDS denialists even though Piot is the head of UNAIDS. Faith, or lack thereof, in the thing being described doesn't change your ability to describe it accurately.

Dick, you are invited to expand the article with whatever reliable sources you are willing to find. WP:BOLDly expanding the article yourself is preferable to demanding that other people re-write the article to your specifications while you do nothing except complain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Have I demanded a rewrite? I'm still trying to figure out what the article is supposed to be about. It still seems like a crazy concoction of nonsense, designed to help Blanchard ridicule those people who believe in a "feminine essense" idea, by proposing and knocking down a straw-man "literal" interpretation of the idea. The article was written by Blanchard's protege User:James Cantor, apparently to help him bring this ridiculous approach some attention via wikipedia. We'll eventually fix it, I assume, but I'm not demanding that you do so. But I don't want to start working on it until we have something like a consensus of what actual sensible content to make it into. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As written in the lead, the topic currently is "A" (though much of the article does not seem to agree); I've clarified the opening sentence to note that the "theory" is one that Blanchard set up to knock down. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to see this "theory" put up against what Ray Blanchard thinks about his own gender identity. Is there a "masculine essence theory" that he'd like to propose? Do you want to denigrate the identities of non-trans women? Or are we just going to disassemble the identities of minorities that look like convenient targets? Without a framework to address identity in general, it is just wild speculations about other people's lives with far to specific a conclusion for such a nebulous topic.

Basically Blanchard and Co. "theory" boils down to "Everyone I don't understand iz sum kinda homo". What is this, junior high? If you are going to bully the other kids, you have to expect sooner or later that one of them is going to stand up to you. I guess I don't understand this whining from these people who claim their "academic freedom" was impinged. As if this group of mostly-hated people in this country has the power to persecute. Did they think that by picking a particularly weak group that it would be okay to do this sort of thing? I suppose they have the ear of the Majesterium at the APA, so it was supposed to be okay. Good Lord, some of the things coming out of the psych establishment could curdle milk. Saghani (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanchard's theory is most assuredly not that everyone he does not understand is some kind of homo. lol. If you read the references in the article at this point I think you will see it's clear that this is not just something Blanchard made up. In the commentary he wrote he explicitly references the idea that transsexuals have partially feminized brains in fact this is what he writes, about the idea of nerological intersex and his theory of transsexualism.

My personal view—which I present here only because it has so often been incorrectly surmised by participants in the Bailey controversy—is that the brains of both homosexual and heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals probably differ from the brains of typical heterosexual men, but in different ways. In homosexual male-to-female transsexuals,the difference does involve sex-dimorphic structures, and the nature of the difference is a shift in the female-typical direction. If there is any neuroanatomic intersexuality, it is in the homosexual group. In heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals, the difference may not involve sex-dimorphic structures at all, and the nature of the structural difference is not necessarily along the male–female dimension. None of this speaks to the relative usefulness of reassignment surgery for the two groups, which is an empirical matter that must be decided on grounds other than etiology (Blanchard, 2000). (page4 colum 2 paragraph 2 "Deconstructing the Feminine Essence Narrative."

So you using your kinda language blanchard could be said to think that "I understand homo's wanting to change sex but don't fully understand non-homo's wantin to change sex." Either way I don't think it is fair to put words into someones mouth then hold them responsible for the words we put there. What Blanchard says is what he says and that is if anything what we have to agree or disagree with. There are some highly suggestive results from neurological studies of both homosexual males and non-homosexual transsexuals which could prove what Blanchard wrote above to be correct. But should that surprise anyone if transsexuals with different sexual preferences, find that preference rooted in their brain sturcture? Along with some of their different behaviors?--Hfarmer (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

@Saghani. You are exactly right. The key organizing principle of Blanchard's worldview is homosexuality. Transsexuals are either "homosexual" or "non-homosexual." The second organizing principle is penises. For trans women, you are either a man with a penis or "a man without a penis." For trans men, penis isn't even in the equation for Blanchard: "They get a kind of lump that in the best, most expensive, $100,000 cases, kind of, maybe, look like a penis from across a room." Why is he so focused on homosexuality and penises? Besides the personal reasons, it's because of the penile plethysmograph developed by his mentor and still heavily in use at CAMH. This device is attached to the penis and was developed to determine who is homosexual and who is non-homosexual. That's how he sees the world: penis and non-penis, homosexual and non-homosexual. As far as brains, he applies the same thinking to trans women: they either have man brains with "homosexual" parts (closer to the structures in lady brains), or they have man brains with "paraphilia" parts (closer to the structures in pedophile brains). That's why he feels a need to create a "theory" to trash his opponents. It's a transparent move to anyone who knows the full range of criticisms of Blanchard's worldview. He's just going after the low-hanging fruit and pretending that he's refuting all criticisms. That's the essence of a straw man. Jokestress (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If people are serious about this article, it is going to have to encompass ALL "essences". It will not do to have a person frame the debate in such a way as to stand above it while pronouncing judgment. Despite what some people may think, we are all human. That includes Ray Blanchard who, from what I gather, is a PhD trapped in a man's body. If there is an "essence" to our personal identity, it exists for ALL people. If there isn't, then Ray Blanchard is just as bereft of this feature as the rest of us. How much of a "shift in the female direction" does it take to be a woman? Or more precisely (in the Blanchard world), how broken of a man do you have to be to qualify as female? Perhaps that question is beyond the ken of someone who views people as the presence or absence of a penis. The fact is that once you start talking about things in terms of a balance of traits, an honest person has to admit that these are value judgments we put on observed phenomena. Show me the dividing line. Saghani (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If people really want to get serious about the subject matter of this article they would do more than that.

1. Rename it to something like non-psychological theories of transsexualism.
2. In this article the writing would encompass the neurobiological, and sociological ideas of transsexualism
3. This would include the feminine essence narrative/theory/brain sex.

I think this is all needed because the article as it is now places too much emphasis on Blanchard's one work.

As far as seeing the world in penis non-penis terms Blanchard is hardly the only one who sees it that way. The number of post-op's who hate on non-op's is testament to that.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like we're pretty much in agreement that the article is written on topic A and needs to be changes to be on topic B (and re-titled). Who can take that on? Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the sexologist position will agree to anything close to what is needed. In order to give something like "brain sex" a rigorous treatment you need to correctly label the observations of sexologists as just that- observations. For example, in the "other findings" section talks about how there are 2 types of "transsexuals", but does not define "transsexual" beyond the desire to "change sex". This is a game of definitions designed to defeat the neurological findings by shaping the argument. The "neuroanatomic research" section is pure propaganda where the Blanchard musings are put up as his own opposition.

The last line in that area where it says "the brain assumes the proportions of the female brain" is especially devious. I read the abstract of the study that was done, and to make that claim and leave out the rest of the story is misleading. The claim is that raw volume changes, as evidenced by MRI, and the ratio of gray to white material shifts in one direction or another. The implication to the lay person is that the *whole* brain changes, therefore it must have been a "man brain" before. I don't want to get into all this here, but this is patently ridiculous. A quick google of the study also turns up the Anne Lawrence character, and a webpage frought with misinterpretations and misunderstandings of this single finding. That webpage's positions are reflected here as well.

As other people have said, there is no way to make this article neutral as long as it is about "transsexuality". You would have to do a comprehensive treatment within the larger context of neurology. This is Ray Blanchard's baby, and there is no changing that. The only thing that can really be done on a "theory of transsexuality" here, is to put "Ray Blanchard thinks..." in front of each and every claim being made. Because really, nobody else is saying this stuff. Saghani (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to see a disinterested editor can tell exactly what's going on here. This article was a scheme concocted by User:James Cantor and User:WhatamIdoing as an attempt to annoy/offend editors who annoy/offend them. Quoth Whatamidoing:

"Ironically, this new article was created directly because of Jokestress' ongoing campaign to restrict the contents of Homosexual transsexual solely to information about the term instead of the general idea of transwomen who are attracted to men. Feminine essence theory of transsexuality wouldn't exist if Jokestress hadn't repeatedly implied that there were other, better, more widely accepted ideas of transsexual sexuality. When Jokestress failed to answer my repeated questions about what exactly those more widely accepted ideas were, I asked a relevant expert, who told me that that there are only two widespread ideas: Blanchard's taxonomy (supported by nearly all researchers and rejected by nearly all trans activists) and the woman-trapped-in-a-man's-body story that is familiar to most college students (supported by nearly all trans activists and rejected by all researchers). Since several reliable sources were apparently available, I asked Cantor whether he thought it would be fun to create a new article, and apparently he did."

These two (especially WhatamIdoing) are getting pretty good at gaming Wikipedia to push their POV. This article is a giant WP:POINT written by a Blanchard co-worker with a huge WP:COI, in my opinion. Jokestress (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the proper form of the article would be to have the main Blanchard Theory section and a criticism section for that theory. Criticism sections aren't the preferred method on Wiki, generally. But as it stands now the entire article is devoted to one viewpoint and the "criticism" section is criticizing anything that stands against the POV of the authors!

Proper criticism in this case would involve synthesis on the part of editors, because applying labels to behavior isn't something that neuroscientists concern themselves with generally. It is purely a construct of these sexologists. Titling the criticism "neuroanatomical" is misleading as well. Studies using fMRI can also observe *function* in the living subject, and leaving this fact out gives the reader the impression that all we have are snapshots of anatomy at a given point in time. The emerging body of work is far more revealing than the sexologists would care to admit.

For example, here is just one study that examines function with respect to "transsexual" brain function < http://transray.com/1.2130 >. If someone can find such things with google in a matter of seconds, it begs belief that those who are pushing their agenda here are unaware of these studies that go against the very heart of their claims. Building a criticism section using assembled facts, though, is synthesis and therefore not allowed. The framing of this debate does not seem to be in good faith to begin with, and playing under these rules will not produce something that serves the reader or the Wiki community. In light of all this and the history of the parties involved, I'm left wondering what the result of keeping this page will be given that it will be hashed out under Wiki rules. Very, very lawyerly editing on the part of those who created it. Saghani (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been gaming anything. I voted against deletion because I felt this general type of information is worthy of inclusion. I voted FOR renaming, as you suggested, remember. I think this kind of information would be valueable, though perhaps not so heavy on Blanchard's little commentary. Are you capeable of having someone disagree with you at times without having to make it into a personal thing? --Hfarmer (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Saghani, are you willing to work on it? I don't think the original author is likely to care any more, now that he's had his fun. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bailey and Kiira

I just realized that on Jan 11 Cantor had inserted a ref to Bailey and Kiira as supposed support for the opening sentence; but that paper does not mention the theory of Blanchard. So I took it out. It's about deconstructing the feminine essence narrative, which we could use somewhere if we make that the topic. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Added more from Dreger

Since Dreger is mentioned with her 'feminine essence narrative', more about that seemed necessary, before discussing Blanchard's commentary. - Hordaland (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence

I don't think that the first sentence, which says 'The feminine essence theory is sexologist Ray Blanchard's idea that male-to-female transsexuals are female "in some literal sense."' is even close to neutral or accurate. It also contradicts the first paragraph of the first section, which says that this idea has been propounded by many transwomen. It cannot be Blanchard's idea if the idea predated Blanchard's decision to write down his understanding of it.

Can we go back to an earlier version, such as "The feminine essence theory refers to the idea that male-to-female transsexuals are, literally rather than figuratively, females inside male bodies." or something similar? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Blanchard is the sole published source for this "theory," so it should be attributed to him and should summarize his description of it. Otherwise, this article should be renamed to something that adheres to the NPOV policy. This is another phenomenon vs. term issue. Jokestress (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Blanchard was the first to refer to this idea as the "feminine essence theory" of transsexuality. The idea predates him.
Incidentally, it is poor behaviour to use scare quotes as indirect criticism. I would thank Jokestress to abide closer to wp:wikiquette.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, much of the current article is about the idea, not Blanchard's "theory." Using the term "theory" in the title of this article is an NPOV violation, unless we restrict this article to Blanchard's "theory." As others have noted, since there's only one published source that discusses this as a "theory," we should use a neutral name for this phenomenon or idea. The "theory" should be a section in a broader article. Jokestress (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just change this name to Feminine essence narrative or something along those lines? Though I would note for the umpteenth time the word "theory" as used by scientist does not mean what you think it means jokestress. (Which as near as I can tell you think it means a explaination for observations that is just short of being a "law" of science, a proven fact. Theories merely explain why we observe what we observe and can be falsified by one scientific and repeatable observation to the contrary.)

Blanchard's writing of it as a theory in a formal manner is worthy of at least a subsection. It also not nearly as bizarre as some of the things that would go in such an article. (Has everyone reading this heard of "Benjamin Syndrome"? "")--Hfarmer (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the Wikipedia article on Benjamin Syndrome years ago. If you're talking about the populist disease movement espoused by some trans people, I'm not sure that's ever appeared in a reliable source. How about Essentialism and transgenderism? Not all essentialist concepts are limited to transsexualism, and not all are limited to femininity. The argument that trans people are essentially men or essentially women misframes the actual debate and is just a straw man used by essentialists and biological reductionists to make it easier to dismiss and mock the more substantive criticism of their positions. It's like white supremacists claiming their critics are all black supremacists, when in fact many critics think both positions are wrong and misframed. A title change would allow for the full essentialist position to be discussed, as well as criticism of those positions (both Blanchard-type essentialism and HBS-type essentialism). Jokestress (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea of my change to the lead was to make it more clear that the "feminine essence theory" is Blanchard's straw man, and that is the current topic of the article; as we pretty much agreed above, the article should be rewritten to be about the more general idea, and also moved then to a more appropriate name. But for now, the lead ought to be more clear about what the topic is. I was hoping this would motivate someone to volunteer to work on fixing it, to make it be no longer the "fun" piece of James Cantor and WhatamIdoing, which is all it is so far. Dicklyon (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

To Jokestress... Yes HBS was one of the things that I think falls well into this category. The grain of science that HBS was built on was the work of Zhou ans Schwab. In his comment Blanchard makes reference to the idea of brain morphology and brain sex. This leds me too....

To Dick Lyon. Let me put it this way. The idea's Blanchard disucsses, the idea that MTF transsexuals are in some way (usually neurologically) literally female wasn't his idea. The claim was made by Zhou and Schwab and many transwomen have latched onto it for dear life. HBS was built on it. Many criticisms of BBL theory out there in the Blogosphere and on webpages and forums were based on that. It's not his fault that it is a fatally weak idea. (i.e. suppose some study was done on random cisgender males and found that the natural variation in the sizes of the BNST included the sizes observed by Zhou? Should we then conclude that those cisgendered men are in fact transsexual? There are transsexuals who would say yes, and call you names if you thought that kind of reasoning was specious and suspect to say the least.)--Hfarmer (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sources you'd like to share about that? Dicklyon (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the abstract for the paper that Blanchard cites on the one brain study, and certainly doesn't sound like Blanchard's "theory" to me; it's more about "gender identity" and possible neurological correlate, not some "literal" thing like Blanchard made up:

"A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality"
Jiang-Ning Zhou*, Michel A. Hofman*, Louis J. G. Gooren† & Dick F. Swaab*‡
TRANSSEXUALS have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. The possible psycho-genie or biological aetiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years1,2. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour3,4, is larger in men than in women. A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones5,6.

Dick, your approach in the lead isn't going to result in the outcome that you profess to want. Here's the problem (using another article as an example):

• First, we'll change the lead and the title for African immigrants to the United States to say that the article is exclusively about African immigrants with a specific skin color. We'll essentially put a big sign at the top of the article that says "This article is just about some African immigrants."
• Then all editors will magically know that we want the article to be expanded to include the information about other African immigrants, and that they will undo all of the skin-color-specific changes that we just made to the lead and the title.

Wikipedia doesn't work this way. People go to a page that says at the top that it's solely about a subset of a big subject, and they reasonably believe that contributions outside the limited scope are not welcome (in this article: they may also assume that there's another article that contains the information).

If (like I do) you want this article to include more views on the idea instead of solely Blanchard's formulation of it, then we really cannot define the scope of the article as being limited to Blanchard's formulation. If you want this, then we need a general lead -- one that leaves room for other takes on the idea -- and perhaps to add {{expand}} to the top of the article.

If you don't want the article to include all the views about the general idea, then you can easily see that your approach is working just fine to keep it limited, but you might consider just saying that this is your actual goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How can you say that does not sound like what Blanchard wrote about. He mentions the whole neurological thing, as well as a number of variations of the feminine essence theory/narrative. Even in the abstract Zhou writes. "TRANSSEXUALS have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex." Many transsexuals literally think of it that way. Seriously. Not all are as analytical as the transsexuals you have dealt with here on WP, or in the rest of your life. Dr. Conway, AJ, and I are rather analytical people who would think about it in less emotional way and know better. That comes through in their writing if nothing else. Many many transsexuals do literally think themselves to be women in some literal physical sense. Google the term "Women Born Transsexual". I just did and heck there is a website dedicated to it. Womenborntranssexual.com Read that website and tell me that's not basically the kind of thinking that Blanchard was talking about. (Level with me Dick. Did any of you think a off wikipersonal attack would effect my editing?)--Hfarmer (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you don't understand that Blanchard is taking ideas about gender identity and casting them into a "theory" that he can easily attack. That's what a straw man is, and what his paper does. WhatamIdoing is correct that my change to the lead does not move the article in the direction that I profess I want it to go. It does however make it more honest about where it's coming from. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you don't understand that the weakness of the argument Blanchard sought to refute isn't because Blanchard made it that way, it's just a weak argument no matter how you slice it. The website "womenborntranssexual" those who agree with them, those who think of themselves as intersexed women with HBS and all that.... they are some of the most comitted and strident critics of Blanchard. That Blanchard was able to rip their arguement to pieces isn't because it's a straw man. The whole idea that biology is destiny, that environment, culture and identity have nothing to do with this is a weak arguement. That one can punch multiples holes in it from multiple directions does not make it a straw man. There are transwomen who really seriously belive in a feminine essence, a literal woman hood inside a male body, if you tell them otherwise your in for it.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dick, I think you need to decide whether it's more important to you to "name and shame" Blanchard for writing down what you think is a weak version of this idea, or to have an article about the idea (and not solely Blanchard's description of it). What's your choice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. There's no shame in creating a straw man, and it's pretty clear that he knew he was doing it; it amazes me that some have trouble either recognizing it as such or admitting it. It's not a weak version of his idea; it's a weak version of an idea he wants to discredit, not his at all. I think it would be fine to have an article on the feminine essence idea, but until we recognize the current article for what it is, it will be hard to get around and beyond it. My choice would be to recognize that this article cannot be salvaged, and set to work on a real one. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that this article is a perfectly fine sandbox for that work, but if you want to do it elsewhere, then that's fine with me. Do you have some reliable sources that contradict Blanchard's formulation of the idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone contradict it? He does that himself. Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he doesn't: He says that he doesn't agree with the "essence" idea, not that he's written it down incorrectly. Perhaps my question was unclear: Do you have any reliable sources that indicate that Blanchard's four-point formulation is a materially incorrect representation of the idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. At least we can probably agree that it's not sensible to represent an idea in the terms of its main detractor, when the actual idea has some proponents or adherence and his version does not. Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Blanchard does agree with the "essence" idea: he believes that transwomen are essentially men, rather than essentially women. Blanchard is presenting his argument by mocking what he believes is the "opposing" argument. That's why the title of this article is an NPOV problem. Jokestress (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And your reliable sources for Blanchard's description being a materially incorrect representation of the "essence" idea are.... what, now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Dick, let's discuss the epistemological issue: How do you know that Blanchard's four-point summary of the idea is not propounded by/adhered to/believed by anyone?

We know from Blanchard's writing is that he doesn't believe the "essence" idea (no matter how it is described) is good/useful/descriptive of transwomen's psychology. He also asserts that his description is a faithful representation of the idea (at least, the idea as he understands it, since no one can do anything else).

Presumably an Atheist could accurately outline a simple Theist notion despite the atheist's lack of belief in any divine beings. What makes you believe that Blanchard hasn't done the equivalent for the "essence" position?

So far, Dick, your "how you know" seems to be your conviction that nobody could be foolish enough to believe that idea, to which my response is: Why am I still getting spam about the nice man in Nigeria that wants to make me a millionaire? Do you have any other reasons for believing Blanchard's description to be materially wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If Blanchard is the atheist in your analogy, the "feminine essence theory" is like the Flying Spaghetti Monster: a way to mock a position rather than an accurate outline of it. It's not a neutral presentation of this topic, and can never be with that title. Jokestress (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the title. Do you believe that his four points are a materially incorrect representation of the "essence" idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am finding that writing comprehensive and neutral articles is more productive than lengthy discussions with you, so I'll let you know when that comprehensive and neutral article is available. Then we can continue this discussion. Jokestress (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I will consider myself free to assume, then, that you find Blanchard's summary to be a reasonably accurate description of an idea that you personally dislike. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

W, when I said "At least we can probably agree that it's not sensible to represent an idea in the terms of its main detractor," that was your opening to say if you disagreed, either in general or as to whether that's what going on here with respect to Blanchard. You didn't. You can have another chance if you like. But if you're not going to bother to disagree, please don't get off on the epistemological red herring. Dicklyon (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding other sources, especially if they presented a different view (note that we're still talking about what the idea is, not about whether the idea is valid). But I'm starting to believe that no sources actually have a different view on the substance of the idea. I certainly haven't been able to find any that claim, for example, that the "essence" idea believes that transwomen are only women in a metaphorical sense, or that there are significant subtypes of transwomen that correlate to significant subtypes of natal women (to name two of Blanchard's four points). I also haven't found any sources that both "believe in" the essence idea and have the WP:RS "cachet" of academic journals. Perhaps I'm just not looking in the right place.

There are lots of sources related, but not really on the topic of the article as currently pitched. See these for example. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any in your books.google search that "believe in" the essence idea and that aren't autobiographies. Most in that search are irrelevant, and I haven't looked over all of them, but here's my impression: A very small number of non-biographical works present the essence idea. Those that do, present it in terms that are entirely consistent with Blanchard's description. All of these reject the idea. No scholarly works support the idea, and no scholarly works contradict Blanchard's summary of it. So why are we still saying that this is just Blanchard's made-up idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Of those that "reject the idea", what is the idea? Of those biographical ones that "believe in" the idea, what is their idea? Are there proponents or adherents to the same ideas that are rejected? I haven't seen anything that looked much like Blanchard's "theory" on either side. Dicklyon (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you found better sources than me? Have you found a single reliable source that supports your contention that Blanchard misrepresented the general idea? Or has your research also confirmed that Blanchard's description is basically accurate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dick, in order to be a straw man it has to be a intentionally weakened version of the opposition's theory. Which what Blanchard describes in his comment is not. Blanchard writes what so many websites by so many transsexuals believe... that they literally are women in men's bodies... intersexed and assigned male gender at birth. They call it Harry Benjamin Syndrome, or some other thing to make it sound totally medical rather than a psycho-social-medical phenomena that it is. (Yes studies indicate that TS's have brains that are subtely different. That does not make one think "I am a woman in a man's body, that's culture and psychology. See the bet made by Randolph and Mortemer Duke in "Trading Places".) The feminine essence, masculine essence genetics determine denstiny POV is just as false as saying that being transsexual or anything else is totally socially constructed. Why don't you see that? --Hfarmer (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he even provided a single reference for that "literal" tenet, which was certainly included to make the straw man easier to ridicule. But if you can show where this idea comes from, I'll take a look. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dick, am I correct in understanding from this comment that -- throughout all these weeks of making bold assertions and strong demands -- you have not done any outside reading on this? In short, that you've assumed that whatever Blanchard wrote must be wrong, simply because A Bad Person Wrote It, and consequently you haven't bothered to, say, ask Mr Google about the subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't I post a bunch of book links about relevant stuff? But I didn't find anything like Blanchard's "literal" "theory". If I missed it, point it out. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Literal

Dick, I don't understand your problem with Blanchard's choice of the word "literal". He writes that the essentialists believe that transwomen are women "in some literal sense and not just in a figurative sense" women. He then goes on to state that some non-trans people have misunderstood the position as meaning "that they feel like women or that they wish to be women", which I think pretty directly explains the contrast between the "literal" and "figurative" senses of being a woman. A good editor would have told him that "literal" shouldn't be used in any context that does not involve glyphs, but good editors are extremely rare. I don't think that any adult will have any trouble figuring out that Blanchard meant "actually" instead of "according to the letters". So why does this particular word bother you?

Do you think that essentialists believe that transwomen literally aren't women? Or that they aren't -- to quote the dictionary -- "adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression: actually; free from exaggeration or embellishment; characterized by a concern mainly with facts" -- in short, "literally" -- women? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

From everything I've read, the issue is "gender identity". It's really not at all clear what the "literally" thing is supposed to mean, but it leads into looking for anatomical correlates in brain structures and such, when are then easily refuted. Historically, the "essence" idea seems to be about the "soul", "spirit", "mind", etc. of a woman; I don't think "literally" is consistent with that typical understanding of the idea of feminine essence. Do you? If so, based on what sources? Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Blanchard says:

The popular description of male-to-female transsexuals as women trapped in men’s bodies has sometimes been inter- preted to mean that they feel like women or that they wish to be women. The feminine essence theory proposes that they are women. This proposition is usually paired with the notion that there exist one or more sex-dimorphic structures of the human brain that can be regarded as the seat of gender identity, and that key parameters of these structures (e.g., neuron number or density) are similar in male-to-female transsexuals and natal females (see Bailey & Triea, 2007). Contemporary proponents of this view also generally hold that the female-typical structure of the gender identity cen- ter(s) is congenital, so that male-to-female transsexuals are and always have been female where it counts—in the brain.

Here he refers to "The feminine essence theory" as if it exists outside of his straw man, but gives no source. When he talks about it being "usually paired" with brain structure notions, he references only his buddies Bailey and Triea. He mentions "contemporary proponents" but gives no clue to suggest that such exist. This stuff is set up to be easy to knock down. Another source quoted above on this talk page said "most scientific researchers now believe that the formation of gender identity most likely occurs at an innate neurobiological level." That makes sense; it's about gender identity, which obviously must arise somehow in the brain and probably is developmental; that's a far cry from saying that they are "literally" women, framed in such a way as to be easily shot down. Dicklyon (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dick read this. New: ‘Women Born Transsexual’ blog Via TSroadmap.com

Be sure to check out this new voice from Suzan:

Women Born Transsexual or WBT is for people who recognize transsexualism, sometimes called HBS or Harry Benjamin Syndrome as an innate condition rather than a gender identity disorder.

We view transsexualism as a medical condition we were treated for rather than as an identity. We tend to not consider ourselves transgender although many of us are quite willing to work with transgender people in achieving common goals. We are not willing to allow our unique history and life experiences to be erased or swallowed up by the transgender paradigm.

Many but not all of us do not see ourselves as being part of transgender. This is neither elitist nor hostile and a great deal of misunderstanding could be alleviated by simply saying transsexual and transgender when describing people who are now erased when transgender is used as a universal and collective descriptive noun.

Innate, in essence feminine... --Hfarmer (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I read that. I don't see the connection. An "innate" condition is not the same as Blanchard's "theory". Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dick, given that Blanchard's choice of "literally" is immediately contrasted with "figuratively", I think that it's pretty clear that the word means "actually, in reality, not just figuratively".

I feel like you're intentionally playing dumb. What else could this word, in this context, mean? If I told you that my favorite dress was -- in the literal sense, not in the figurative sense -- red, you would have no trouble figuring out what I meant. Why is it so hard for you to figure out "_____ is -- in the literal sense, not in the figurative sense -- a woman"? It's exactly the same equation.

Is your problem figuring out how the proponents might have "mechanically" implemented this idea -- what story they've put around the idea to make it sound plausible? Because Blanchard's tenet here does not cover that, and different proponents have different details. The point of unity in the essence idea is solely that these transwomen firmly assert that they actually are women, and strongly reject the idea that they are metaphorically similar to women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's up to him to say what he means from it. From his statement that I've quoted twice here already, "is usually paired with the notion that there exist one or more sex-dimorphic structures of the human brain that can be regarded as the seat of gender identity, and that key parameters of these structures (e.g., neuron number or density) are similar in male-to-female transsexuals and natal females," and from the content of his paper, it seems that by "literally" he means in terms of sex-dimorphic brain structures. His next tenet, "There is only one type of woman, therefore there can be only one type of (true) male-to-female transsexual," reinforces the idea that he's constructing a ridiculously narrow view so that he can knock it down; there may be some who say this, but the sources I've looked at tend to be more open about saying there are various different ways to characterize and categorize people; see the book I cited last night. The third one, "Apparent differences among male-to-female transsexuals are relatively superficial and irrelevant to the basic unity of the transsexual syndrome," is along the samem lines. If these come from some place, show us, and let's base the article on something more than Blanchard's strawman. Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have no problem with the idea that transsexual women actually are women, in the sense that the statement is intended. It's just that if you try to pin that down with words like literally to help you find contradictions, you'll focus on the contradictions. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I see the source of your confusion: You have conflated the proposition with an example. The bit about sex-dimorphic structures is not the proposition; it is merely an example of what some proponents assert is the biological basis for the proposition. The proposition -- the tenet of the theory -- is solely that transwomen are women, instead of being like women.

This is the meaning of his phrase, "This proposition is usually paired with the notion". Nothing can be "paired with" itself. Whatever the (any) proposition is "paired with" must be separate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The way to tell what Blanchard means by "literal" is to read what he says and try to interpret it. It's rough going for people who have any compassion at all for transexuals, as his language about them is so deeply offensive. But if you read his deconstruction, where he goes backwards through the tenets (in the commentaries version at least), he finishes up with a section, presumably on the first tenet, that talks about nothing but sex-dimorphic brain structures. So literal to him means something about brain structures; it's a wierd idea. And he makes it very clear that he doesn't believe the tenets, and he doesn't cite anyone who does, nor any reason that he wrote them down that away except to contrast them with his own view. But as H says, we've wasted enough time on this straw man; we've got an article to write. Dicklyon (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sure Blanchard did not say he himself thinks there can be only one kind of true transsexual... He dismisses the very notion of such a thing on many many occasions in his writings. What he wrote is that the people who believe in the feminine essence narrative beilve that. i.e. many of the things on any webpage or blog talk about women with HBS being true women while all other are mere part time transgender (almost subhuman the way some describe them)... No no Blanchard is not the one who thinks there is a "true" transsexual... merely two types differentiated by sexual proclivities. I can understand why you would think that... Given the history of transgenderism so much more of it is written about tranwomen attracted to men across many time periods. Such people are who comes to the average mans mind when the word transsexual is uttered. On that point you made a honest mistake.

I think you should take a cue from Jokestress, and myself, therea re real reasons to object to the naming of this article, or it's content. This straw man conversation is just not getting anyone anywhere. How about the fact that it focuses so freaking much on Blanchard's "deconstruction"... I really would like to add some suff from the websites that purvey the "HBS meme" to this article. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect, but unusable source

I'm boldly re-drafting the introduction to show some of the breadth of POVs that should be in this article, but I wanted to take a break to say that it's too bad that we can't use Wyndzen's comment, because it neatly captures the near-ubiquity of the FE concept in the TS community not very long ago:

When I was first coming out, there were few accounts of transsexuals' lives that differed with the feminine essence narrative. Transsexual web stories came in two types, even among the sites I admired. One type was like Lawrence's new personal website with very useful information that only a medical doctor would have the expertise to share. She did not write an autobiography, but described her experience in her letter for coming out at work. She knew from early childhood. Others wrote much more involved stories that shared the basic framework of "always knowing" and how coming out was the inevitable consequence of being true to an internal essence. [2]

Wyndzen is writing here before Blanchard's comment was published; it would be interesting, as background material, to know whether Wyndzen thinks Blanchard's description is reasonably accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame she would not come out into the light. With her psych credentials she could do much more than the re purposed engineer's, biologist, and economist can do (no disrespect) with the whole psyco/sexo-logical aspect of this. :smh: This proves if nothing else that the idea did not just occur to blanchard as a way of trashing his critics.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. What do you see in what Wyndzen wrote that is in any way like Blanchard's formulated "theory"? Why can't you see that Blanchard is mocking these ideas of others by setting up and knocking down his "tenets"? Dicklyon (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Others wrote much more involved stories that shared the basic framework of "always knowing" and how coming out was the inevitable consequence of being true to an internal essence." An internal essence. That is what Blanchard is talking about. The nail that most people who think that hang their hats on is brain sex and related idea's. Do you really not understand that?--Hfarmer (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the first sentence that is relevant: "When I was first coming out, there were few accounts of transsexuals' lives that differed with the feminine essence narrative." Wyndzen says in plain language that FE was the dominant view of TS, as espoused by TS people. And if you'll go read what she says about FE, you'll find nothing that contradicts Blanchard's description of the idea, such as the tenet that says transwomen are women instead of being metaphorically like women.

Dick, you don't object to the idea that transwomen are women instead of being metaphorically like women. Multiple sources say that's what FE is about. Your continued insistence that Blanchard must have meant something else when he wrote that FE asserts that transwomen are women, instead of merely being women figuratively, is inexplicable. If Blanchard meant something else, presumably he would have written something else.

Are you still having trouble differentiating the simple idea from the handwaving about its biological seat? (I'm sure that a sociologist would be wondering why modern people need to reduce their identity to neurology instead of, say, to spirituality.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand the "feminine essence narrative" and the notion of "an internal essence." That's the concept that Blanchard's "theory" and "tenets" mock. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What blanchard wrote about the idea, in his description of it did not mock it. What he did attack in his writing was the idea that the feminine essence notion even as you just described it is not something that has any scientific basis or use. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's look at it from that point of view then. If a scientist takes a common idea, and frames it in the language of science as a set of "tenets" and calls it a "theory", and proceeds to show that it has little or no "scientific basis or use", then is that scientist's description of the idea the one that should be used to describe the idea? No, it's not; it's a description that's made up just to show that the idea is not "scientific"; it has little relationship to how the idea is described, conceived, or used by others, since the idea is mostly used in a non-scientific sense. This feels like an application of ScienceApologist's rejected "Scientific Point of View" (SPOV) rather than NPOV, as it hands the description of the idea over to the scientists, who don't see it as science. I don't think the topic here is, or should be, science per se, though of course their point of view is one part of what needs to be represented. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dick, I realize that you're more "engineer" than "scientist", but the fact is that a statement like "Male-to-female transsexuals have no unique behavioral or psychological characteristics that are absent in typical men and women" is a statement of theory, regardless of whether you label it that way. "I am a true woman" is a narrative. "Transwomen are true women" is a theory -- and remains a theory, even if you chose a different label for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That first quote, his tenet 4, is perhaps a statement of (his) theory. Did I object to him calling what he made up a theory? The second, "Transwomen are true women" could only be considered part of a "theory" is there was some appropriate definition for "true" in that context. Are you saying someone has made this claim as a theory? Or that someone has made this claim and you want to call it a theory? You've lost me a bit, as I don't find the phrase "true woman" either in the article or in Blanchard. Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave those statements as examples, not as the precise words used by any particular person. I had hoped that simpler examples would make the "I say" (narrative) and "This is so" (theory) more apparent without having you get hung up on details.

Contrary to your assertion that such a statement could only be part of a theory, it is possible for a theory to be expressed as a single, short statement (e.g., "Objects are attracted to each other", otherwise known as the theory of gravity). But I no longer think that you're trying to understand; I think you're just trying to obstruct progress. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Progress?

Now that the Blanchard "theory" is no longer the primary topic, we should consider moving the article to a more sensible name. It's good that we've started to rewrite it as more a normal article, but it's a bit sad that the lead sentence is sourced just to Dreger and Bailey, two very controversial participants on one side of debates about the idea, rather than to something more neutral and/or historic. It's time to find some actual good sources; the article is still a bit too Bailey/Blanchard/Dreger slanted. Dicklyon (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you mean "the blanchard theory"? When I hear that term I think of BBL. The article has some actual good sources as well. What is needed is more good sources. I think for the topic of HBS finding RS's that are outright acceptable is going to be hard. Perhaps we can refer to the RS notice board about womenborntranssexual.com, Ts-Si.org "Why "HBS/TS" instead of TG?". Just to make sure there are no questions I will do that right now. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

By the Blanchard "theory" (note the scare quotes) I meant his "feminine essense theory" straw man. It is of course all tied up with his other (BBL) theory, as his article shows. Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As for a new title we should choose something Joe the Plumber would choose. I think what we should do is merge and redirect this article to Etiology of transsexualism. This will just be a section of that article, that article will then grow a bit in all directions. If the section here becomes too big we can always move information back. How about that?--Hfarmer (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to mix this concept with the more rigorous medical/academic concept of etiology; that will just give the medical academics the right to dominate the content, and make a lot of the historical and sociological and such writings on feminine essence irrelevant. Dicklyon (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's not the same topic. "I really am a true woman" says nothing about the cause of that asserted status. The fact that many people making such a statement have constructed a story that makes their belief sound like it has scientific support is unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we agree for a change! See my comment above about SPOV. Dicklyon (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for a source

I'd like to find a good source on the effect that the old "guidelines" had in making this story ubiquitous (at least within hearing of the relevant "professionals"). Most of you know what I'm talking about: the guidelines said that you could only get SRS if you claimed that you had no erotic connections to the target gender, that you always and consistently felt that you were a true woman, etc. -- and so everyone told the "right" story, because that's the only story that was respected for decades. Any favorite sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is one from 1995 that I just found. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote appears to come from (based on a more recent book by the same author):

Fisk, N. (1973) 'Gender dysphoria syndrome (the how, what, and why of a disease)' in D.R. Laub and P. Gandy (eds) Proceedings of the Second Interdisciplinary Symposium on Gender Dysphoria Syndrome, Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

and is quoted favorably in several sources. I wonder whether anyone has read the original? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean ([3]). The original is in the University of Michigan Library. Do we know anyone there who could check it out? Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Lwollert, perhaps (based on this). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Other sources

Some other interesting sources for the article, not on the that topic: [4] and [5]. And more books, using the term "female essence" which seems to be more the norm than "feminine essence". These go back to 1988 and a bunch in the 1990s, so would be a much better place to start in describing the concept than the recent works by its detractors. Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article is still very messed up

The article still retains too much of its original James Cantor bias toward the Bailey and Dreger sources, which don't really even support the definition in the lead. And the def'n there is not consistent with the statement that it's aka HBS, since he said "True transsexuals feel that they belong to the other sex, they want to be and function as members of the opposite sex, not only to appear as such." This is a much more sensible statement of what's probably the dominant cultural view; why are we quoting the people who trash the idea as a good source to define it? Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing has reverted my latest round of improvements without explanation, just an accusatory edit summary. I'd like to see an explanation of how she considers my edits to be "POV pushing" and whatever else she was trying to say. Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming such good faith that you gave me all of six minutes to finish typing my talk page explanation before complaining that I hadn't posted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Citations "needed" are right there

Dick tagged the clause, "The feminine essence idea has been promoted under several names," as a dubious fact direly in need of support in a reliable source. The sources for this statement are available in that self-same paragraph, as Dreger gives two names, Blanchard gives three names, Meyerowitz gives several names, and so forth. Given that the lead is not supposed to be stuffed full of citations anyway, I think we can accept "in the same paragraph" as sufficient sourcing for this non-controversial and clearly verifiable fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know who Dreger or Bailey claims has promoted such a theory, and under what name. I was not able to find any support in either that anyone had promoted such a theory. What I'm really questioning here is the way awkward juxtaposition of the Blanchard-framed "theory" with the assertion that it has proponents. If we find good sources about who supports some kind of feminine essense theory, and cite those, then maybe those same sources will help us say what that theory is. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to know who -- yes. Important for Wikipedia's purpose -- no. A reliable source says so; we trust them. Given that no modern sexologist buys this idea (indeed, many TS people don't buy it any longer), I'd be surprised if their sources were professionals, instead of what individual TS people told them.

As for 'under what name': The reason it took me more than six minutes to type this message is because I started to look them up. Dreger directly equates 'woman trapped in a man's body' with her FEN term. Blanchard says that his FET is a testable way of writing out FEN, and that it is promoted by adherents as 'a neurological intersex condition' (a term we've missed in our list). The names that Meyerowitz gives aren't in common use (as far as I can tell). The HBS folks seem to think that it's the same idea. So that's "several" names right there, already available to you if you'll just follow the sources listed in that paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did a bit more work on it to make it more inclusive, removing the need for the citation tags. As far as I can tell, no proponents see it as Blanchard does; they seem to be more aligned with Benjamin, who as fas I can find, talks about "gender identity", not a "literal" thing whatever Blanchard thought that was supposed to mean. Dicklyon (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So you don't think that a person's perception of his or her gender identity can be "literal"/real/true? That it must necessarily be "figurative"/fake? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It was never very clear what Blanchard meant when he injected "literal" into the theory, but he showed that it doesn't work, in his interpretation; he didn't seem to address gender identity per se, so I figure that's not the kind of "literal" he meant. Maybe there's a better way to clarify. What's your take on it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read the entire statement, possibly even with the unusual approach that Blanchard is just trying to tell you what he means instead of trying to obfuscate his meaning in some esoteric code worthy of the next Dan Brown novel, then it should be clear that Blanchard's choice of the word "literal" is a contrast for his other important choice of word, which is "figurative". He even plainly states that one of his points is to explain that when these people say they really are women, that they're not just using a figure of speech: they firmly believe that despite having male genes, male hormones, male genitalia, male neurology, and everything else that a biological reductionist would call 'male', that they are still, and have always been, female, in some way that isn't limited by (and, depending on the person making the statement, may be entirely unconnected to) biology.

My take on it is this: Your endless trouble with these beliefs about "non-figurative" women is caused by your inability to grasp these people's point of view that something else is more important than their genetics or their bodies. This limitation is not meaningfully different in kind from "You're not his 'real' parent; you merely adopted him" -- a common enough attitude, even widely accepted once upon a time, but most people can imagine a point of view that does not consider sperm donors to be 'real' fathers, and instead considers adoptive fathers to be the 'real' fathers -- or "Supernatural beings do not exist, because I can't prove their existence with my non-supernatural lab equipment."

My take on the overall problems you have with this article is that you can't bring yourself to just write down what the reliable sources say -- which is the job of a Wikipedia editor -- because you personally think that this idea is so stupid that nobody could have possibly believed it. My response to this is: Time Cube is at least as stupid, but we need an article on it anyway. Religion is just as unconnected to the physical world, and we have many thousands of articles that describe those beliefs -- many of which, just like this one, are sourced primarily or entirely from critics of those beliefs. Additionally, you may find it comforting to remember that half the world has below average intelligence, and that people consequently really do believe the stupidest things. For example: I had a college student tell me once that HIV was somehow magically created if you had sex with someone in the absence of a latex condom. He was quite surprised to discover that it is impossible to catch HIV from a sex partner that does not have it. I have wondered ever since how he thought humanity survived long enough for latex condoms to be invented (just seventy years ago).

My advice is that you get over it. We're not trying to write down how transsexuality happens in the real world in this article. We're trying to write down what some people say (or said) about their personal experience, no matter how inaccurate we, and all modern sexologists, think their beliefs are (or were). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'Lists and refutes' is ambiguous

Dick is now insisting on some unfortunately ambiguous phrasing: that Blanchard "lists and then refutes what he considers to be "the central tenets of the feminine essence theory"."

This can be interpreted as either:

• Blanchard lists the central tenets, and then proves that these tenets are bunk, or
• Blanchard lists the central tenets, and then proves his list is not an accurate representation of the central tenets.

Either could happen, depending on what the author is trying to achieve. If we think it necessary to further harp on "Blanchard thinks that 'a woman trapped in a man's body' is a stupid understanding of transsexuality", then it can, and should, be done in a way that cannot be misunderstood. For example, we could say that Blanchard "lists what he considers to be "the central tenets of the feminine essence theory", and then explains why he rejects them." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can read it as the second, but feel free to clarify. Dicklyon (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that the text I created already says "modern sexologists such as Blanchard reject this idea", and "modern sexologists such as Blanchard reject this idea. Bailey and Triea, for example, reject this idea", and "Modern researchers, who reject it..." -- three rejections immediately preceding Blanchard's four-point list-- I really don't think that this is necessary, which is why my original clarification involved simply removing the ambiguous phrase.

Do you think that the readers of this article will forget that researchers such as Blanchard reject this idea if we don't bash them over the head with it in yet another sentence? I like to think they're smarter than that, but I'm willing to talk down to them if you think it critically important to repeat the same information for a fourth time in as many paragraphs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Style

You've repeatedly reverted to this sentence:

According to Bailey and Triea,[1] the feminine essence concept is the "predominant cultural understanding of male-to-female transsexualism".

Can you explain why you insist that the ref needs to be placed after the names of the authors, instead of at the end of the sentence? Is it really important to you to use a non-standard ref style?

For that matter, given that we're talking about a non-controversial fact here, why do we even need to explicitly name the authors in the sentence? That's usually done only for small minority views (i.e., "The Flat Earth Society says the earth is not round.") or by editors who are trying to hype the credentials of the authors ("Professor I.M. Important says that the earth is round.") WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't care where the ref is placed; but the attribution of the interpretation seems important. Why do you see it as "fact"? Did they do a study of what's predominant in the culture? Which culture? Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it is a published statement in a high-quality reliable source that is consistent with what other experts have written and which remains uncontested by anything except your personal opinion. To present this statement in a way that marginalizes it, as if it were a minority view, is to assert your unverifiable and non-reliable personal opinion above the published record, and it's not acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a minority view, just that it's a view. They didn't present it as fact. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the complete sentence (first sentence in the abstract):

Currently the predominant cultural understanding of male-to-female transsexualism is that all male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals are, essentially, women trapped in men's bodies.

Now what about that makes you think that it's a statement of opinion? They say that this view is (not "might be", not "seems to be") the current view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had read that. It might even be true. But consider the source: these are academic sexologists, who do whatever they do that makes them so unpopular with the people they study, stating something about a current cultural understanding, way outside their field of endeavor. What's wrong with attributing it to them? Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Because naming them as the source of an uncontested fact marginalizes the fact itself, which is undisputed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you interpret it as a fact. Especially coming from the opponents of the idea. Are there any other sources that could help us interpret it as fact? If so, it would be OK to just state it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you could possibly interpret it as a statement of opinion. The authors do not, for example, say "We believe" or "It seems to us" or "In our opinion" or anything even remotely like that. Furthermore, there's not a shred of evidence that anyone (except possibly yourself) disagrees with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I did some more looking to see if anyone else has talked about a "dominant cultural" whatever about this, and found this book on transgender studies. Lots of discussion of a "dominant cultural conception gender" and stuff like that, but nothing that resembles what Bailey has expressed. I think he's just pulled it out of thin air to represent his viewpoint, which is fine, but it is his viewpoint. There's no suggestion that it is a conclusion of serious research into what is the dominant attitude in some culture. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We have a peer-reviewed article written by a world-renowned expert in the specific subfield. We are not required to find multiple sources that use exactly the same words to support this statement. We are not required to determine whether or not Bailey did "serious research" into cultural attitudes to justify his statement. We are required to trust that Bailey knows more about transsexuality that any Wikipedia editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar, again

Dick now changes:

The "feminine essence" idea predates modern psychological studies,^[1] and was supported by some early sexologists such as Harry Benjamin. Modern researchers, who reject it, classify the common story...

to remove "who reject it," on the grounds that the target of "it" is supposedly clear (I quote from the edit summary: "unclear what is rejected here").

Dick, there is only one singular noun preceding the pronoun it in that paragraph ("idea"). The pronoun it therefore must refer to that noun. This is, forgive me for being blunt, a point of grammar that you should have learned when you were no older than twelve years of age. Please: if your grasp of basic English grammar is really this poor, or your determination to be obtuse really this strong, then just stop editing. Your changes are neither helpful nor neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, it's syntactically clear, but it's not clear what "idea" they reject. In fact, Blanchard rejects the idea as he constructed it, which doesn't much resemble Harry Benjamin's idea. That's what I meant, and meant to fix by my edit. My grasp of English if fine, thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is your published, reliable source that says Blanchard's description is materially different from Harry Benjamin's? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there something in the article to that effect? If so, put a citation needed tag on it and I'll see what I can find. Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's focus: You removed the statement that modern researchers reject the "feminine essence" idea. Do you have any reason to believe that this statement is wrong? Do you think, for example, that when Blanchard "refutes" (your term) the theoretical points underlying 'woman trapped in a man's body' that he is somehow supporting the "feminine essence" idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, obviously, that's not my point; obviously they don't support the idea, as they see it. My point is that there's no evidence that I can see that Blanchard or other researchers dispute the Harry Benjamin Syndrome, which is one part of what's being included in the topic. What they oppose is primarily the theory as framed by Blanchard, isn't it? Also, the small community of academic sexologists represented here is a pretty sad proxy for "modern researchers" or whatever it said. It's true that Bailey and Triea are pushing the Blanchard dichotomy that Blanchard has constructed from his clinical observations, and they deny that the "female trapped in a male body" idea has "little scientific basis." As you know, however, these viewpoints are part of a huge dispute in the academic and wider community, not something that can be taken to represent fact or consensus. I have not problem reporting these, with attribution, but to interpret these few reports as representative of "modern researchers" is going way too far in supporting that one POV among several. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, what current researchers oppose is the idea itself, no matter who wrote it down or what form they used. They believe and support an idea that is wholly and completely incompatible with anything connected to "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" or "feminine essence" or anything even remotely connected, no matter how much lipstick you put on this pig of an idea. Once again: these terms all represent the same idea. The sources in that section were selected specifically because they name more than one way of describing it and directly equate them.

As for your baseless assertion that 'the small community of academic sexologists represented here is a pretty sad proxy for "modern researchers"': you are, as always, welcome to provide sources that show that there is dissent among modern (e.g., "currently living") researchers in this field. Based on what I've read -- and reading the relevant literature is the WP:DUE-approved way of determining neutrality on this point -- you will not find any support among researchers for this idea. The fact that no 'professional' support appears to exist for this idea is how I conclude that a statement of uniform opposition to this idea by modern researchers is accurate and neutral: the statement accurately reflects the literature. It's also a claim that (as you already know) has been directly stated by Bailey and Dreger, so making this assertion does not violate WP:NOR.

You need to stop confusing concern about some detail (or even all) of 'BBL' with believing in this idea. As the Moser commentary demonstrates, it's not an either/or proposition. You can (as Moser, and Jokestress apparently have) reject both. There is some debate (rather small among academics; it's only "huge" in the political arena) about BBL, but there is no debate at all among academics about this idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just checking in and enjoying not being involved then I read this from Dicklyon "My point is that there's no evidence that I can see that Blanchard or other researchers dispute the Harry Benjamin Syndrome, which is one part of what's being included in the topic." There is quite a bit wrong with that.

• It is the responsibility of the one making the claim to provide evidence to back it up. Dick you are taking the lack of evidence that professionals be they Blanchard or whoever reject the Harry Benjamin Syndrome idea as proof that they don't oppose it. What you ought to do is find evidence of professional support for that idea.

• Harry Benjamin had nothing to do with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, a group of transsexuals on the internet merely appropriated his name and made up "standards of care" that they thought were appropriate. Harry Benjamin Syndrome (an article which I am going to propose for deletion) is not the dominant or accepted view of anything, heck correct me if I am wrong but even Jokestress does not like it. Think about that.

• BBL theory is on the other hand a theory that has been subjected to quite a bit of scrutiny and testing. There are books, news articles, and academic works that can be cited regarding it. I really doubt that their is any such thing regarding HBS.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled; you seem to be asking for proof of something that I didn't say. Did I say they don't oppose the Harry Benjamin idea? Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Basic logic

1. Here's what Dreger says she's writing about:

   "...adhered to the ‘‘woman trapped in a man’s body’’ narrative of transgender identity, or what I will call hereafter the ‘‘feminine essence’’ narrative. The feminine essence narrative is summed up by Bailey this way:
   Since I can remember, I have always felt as if I were a member of the other sex. I have felt like a freak with this body and detest my penis. I must get sex reassignment surgery (a ‘‘sex change operation’’) in order to match my external body with my internal mind. (Bailey, 2003, p. 143) "

2. Blanchard directly says that he's writing about the same idea that Dreger describes here.

   In Dreger's history of the controversy surroudning Bailey's (2003) work on femininity in biological males, she refers to the popular view of male-to-female transsexualism as the feminine essence narrative. Because my commentary considers the feminine essence view as a set of propositions rather than as a story, I will refer to it as the feminine essence theory.
   Dreger presents the main ideas of the theory quite clearly enough...

3. Here's what Bailey and Triiea say that they're writing about:

   "Currently, the predominant cultural understanding of male-to-female transsexualism is that all male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals are, essentially, women trapped in men's bodies"

4. and note that Bailey and Triiea explicitly connect this with the term that Dreger assigns the idea:

   "A common understanding of male-to-female transsexualism is that all MtF transsexuals are, essentially, women trapped in men's bodies. The standard narrative of men who become women goes something like this: "I have always felt that I was born in the wrong body. I have always been feminine in my interests and feelings. My desire to change sex is about my gender identity and not my sexuality." This narrative, which Dreger (2007) has termed "the feminine essence narrative"..."

How do you add this up and conclude that Blanchard is talking about something different from Bailey? This is an unbelievably simple syllogism. These three professionals are widely known to agree with each other (a fact known by you, as well as by anyone that's done any reading at all on this subject). Furthermore, they directly name each other in these statements. What about this makes you think that they're talking about three different ideas? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I said Blanchard is talking about something different than Bailey. Did I say something to that effect? Certainly I know that these three professionals all represent the same POV. What did I say the confused you about my position? Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You said: "clarify what the statement of dominant cultural understanding is about, which is NOT the Blanchard theory". The Bailey and Triiea quotation about the dominant cultural understanding is, as demonstrated above, very clearly about the same issue that Blanchard addresses in his four-point description. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Can the confusion be that to dick lyon the Blanchard theory...is in reference to Autogynephilia theory.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, clearly the Bailey/Blanchard approach is part of their support of the autogynephilia theory; they do say as much, e.g. in the Bailey & Triea abstract. I have no problem with that. However, they get there by making up a strawman "theory" to deconstruct, which is rather different from the "dominant cultural understanding" of a "female...in a male body" idea that they couple it to. The more we can clarify their approach by quoting and attribution, the less we'll be concerned about who likes it. Just report what it is. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please review the numbered points above once again. Blanchard's description of the 'feminine essence' idea is, and explicitly claims to be, exactly the same thing as the 'woman in a man's body'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your numbered points don't point out where he claims that; it seems unlikely, as his "tenets" are so different from the usual conception and the narrative. I'm sure he believes they're connected, but where does he say they're the same? Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WAID's points are walking us through the logic which indicates that Blanchard, Bailey, Triea, and Dreger really are talking about the same thing. This kind of simple deduction is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH as WP:NOTOR describes. This is on the same level as figuring out A=B B=C ⇒ A=C, like having sources that say Lincoln Park is in Chicago, and other sources that say Chicago is in IL, then concluding that lincoln park is in Illinois. That kind of basic deduction is permitted under the general consensus of WP Policy.

WhatamIdoing cited a quote from dreger where she says that "woman in a mans body" is the "feminie essence narrative". Blanchard states that he is writing about the same thing as Dreger. Therefore Blanchard was writing about the feminine essence narrative, which he called the feminie essence theory. Understand?

The logic is undeniable. You could take this to WP:NOR/N and try to get a consensus which says this kind of deduction is orginal research. I don't think you would prevail however, your whole arguement would turn on one source choosing to use the word "Theory" and the other choosing the word "essense". :-? --Hfarmer (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a direct quotation from Blanchard's commentary that directly equates what he is talking about with what Dreger is talking and with the "popular", meaning both non-expert and widespread, "view" of MtF transsexualism. Note that in the second column of his commentary, Blanchard also uses the key phrase "woman trapped in a man's body", which he labels as a "popular description" of this idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy cow, how did I not notice that?

“

The popular description of male-to-female transsexuals as women trapped in men’s bodies has sometimes been interpreted to mean that they feel like women or that they wish to be women. The feminine essence theory proposes that they are women. [emphasis in original]

”

Can there be any more clear indication that Blanchard is proposing his "feminine essence theory" to contrast with the popularly understood notion of a woman trapped in a man's body? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That does not contrast with the feminine essence theory/narrative of transsexualism at all. In fact there are a number of transsexuals who say that they are women and mean that in the biological sense. (Because to them biology is destiny. Biology is real and anything mental (either identity or paraphilia) is unreal.) See here [6]. There are other examples. Again dicklyon your argument boils down to playing word games with the quotes. --Hfarmer (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather stick with what's in reliable sources, thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Which would be nice, but instead you're sticking to your erroneous interpretation of the source. Sometimes = not usually. Blanchard is making the point not that he is saying that they are women (ask Jokestress, who will confirm that Blanchard thinks transwomen are "really" men), but that proponents think they are women, and that a small number (that "sometimes" bit again) of well-meaning but underinformed (almost certainly cis-gendered) people are misinterpreting what the TS people are saying. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting; I wonder which interpretation he intended. No matter, we can use the quote without interpreting it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clear to me, and probably to anyone else that actually read more than a couple of sentences in a row, what he means here.

Once again: we must not present FET as Blanchard's theory. FET is not Blanchard's theory. Blanchard's theory is BBL. FET is the theory/idea/concept/nonsense/whatever you want to call it that a transwoman is really a woman, in some Platonic ideal/essence fashion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's not his in the sense that it's not a theory that he believes in. However, it's a theory that he formulated (that's what I meant by a straw man). Is there anyone else we can attribute it to when he's contrasting his proposal with a less literal interpretation of the idea? And if it's clear to you what he meant in the quote, why not just clue me in? It's clear from the emphasis that he's drawing a contrast between his "literal" theory proposal and a non-literal interpretation, right? Or does he mean something different? Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] break

(Outendenting)There you go again... Dick the theory isn't his so it cant be a strawman. It would be if he totally made it up out of the blue. He didn't. He wrote about the feminine essence narrative, called it theory, and examined it's parts. He did not totally disregard all of it either. Recall that he did say it's possible for neurology to play a role he question weather there can be only one variation which would lead to transsexualism. No matter how you slice this it isn't a straw man. Please try a fresh argument.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I edited this passage to correct misspellings.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Blanchard clearly separates his "theory" from the "narrative" in his remark in the opening paragraph: "Because my commentary considers the feminine essence view as a set of propositions rather than as a story, I will refer to it as the feminine essence theory." He has clearly introduced it as his, and distinguished it from hers, and attributed the tenets to nobody. It's his own creation. How can you read it otherwise? Dicklyon (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

1. A strawman argument is a deliberately weakened argument. For example: there are perfectly good reasons for supporting taxpayer-funded universal healthcare, but you utterly ignore those, and instead say that the only reasons proponents support government-run healthcare are because they hate capitalism and selfishly think that they personally will pay less for healthcare. If this is your sole definition of "reasons to support universal healthcare", then you can trivially knock it down by saying that capitalism is good (as measured by the GDP) and selfishness is bad (and besides, you'd personally pay more). If you think that Blanchard's description of FET is deliberately weakened, then please provide a reliable source that says this, or at least a "full-strength" version of the idea. If you can't -- and I do think that it's reasonable for a person that claims an argument to be deliberately weakened to be able to point out how it could be made stronger -- then please quit tossing around that canard, because your repetitious misuse of that term is a waste of time and energy.
2. Blanchard does not introduce FET as his, nor does he imply that FEN is hers. In fact, his introduction is clear that the only thing Dreger provides is the name, which is different from the idea in exactly the same way that his description of someone else's idea does not make the idea itself become his. Like both Dreger and Bailey, he attributes the idea itself to the transpeople that support it. For example: You could probably describe creationism fairly well, but I wouldn't say that writing out a description of that idea would turn you into that idea's creator. You, however, are making exactly that argument about Blanchard: he wrote down the equivalent of creationism, as presented to him by various true believers over the years, and you've declared him to be a creationist as a result -- while simultaneously claiming that Blanchard's description is bad because he doesn't support the viewpoint. This is nonsense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I wholly endorse what WhatamIdoing has written above. DickLyon needs to present some kind of objective evidence if he wishes to make this strawman point. Pointing us to the full strength version of the narrative/theory. There are other websites that talk of it. i.e. any website that deals with the HBS variant of the idea or of brain sex I would hate to seem to be equating the ludicrious with the plausible. Arguably those are related. The person who wrote that puts it quite simply "XXXX was born and raised as a boy. It was a terrible mistake, because XXXX had the brain-sex and gender identity of a girl. However, back in the forties and fifties there wasn't any knowledge about such things, and XXXX was forced to grow up as a boy. She did the best she could at it, but suffered terribly from what was happening to her."--Hfarmer (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] More work done

I've done some more work to move the article toward balanced sourced content, to get away from some of the focus on Blanchard's "theory", and to not misrepresent what he says there; and picked a better name, based on the phrase "feminine essence" appearing in most sources as a noun, not as a modifier for theory, narrative, or idea. I think it's better, but want to hear from others whether the tag should be removed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dicklyon’s page relocation in direct violation of consensus

Nearly as soon as this page was created, the proposal to move this page was rejected by a nearly unanimous consensus, as still shown on this page's talkpage. That consensus immediately followed Dicklyon’s failed AfD to delete this page, which was also rejected unanimously (except for user:Jokestress).

To go ahead and nonetheless move this page without any discussion at all is a blatant violation of a clear and repeated community consensus. In the RfC regarding Dicklyon’s user conduct, he was described as being immune to community input; that view received multiple endorsements, and no one endorsed any opposing description.

Dicklyon’s blatant violation of the consensus regarding this page is yet another example of that same disruptive disregard for WP standards of behavior.

I respectfully suggest that Dicklyon reverse his moving of this page on his own initiative until there is a consensus for otherwise.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree. I think the two of us backed with the results of the previous discussions should be able to undo something like this and have it stick. Dick you reached to far. There has to be some kind of a formal discussion before such a thing is done. Such is the way of wikipedia. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The ironic thing is I would not have been hostile to a page move had it been properly proposed. A renaming of this page was soemthing I was open to in the last conversations. However the way this was done was improper. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll be darned. I didn't expect any objections here, actually. The previous discussion to move the "woman in a man's body" or something like that was roundly defeated; I concurred in that. But the move I did from "Feminine essence theory of transsexuality" to "Feminine essense in transsexuality" was closer to what some others had proposed, like "Feminine essense (transsexuality)". It was, I felt, the minimum change that avoided the obvious problem of having the article titled by the term made up by the main critic of the idea, Blanchard, which is of course way out of line. I don't know what consensus Cantor refers to, since we obviously never had a consensus about this article or what to call it, and I've been the only one working to fix what's been identified as screwed up about it. But feel free to propose alternatives or move it elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The consensus Dicklyon says he doesn't know about is linked in my comment above...and the aforementioned RfC about Dicklyon's user conduct problems included his habitual playing dumb. — James Cantor (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I already acknowledge the consensus to not move it to "Woman trapped in a man's body". But there was obviously no consensus to not move it from the problematic title that you created. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether your comment is merely more playing dumb is, of course, for other editors to opin.— James Cantor (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article title survey

Please say what article title you would prefer, or would be acceptable, or not acceptable. 04:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Almost any title other than the "theory" title tied to Blanchard's unique POV would be acceptable. Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Most titles that include the word "essence" will work for me. I don't much care whether it's a "female essence" or a "feminine essence". There's a theory underlying the narrative (when it isn't recited from rote simply to look like a "good", "cooperative", "approve-able" transwoman), to be sure, and there always has been, but I'm not committed to having that word in the title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Lacking any objections, I'll plan to move it back to Feminine essence in transsexuality later today. Dicklyon (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I object. The title should be one that appears in an RS.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know you object, since it's your title, picked to represent your colleague Blanchard's 2008 attack paper on the idea. But as almost all of the reliable sources predate Blanchard's strawman theory, and that's not really what the article is about now that we gotten away from your "fun" with writing an article to try to prop up Blachard's two-category theory by knocking down an alternative that he formulated himself, we should really fix the title to reflect what the article is about. As I mentioned before, you have too much COI to have any standing in this discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hfarmer is on record as objecting to the current title, as well as to "feminine essence narrative;" WhatamIdoing is partial to anything with "essence" in it, and objects to Hfarmer's suggestion of something like "woman in a man's body." Cantor just wants his colleague's neologistic term "theory" in there, which is what I mainly object to. It's not clear that "feminine essence in transsexuality" makes for the minimum of objections, but it's as close as I can find for now. Discussion is still open here for better ideas. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dicklyon's now-repeated violation of consensus on page location

Dicklyon has now re-relocated this page in violation both of the original discussion, resulting in no move and the subsequent discussion, resulting in no consensus for a move. Dicklyon's request for input on the title of this page if, of course, appropriate. However, Dicklyon's repeated moving of the page before that discussion actually happens and before there is any such consensus is yet more of Dicklyon's blatant disregard for WP standards of behavior.

I respectfully suggest once again that Dicklyon reverse his moving of this page on his own initiative until after there is a consensus for otherwise.
— James Cantor (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

James, as I pointed out above, there has been a long-recognized need to fix this mess you made. As a colleague of the guy whose term you named your very biased article after, you are too conflicted to have say here. Now that the content has been made more balanced, a less biased name was needed. As I've said, I'm not wedded to the name I chose, but the name you had there before was supported by nobody, so don't be saying there was a consensus about that. The "subsequent discussion" you point to has no content yet; just you and H, who is not opposed to a move. Dicklyon (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of this article as having a "long-recognized need" for being "fixed". Actually, Dick, I think your "fixes" create more problems than they solve -- both in harming the article's content, and in creating an environment that is hostile to collaboration. You have demonstrated a real talent for irritating and anti-consensus editing here. At this point, I think it would be reasonable for you to assume that every single change you want to make that can't legitimately be marked "minor" is something that you should propose in advance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes dick you have violated consensus. I don't think anyone but you would like the article name you have choosen. This article name has implications many transgender people would not like. i.e. that Blanchard's writing about the feminine essence theory and dregers about the narrative are about the feminine essence in transexuality. Taking out the word theory makes what is written sound like more of a fact than just a theory.

Pursuant to the last discussions on the consensus of the editors present I am moving this page back. Please do not change it without a significant discussion. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd really appreciate it nobody moved the page until we can get any two editors to agree, in writing, on this page, on an appropriate name. Can we all agree to leave it at m:The Wrong Version for a while? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let's leave it H's new wrongly-capitalized wrong version for a while, while we decide a better name for it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened to all the angst? Can I assume now that everyone is OK with the move as done, since we've seen no objections since I re-did it? (not counting James Cantor, of course). Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been away. There is clear consensus for the name of the article being "Feminine essence theory of transsexuality". As for the capitalization. When I last tried moving the article to the correctly capitalized title the system told me...it already exist.  :-? Which is really confusing.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you don't know what consensus means? Dicklyon (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon's comment above is unproductive, and I would caution him not to repeat his long-standing pattern of incivility. The RfC regarding Dicklyon's conduct unanimously emphasized the inappropriateness of his behavior regarding user:Hfarmer. I recommend that Dicklyon apologize, and resolve to err on the conservative side.

I agree with Hfarmer that the consensus is for "Feminine essence theory of transsexuality"; at least, there is clearly a lack of consensus for changing it from it's original title. I believe the page should be returned to its original title, and even protected, until there is a consensus for otherwise.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

While hoping not to get involved in the long conflict between someone with a professional/financial COI and the person who discovered and announced his conflict[7], I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy. That someone is so strongly opposed to the majority opinion suggests that it is just a majority opinion, not a consensus. BitterGrey (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If Bittergrey believes I am acting inappropriately in any way, Bitterygrey should report the incident to COIN or other relevant noticeboard. Making accusations absent any sincere attempts to correct the problem is disruptive and unproductive.

Moreover, by distingushing a majority from a consensus, Bittergrey is (perhaps inadvertantly) agreeing that this page should not have been moved from where it started and from where there was never a majority (never mind consensus) for removing it.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is, again, not a democracy, the presence of a majority is meaningless. A majority is not a census. Mob size shouldn't be the deciding factor on Wikipedia. Please review Wikipedia policies, and refrain from accusing people of being "disruptive," "unproductive," and most ironically, accusatory. Name-calling won't help to build a consensus. BitterGrey (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support page move revert. The new title is contrary to consensus, the page should be restored to the prior title, unless a new consensus appears that prefers the new title. The revert will require the help of an administrator for technical reasons. Usually a page move can be undone by moving the page back to its original title, that is known as a page-move-over-redirect. But that can only be done if the redirect page (at the original page title location) has never been edited to add content other than the #REDIRECT command.

But that can't be done in this situation, because Dicklyon edited the redirect page after doing the page move, to add this note. That means it is now not a simple redirect page, so admin tools are needed to complete the revert of the non-consensus page move. There are several ways to get the needed admin help - you could ask an individual administrator to review this discussion and the other related sections on this page, they might do the move based on the consensus here - or, there is a more formal procedure described on this page: Wikipedia:Requested_moves. The help page for page moves can be found here: WP:MOVE. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I second this emotion. Would that we could simply move it back. I could not so I did not, I moved it to something that was at least in the spirit of the original title, and did not have what some people feel is the loaded word "theory" in it. Let's be honest that word and what it means to people who are not knowledgeable of it's actual meaning is what this is all about.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Although making a request to an admit to move this page back technically isn't editing, I think it better if such a request came from someone other than me.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Book links

I had checked a year or two ago at some page I don't recall about whether it's appropriate to link to google books or amazon as a place where a cited source can be easily checked, and the consensus was yes. The ISBN doesn't get you easily to where you can check the content, and a publisher site doesn't either and is usually to commercial; amazon is commercial, but when its 'search inside the book' feature is the only immediate way to check the contents, it was said to be acceptable; and nobody has objected to the thousands of links to google books that I routinely include when I find citable material that way. Anyway, WhatamIdoing has removed a link for some reason saying it's not appropriate; I didn't check what what there, but it's just one of many; so I put it back. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Rv most of Dick's changes"

In this edit, WhatamIdoing has undone a bunch of work I did on improving the article, with not so much as a single comment about why. I believe each of my edits had a reasonable, if brief, edit summary to indicate what I was doing and/or why. If some parts of that are not OK, it would be good to say why. In the mean time, I put the changes back.

Now I'm off for a few days. Work it out. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Because your changes were unreasonable. For example:

• The fact that no citation was given for a statement does not mean that the statement is unverifiable; it is easily verified by reading sources already named in the article. For example, from Bailey and Triea: "By this theory...transsexuals, as well as natal women, have in common neural circuitry that differs from that of nontranssexual men, and that causes female gender identity." This is very obviously a claim that "male-to-female transsexuals would possess female rather than male brain anatomy." It's also something you can test, objectively, in a lab, so it's a prediction, as in a testable hypothesis, or the kind of things that you get when you're addressing an idea as a theory instead of a story.
• Critics of this idea do not assert that the narrative doesn't line up with their research findings; they find that the narrative (story) most certainly exists. They just don't believe it any more than they believe Santa Claus brings toys to children each winter.
• Your insistence on labeling information and ideas as "opinion" and on using scare quotes around "theory" are WP:POV violations.
• The claim of (some) transwomen that the "really are" female is really the only support that this idea is correct. There are individual facts that could be construed as supporting it (or at least not contradicting it), but the idea itself has no direct support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you fill in the ellipses, and previous sentence context, in "this theory..." from Bailey, so we can see what he's referring to? Obviously it's not the Blanchard "feminine essense theory", as that was published later.

What does it mean to "not believe" the narrative? Just that they don't believe their most literal interpretations, as with the Santa Clause analogy you mention?

The section on which I added "opinion" in the section title has a paragraph on Blanchard's stated beliefs, which were obviously stated as opinions, and shouldn't be in included in a section that claims to be just about "research".

The quotes around "theory" were to identify Blanchard's terminology. Perhaps italics would be more appropriate.

Your claim of "really the only support" might be true, but would need a source.

Dicklyon (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of the contested nature of the content, I do not believe that Dicklyon (nor anyone else) should be making content changes without first discussing it on the talkpage so that a consensus may be achieved.
— James Cantor (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Here's the full paragraph:

   The main theory competing with Blanchard's theory of MtF classification is the theory that all MtF transsexuals have a (probably innate) female gender identity. By this theory, homosexual and nonhomosexual transsexuals have different sexual orientations because sexual orientation and gender identity are distinct, perhaps even uncorrelated, phenomena. Both homosexual and nonhomosexual transsexuals share the same psychological condition, female gender identity, which they experience in similar ways. Furthermore, both kinds of transsexuals, as well as natal women, have in common neural circuitry that differs from that of nontranssexual men, and that causes female gender identity.

   • In passing, please note again that Blanchard's labeling of this theory is not what makes it a theory, and that Blanchard is not the only reliable source that calls it a theory.
2. I mean what I said: Critics like Blanchard do not believe the narrative is accurate. They believe the narrative is a fairy tale with exactly as much real-world credibility as the fairy tales that adults tell children about Santa Claus. The fact that you tell a child that Santa Claus exists, and that he gives presents to good children, does not mean that Santa Claus actually exists or gives presents. Like all widespread myths, the existence of the story tells us something about the culture, but the fact that the story is told does not mean that the story reflects scientific (i.e., non-spiritual, non-supernatural) reality. I don't deny the existence of stories about Santa Claus; I deny the existence of Santa Claus as a thing existing in consensual reality. Critics like Blanchard do not deny the existence of stories told by transwomen about their innate feminine essence; they deny the existence of a transwoman's feminine essence as a thing existing in reality. In Bailey's blunt language, the feminine essence story is a lie. (I have a family member who says the same thing about Santa Claus.)
3. Do you have a reliable source to back up your interpretation of that information as mere "opinion"? More importantly, do you understand why "opinion" is an inherently marginalizing and POV-pushing choice of words for describing the view of one of the world's leading researchers on the subject?
4. Sure: Baily. Bailey and Triea. Blanchard. Dreger. And, if you think about it, the entire concept of an essence, since the claim is that people who have no plausible physical claim to being female and significant documented behavioral differences from natal women "somehow" have whatever minimum qualities are necessary to be "really" female, even though the minimum essential qualities are not named, defined, or apparently discernible by any method other than self-report. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Thanks for clarifying what theory Bailey was talking about. Maybe we can use the "theory of female gender indentity" or something like that as an alternative expression, or an alternative theory, whichever it is.

2. I agree with you that nobody takes that feminine essence narrative as a literal or scientific theory. That's what make it so odd that Blanchard would use it as an excuse to frame such a strawman "theory" to attack.

3. The "opinion" bit was straight out of Blanchard's article where he said, "My personal view—which I present here only because it has so often been incorrectly surmised by participants in the Bailey controversy—is that the brains of both homosexual and heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals probably differ from the brains of typical heterosexual men, but in different ways." Is there a way to read that as Blanchard stating facts or findings or research results? I don't think so.

4. Can you point out where one or more of those sources says that? Your own intepretation that you describe can hardly substitute for verifiability in a source. There's actually nothing in the article about "really the only support". I changed "The primary evidence supporting the theory" to "The main support for the narrative", since none of the self-reports, as far as I've seen mentioned in sourced, can be taken as "evidence" for Blanchard's "theory" which didn't even exist until recently. I still don't like it much, since the notion of "support" seems odd for this "narrative"; it's not really a theory, so doesn't really need support, does it? If the sources you mention say as much, please point it out (I don't have copies of all of them). Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I think it's better for the article to stick with the "feminine essence" language, rather than introducing new and potentially confusing descriptions.
2. You have once again missed the critical point that some transwoman very strongly believe this theory. No reputable researcher believes this theory, but individual transwomen very certainly do, and they are very angry when people tell them that they are just "ignorant" or "lying" when they describe their personal beliefs about themselves.
3. Blanchard could perhaps be described as presenting his "expert opinion", or his own theory, but to describe the section as being "opinion," without further explanation, is potentially confusing at best and POV-pushing at worst.
4. Which theory are you talking about here? Blanchard's theory, or the theory that you keep calling Blanchard's, but isn't? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1. But the thing you were quoting was about "gender identity", not "feminine essence". To the extent that these concepts and terms are tied up in each other, we should be able to use both.

2. I don't doubt that there are people who believe in the feminine essence concept, but we need sources to be able to say anything sensible about that. None believe in it in the form that Blanchard made up, I bet.

3. It's better labeled as opinion than as a research finding; feel free to make an improved nuance there.

4. Well, that's the confusion, isn't it. If we're going to talk about supporters of a theory, or evidence for a theory, we need sources that at least clarify what theory we're talking about. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

4.