Talk:Homosexual transsexual/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Noting another secondary source on Hernandez-Montiel

I would like it to be noted that I am adding a citation from a immigration law organizeation around transgender asylum and such. It is a history of how the case law has evolved since Hernandez-Montiel. From reading it any reasonable person will see that the correct interpretation, indeed the one used in practice has been that "gay males whith female sexual identies" is synonymous with transsexual in these cases. In particular 5.5.1.2 Reyes-Reyes v. Ashcroft where the court used "gay males with female sexual identities to describe the particular social group Reyes-Reyes belonged to and wrote of her...

In Reyes-Reyes, the court again grappled with an applicant’s gender identity and its connection to sexual orientation. In a footnote, the court wrote:

It is not clear from the record whether Reyes’s female sexual appearance was fully manifest at this age [16]. We note, however, that Reyes’s sexual orientation, for which he was targeted, and his transsexual behavior, are intimately connected. As we have recognized, it is well-accepted among social scientists that ‘sexual identity is inherent to one’s very identity as a person …. Sexual identity goes beyond sexual conduct and manifests itself outwardly, often through dress and appearance.[55]

"

In relation to a case known as Morales Vs Gonzalez is noteable as the first time that the court used the word transsexual instead of "gay males with female sexual identities, to describe people who are clearly transsexuals (pre- or non- op at the least since they are said to be living full time as women.)

In 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued another decision concerning a transgender asylum-seeker. In Morales v. Gonzalez, the Ninth Circuit again remanded the case to determine whether the applicant met the standard for withholding of removal or CAT.[59]This is the only published decision in the asylum realm that uses the term “male-to-female transsexual” rather than the awkward “gay man with female sexual identity” employed in prior cases. Morales was a native of Mexico who began dressing as a woman and working at a bar at the age of 15.[60]She was arrested for working in a bar as a minor on two occasions, and on one of these occasions, was raped while in jail, with her cries for help going unanswered.[61]

This secondary source clearly backs up and affirms what is written in the article about the case. This was already backed up and affirmed by the sftimes article already cited IMHO. But others have raised questions. Lest someone feel wronged there are now two reliable sources which address this matter.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

various historical groups ... non-western.

My issue is that as the sentence stands now it implies that transsexualism has been historically non-western which does not match my reading of that attributed source which includes western people. With various a and b ... various would apply to both, but agreed that the grammar would be a bit sloppy as fixed. But as it stands now it is also problematic and implies something false. I.e. It should be some historic *and* some non-western. The source list: Greek, Roman, French, American Indians, Africans, Siberians, etc. PaleAqua (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the kind of wording you want is that makes it sound like the non-western groups are not also historic. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Aye needs to include all groups. Which is why I'm not completely satisfied with my own tweaks either. The point of the source is that it is not just contemporary western groups, but also historic groups (both western and non-western), and contemporary non-western. The wording needs to be such that it shows that. Quoting Richard Green conclusion, "Clearly, the phenomenon of assuming the role of a member of the opposite sex is neither new nor unique to our culture." The point that needs to be reflected from that source is that neither new nor unique to western culture bit. PaleAqua (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I made another attempt. Please improve it if you can. Thanks. PaleAqua (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me.  :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have added back the NPOV tag that was removed before outstanding content issues were resolved. I ask once again that involved editors all come to an agreement on this page before editing the article. Jokestress (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok So what are the rest of the outstanding issues? Have we not settled the whole phenomenon VS term thing or what? Please specify your concerns.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Looking back at your original list of problems that seems to be the only one left standing. If it's the validity of the legal issue mentioned here, well I don't know what to tell you. I have found secondary sources which make the conclusions that these people were transsexuals. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The phenomenon vs. term issue has not been settled. They are two distinct matters requiring two distinct articles. This article conflates the two, thus asserting a non-NPOV legitimacy to the use of this term. This term has been notable for decades as a controversial term and thus merits an article. The term homosexuality has an article distinct from the general phenomenon. The term transsexuality has an article distinct from the general phenomenon. The term homosexual transsexual should have a term distinct from the general phenomenon. Jokestress (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec. You say that Homosexuality and transsexuality have articles for the terms separate from the phenomena? Where are these articles. Because the article on transsexuality goes into legal aspects, historical aspects, etc in great depth. Thus covering it as a phenomena. An article that was just about a term would just be a dictionary definition. Which is what WP is not. What it sounds like you want is a POV forking of this article into say "homosexual transsexual and "homosexual transsexual (term)" or some such. Well Here it is. You want to make an article about Homosexual transsexual(term). Create the article if you wish.--Hfarmer (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you be a rational person, or do you always need to fly into a tizzy over every disagreement someone has with you? --Puellanivis (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Puellanivis' comment is grossly incivil.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The above was not me. I did not fly into a tizzy. I simply felt that Jokestress think's she's talking to a fool. "The term homosexuality has an article distinct from the general phenomenon. The term transsexuality has an article distinct from the general phenomenon." That's blantantly false. Just where is the article that talks about transsexuality as a phenomena instead of a term or vice versa. The same for homosexuality. Jokestress really has only done the minimum she needs to to keep that Npov tag there a bit longer. Because her, and you, and so many out there so emotionally hate this term that even it having a good looking WP article seems to make it too legit for you, even if that good looking article is 1/2 negative criticism of the term. As for me, if people insist that I diagnose my self I will. Truth be told I really dont give a fuck. That is really truly why I don't look at this the way the rest of you TS's do! (WP:FUCK)--Hfarmer (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with there being an article about this term. It's relevant and historically important to the transsexual community... all of the community. I think specifically, that many people don't object to the idea and concept, because it's based on empirical facts. It's the term itself that is offensive, as it defines one's sex as relative to their gender at assignment. What happens when we successfully prove that humans are sexually dimorphic in the brain? (I say "when" not "if", because the idea is flatly accepted in rats.) In such a result, we're saying that the "body's" sex is more important than the brain's sex. Even more specifically, those individuals who are most likely to be covered by the term HSTS are most likely to be accepted simply as female, and more likely to be able to live in "stealth". The idea that those transsexuals that are most likely to be accepted without question as female..... are explicitly labeled men by this label. Plain and simply, I don't care that you self-diagnose with this term, that simply shows your personal investment in the term itself, rather than the phenomena. I match the phenomena almost perfectly... to such a point that I actually was counseled by Anne Lawrence for awhile, until she felt no reason at all for me to keep being counseled, because she would diagnose me as an HSTS, and she's really quite inadequately prepared to treat an HSTS for therapy. So, even though I have been diagnosed as an HSTS by one of the BBL epinomes, I still reject the term, because it states that my brain is less significant than my body for determining my gender. I seriously try and avoid editing any articles anymore because both sides get so irrationally emotional. You flew off the handle by saying that Jokestress "obviously wants to POV fork" which is expressly discouraged by policy, and not what Jokestress wants to do, and thus is a strawman attack, which is a fallacy, and thus by definition, irrational. Please recognize that the other side is not the only side getting emotional. You are prone to getting so emotional that you throw around fallacies like they're worth 100 points each. That's why I stopped arguing about these terms and such... no one can really handle this matter rationally, we all have far too much invested in the issues... myself included. --Puellanivis (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down and avoid profanity. Wikipedia separates any number of articles into the phenomenon or concept and various terms, especially in the case of controversial terms. We have homosexual and gay and lesbian for a reason. You wish to conflate a sexual typology and an identity because you believe it is your identity. That also makes it very difficult to discuss these matters on Wikipedia without your taking the discussion to be some sort of personal attack. That's why I consider you to have a conflict of interest in editing this article and have repeatedly asked you not to edit the article itself. Until this conflation is resolved, this article needs to be tagged NPOV in my opinion. We are not doing readers a favor by presenting this in an uncritical manner that legitimizes your worldview and self-identity, as well as this controversial term. Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides like that. Jokestress (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is being conflated in there. Each and every source in this article uses the term homosexual transsexual or some contortion of it. from "gay man with female sexual identity", to non western words which describe that particular group as male living female who sleeps with males. As for profanity. See the place I linked to about the word WP:FUCK. It was not used towards a person. Or even a persons idea. Specifically my not giving a fuck what pyschological theory. Hence I can be neutral and you can't.

Let me turn your line of reasoning back around on you. You have made it a large part of your life's work to trash this term, deride the idea of this as a phenomnea, and to personally attack anyone who would ever disagree with you.

The examples homosexual gay and lesbian are not separate articles for terms and phenomena.being gay is a term, and a phenomena, being lesbian is a term and a phenomena, being lesbian is a term and a phenomena.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As for me having a COI don't make me laugh. I have no vested interest outside of making sure wikipedia's article is balance and fair. Just to get this ball rolling. OK I WILL MAKE THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE TERM RIGHT NOW. IT WILL BE BALANCED AND IT WILL NOT GO ON FOR HALF OF IT"S LENGHT TALKING ABOUT HOW TRANSWOMEN DON"T LIKE IT!!!!--Hfarmer (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There now all of it's historical and legal context. is gone. It is not any longer about a phenomnea at all. It aslo is not and never really was about something Ray Blanchard just made up or any of that other stuff. As a term it was used for a very long time before blanchard, as we both discovered or at least, had made more clear by researching this.

All of this crap about my identity and such and such is totally irrlevant. All I have ever fucking wanted was some place on the web with really unbiased good information that everyone uncontroversially agreed upon. Since having the phehomena words in there prevented that and you would not budge. I did. I am the bigger and better person for it. You got what you wanted by being bull headed. Yes bull headed I may get banned for 48 or even for two weeks for saying it and it would be worth it because it is true. You got me to acquiess to you because you were bull headed not because of your reason or argumentative ability, but because life is too short to spend my time aruging over this stuff with some hollywood pseudo intellectual such as yourself.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what looking at the articles you mention homosexual transsexual etc. They go into specifically related legal and historical aspects as well. So I am reversing my last edit. Including replacing you npov tag. No recognition that what we have here is at least a good if not A class article on this topic is not needed. It's more important for the encylopedia to have a good article even if you don't like what it says for it's not being negative enough to your taste. You want to call me names for this. Attack me off wiki, or whatever fine. I'm back on wiki break. --Hfarmer (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is any person who wants to split this into two articles prepared to divulge their preferred names for the two articles? Homosexual transsexual for the term itself, of course, and the other one is what? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As divulged many times previously [1][2][3][4][5][6], Transsexual sexuality and Classification of transsexuals can and already do discuss these phenomena. I have also proposed an umbrella article Conceptualizations of transgenderism (currently sandboxed) to cover all the extraneous stuff in the current article here. Jokestress (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So your "split" involves something that might be uncharitably interpreted as "lose this information in a large article about transwomen and transmen in general, instead of in an article entirely dedicated to the phenomena of transwomen that are attracted to men"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. We don't need articles on every permutation of transsexual sexuality, unless you want to write the following:

• Transwomen attracted to men
• Transwomen attracted to women
• Transwomen attracted to both
• Transwomen attracted to neither
• Transwomen attracted to transmen
• Transwomen attracted to transwomen
• Transwomen attracted to themselves
• etc. etc. etc.
• Transmen attracted to men
• Transmen attracted to women
• Transmen attracted to both
• Transmen attracted to neither
• Transmen attracted to transmen
• Transmen attracted to transwomen
• Transmen attracted to themselves
• Plus articles on transmen and transwomen attracted to whatever else they might be attracted.

If you think we need to split all those out, perhaps we should write the transsexual sexuality article and then split out all the permutations per WP:SUMMARY as the main article gets completed. Personally, I don't think that will be necessary for quite some time. Homosexual transsexual is a notable term for its decades of controversial use to describe four groups of people:

• Transwomen attracted to men
• Transwomen attracted to women
• Transmen attracted to men
• Transmen attracted to women

That controversy and its application to those four groups certainly merit an article. "Homosexual transsexual" does not simply mean "transwomen attracted to men," hence the problem here. The phenomenon of Transsexual sexuality certainly merits an article. We need to split the phenomenon from the term in order to address these matters in a NPOV manner per policy. Let me know if you still don't understand and have questions. I thought I had made this clear several times before, but I am happy to continue explaining until it's clear. Jokestress (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Jokestress said "I thought I had made this clear several times before, but I am happy to continue explaining until it's clear."

WP:Tendentious editing says that a characteristic of problem editors is: "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people."

That essay advises "If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both."

On that basis, I believe that Jokestress is editing tendentiously and that this WP page would be best served if the advice of that essay were followed instead.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we can find reliable sources that deal with every single one of those subjects. We have sufficient reliable sources to create Transwomen attracted to men, and we have editors interested in presenting this information separately from other transpeople on Wikipedia. Will you object if the information is moved to that article? Or would the creation of such an article simply result in a merge proposal and/or demands that editors (other than yourself) create all the other articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are multiple RS's reporting that Jokestress' above list is incorrect. Although Jokestress and other political activists disagree with the idea (as is their right), the RS's nonetheless indicate that the items in that list boil down to only three types: FtM, androphilic MtF (aka homosexual MtF), and gynephilic MtF (aka autogynephilic MtF). Although Jokestress personally disagrees with Blanchard in this conclusion, it doesn't change the content of the RS's.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it took me four seconds to find a reliable source on one of the many "types" of transmen (Suck my Manhole in the San Francisco Bay Guardian this month). Anyone who has kept up on trends in sexuality since the 1980s knows there are reliable sources on all of these various trans identities and behaviors, including the wide range among trans men. I also recommend the film Still Black by Kortney Ryan Ziegler for those who know that reliable sources exist outside the world of one Toronto mental institution. Still, I am not sure all these identities merit individual articles. We can do Transwomen attracted to men as a separate one for that phenomenon, with a link from Transsexual sexuality. There are also lots of reliable sources on why some "experts" are so fixated on that subset of trans people. We can also include reliable sources discussing how happy trans men are that they are largely ignored by the taxonomic zeal of "experts." Jokestress (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Suck my manhole" is not an RS; it is a blog, and it identifies itself as such.

The repeated use of scare quotes imply a given statement or term is inaccurate without being upfront about it and is also tendentious, in my opinion. Jokestress is entitled to disparage experts in this field all she wants on her off-wiki attack site about them, but on WP, such behavior is considered POV-pushing and is inappropriate.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Blog" and "reliable source" are not mutually exclusive. The New York Times has blogs, too. [7] "Suck my Manhole" appears in a reliable source. In fact, it appears most blogs have higher editorial standards than the Archives of Sexual Behavior, which publishes just about anything according to its defenders. WP:ALLEGED applies to articles. I am not going to use "types" without quotations because I consider the whole notion of "types" put forth preposterous. Jokestress (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The editors commenting at RS/N appear to be at variance with Jokestress' view.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So if we split this article into two -- one dealing with the 'scientific term' aspects, and the other dealing with the general idea of transwomen that are attracted to men -- then you won't endlessly object to their existence? Note that this will entail significant duplication, and that both articles will necessarily and significantly reference expert/professional sources, including Blanchard's ideas about this group of people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I have said many times. This article should summarize every use of this term and the objections to it. The other one should summarize all information about the phenomenon. And no, it won't include significant duplication if the articles are written properly. Each will have certain aspects presented in summary style with links to the main articles. Feel free to begin it, and let me know how you'd like to proceed as far as editing on the new page. I try not to edit in article space on these disputed topics, though maybe we can all suspend that while we build this one up. If any problems start to occur, we can just do talk. Jokestress (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that significant (but not dramatic) duplication of information is inevitable. Splitting "scientific ideas" and "all other ideas" about this group into two separate articles would a content fork. Are you willing to accept significant duplication of the information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We can have a section on the term "homosexual transsexual" in each of the four articles to which the term has been applied if everyone agrees. Personally, I think that can be dealt with in a sentence or two in each of them rather than duplicating info, with details at the homosexual transsexual article. Jokestress (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's probably enough for the term itself -- but not for the rest. Such an article would need to include, for example, the differential outcomes in satisfaction with transition. In addition to a short description, nearly all of "Description by Western science" would have to be present in both articles. It may be possible to condense it to a multi-paragraph summary in one article, but it's simply not possible to reduce it to two sentences. I don't think that you yet appreciate how much overlap this would require. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems it would have about as much overlap as Terminology of homosexuality and Biology and sexual orientation and faggot and gay. I suppose we could copy/paste a "description by Western science" section to any article, but I don't see a need to duplicate material that can be summarized in articles about phenomena and terms. I believe part of the issue here is that the only information presented to date regarding transwomen attracted to men is "description by western science." Even the historical/sociological information is presented through that lens, mainly to prop up the legitimacy of this as an ersatz identity. As we add a broader, more contextualized description of these phenomena to a full article that includes the full range of literature on the topic, this NPOV issue will disappear. Shall we sandbox this somewhere? I can show you what I mean. Jokestress (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of expanding this article to include other views. Rather than sandboxing, can you just list a handful of good sources (perhaps with a half sentence about the POV for each source)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(Outendenting) I am a bit less radioactively hot with frustration. It has to be noticed. By jokestress saying that the information in the "description by western science", and the historical content "mainly to prop up the legitimacy of this as an ersatz identity." Can you cite a source for that? Does anyone who claims this term would apply to them call it an "identity"? I don't think so. However it is clear that you do see it in terms of identity politics. That ID politics is all within you and your way of thinking about this. The alternative is to look at it as a mere characteristic like dark skin or blue eyes. I hope you will recognize that someday there are other legit ways to think on this subject.

As for what could be done with the historical and legal information VS the "Description by western science" type information. I could see the historical and legal type information as being moved to the "phenomenon" article. Then then the purely "behavioral science description/history of" type information being moved to the "term (or terms)" article. To solve the duplication issue, one article would simply make reference to the other, at first... then over time we would flesh things out so that they did not make much reference to eachother at all. I would suggest that this version of the artilce [8] with the legal, historical info removed would be a simple starting point for the "term" article. All the RS's needed are there and cited. Why repeat that tedious task if you don't have to?

I also have to question changing the name of this artilce, if there is to be an article for the term this would be that term. I have looked at all kinds of sources from sexology and psychology and the old ones in particular use some variation on this term if not the exact term, from Hirschfeld, to Benjamin, to Blanchard. I understand that some find it offensive. But then as AJ likes to bring up "faggot" is the same way yet it has an article.

That's all I have to say. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. Why exactly is an article for the phenomena of straight transsexual women needed? Societies have treated transwomen differently based on their orientations. The historical information in this article makes that clear. Look at the sources I cite for it and you will see. You will see that in many socieites only transwomen who were attracted to men were culturally, and/or legally recognized. That is still the case in various places in the east. i.e. In Iran, yes the government sanctions SRS and facilitates chaning all official doccuments.... But it seems they only do that if the result will be a straight woman. There are other examples even from here.

What I thought this information would really be good for is in explaining why for so long a transwoman attracted to men was afforded special status among transwomen. i.e. acess to surgeries and other medical services, or being termed primary,true transsexuals. Without the historical information all of that sounds like it just came out of the blue. That's why that information is important. It explains that aspect, as well as makes clear again, that transsexualism is not just some invention of modern medicine, but a part of the human condition.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

From RSN - while blogs published by a major publisher may be reliable sources for some things, blogs about the porn industry do not appear to be reliable sources for information about anything but the porn industry. This article, which is not about the porn industry, should not use blogs about the porn industry as reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Suck my Manhole" is not a porn industry blog. The person interviewed does adult entertainment, and discusses it in a frank and open manner. There is a difference. That is that person's real life. However there is a arguement to be made that such a narrative does not comprise generalizeable knowledge in and of itself.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the blog? I did. I think my summary of it being a "blog about the porn industry," is reasonably accurate. Hipocrite (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe multiple reasonable arguments can be made here, but for present purposes, I am not hearing anyone (other than Jokestress) saying that that link is an RS for Jokestress' claim. — James Cantor (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK here is where I try to bridge this gap. The disconnect between you and jokestress boils down to this. Narratives Vs. Scientific Polls. In a sense the type of testing that psychologist, sexologist etc do to determine what is and isn't is scientific polling. They ask some number of random people what they think about XYZ, and analyse that data to find certain averages. Those averages determine what is generalizeable knowledge. i.e. if such a scientific source could be found we could write. "Transmen are X% likely to be attracted to other men, and Y% likely to be attracted to women." James you give a very scientific response basically saying that the statistically small group is negligible.

However what Jokestress is saying is equally valid. Transmen who are attracted to other men, bissexual, etc can and do exist. See here is a narrrative. Now a narrative here a narrative there or 1000 narratives in a collection cannot be scientific data. But they don't have to be in order to be in Wikipedia. They just have to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. Which I think this does.

While I think a blog posting of a news outlet...an interview such as that... would be an RS for a wikipedia article. But it could not be used to go to the BBL theory page and write "BBL ignores transmen who are attracted to men and therefore it is unscientific (ref Buck Angle Narrative)"

It's like I said about the commentaries. We have to be careful about how we use the sources, and not try to use in appropriate RS V sources to back up claims. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I am saying. I have no reason whatsoever to say that there do not exist FtM transsexuals who are sexually interested in men. I am saying that one's ability to divide FtM's according to their attraction to males versus females is not sufficient for concluding that there are two (or more) independent, scientifically/medically meaningful taxa (phenomena). For example, we could divide FtM's into chubby-chasers and non-chubby-chasers, those into hairy sexual partners and those into smooth sexual partners, etc. What makes such distinctions into a taxa is when the categories provide information about etiology, course, and response to interventions (or lack of interventions). The size of a category is irrelevant to whether the group is meaningful in a taxonometric sense.

I am also not saying that there cannot exist subtypes of FtM's. It is always possible that someone will identify a meaningful typology at some future time.

Finally, as you all know, I have pledged not to edit the main page here, so feel free to ignore my thoughts in deciding whether there is a consensus in how to handle the page. During our mediation, Jokestress also said she would also stay off the main page, but I do not know if she plans to honor that statement now that the mediation has failed.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Transmen attracted to men

This portion has been transcluded from Talk:Homosexual transsexual--Hfarmer (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I grabbed the most recent example at the top of a 4-second Google search to demonstrate how painfully easy it is to find the vast array of evidence that trans men can be attracted to men. Predictably, James Cantor is attempting to draw attention away from the fact that he and his friends hold beliefs that fly in the face of documented empirical evidence. Therefore, I will list a few more painfully-easy-to-find sources.

• "The statement that all female-to-male transsexuals are homosexuals in their sexual preference can no longer be made." Ira B. Pauly (1998). Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation. In Dallas Denny, ed. Current Concepts in Transgender Identity. Routledge, ISBN 9780815317937
• "Kailey is better known as the author of 2005’s Just Add Hormones: An Insider’s Guide to the Transsexual Experience. The memoir, which will be released in paperback in June, follows Kailey’s transition from 40-something straight woman to the gay man he’d always known himself to be." Jacob Anderson-Minshall (January 19, 2006) Invisible Man. San Francisco Bay Times
• "How many FTMs become gay or bisexual men? That question was answered in a graphic way at mid-August's first FTM Conference of the Americas, held in San Francisco, which attracted some 250 FTMs and another hundred interested parties, among them significant others and those considering the change. A board and pushpins were provided along with a map of two axes: male-identified to female-identified on the Y axis, straight to gay on the X." Linnea Due (October 25, 1995). Genderation X. San Francisco Weekly
• "self-validation was particularly important for FTMs who identified as gay or bisexual." K Clements-Nolle, W Wilkinson, K Kitano, R Marx (2001). HIV Prevention and Health Service Needs of the Transgender Community. Transgender and HIV: Risks, Prevention, and Care.
• "It took the substantial efforts of Lou Sullivan, a gay FTM activist who insisted that female-to-male transsexuals could be attracted to men." Henry Rubin (2003). Self-made Men: Identity and Embodiment Among Transsexual Men. Vanderbilt University Press, ISBN 9780826514356

And of course this one in the publication where Cantor is an editor:

• Chivers, Meredith L. ; Bailey, J. Michael. Sexual Orientation of Female-to-Male Transsexuals: A Comparison of Homosexual and Nonhomosexual Types. Archives of Sexual Behavior

All of this can be added to Transsexual sexuality and to Transmen attracted to men if we feel a need to split out every kind of possible trans relationship into separate articles. Jokestress (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress wrote, "Predictably, James Cantor is attempting to draw attention away from the fact that he and his friends hold beliefs that fly in the face..." This is now the third in a series of tendentious comments from Jokestress about me. Jokestress (and anyone else) has every right to disagree with any view I hold, but she violates WP policy in her persistent and tendentious comments. I ask her to withdraw such comments and to cease making continued WP-inappropriate comments.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, Cantor didn't say that all transmen had the same sexual orientation. He said that there are "only three types: FtM..." -- which I interpret as meaning simply that they aren't subdivided clinically by orientation. Presumably no one has found it to be a useful division to make, just like cardiologists don't find it useful to subdivide their patients according to sexual orientation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, did you see the sources above that subdivide clinically by orientation? Jokestress (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I saw sources that said that transmen can (and do) have any sexual orientation, which is different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out the Clements-Nolle for starters. For example, it's been established that gay transmen are more at risk than straight transmen for HIV transmission, and that needs to be factored into differential clinical care. See

• Hope-Mason, T., Conners, M. M., & Kammerer, C. A. (1995). Transgender and HIV risks: Needs assessment. Boston, MA: Department of Public Health, HIV/AIDS
• Kenagy, G. & Hsieh C.-M. (2005). The risk less known: Female-to-male transgender persons’ vulnerability to HIV infection. AIDS Care, 17 (2), 195-207

In James Cantor's model, there may be only three "types," but that opinion is not universally held (see the Chivers above). I notice you are continuing to interpret people's comments instead of letting them speak for themselves. Moving on, should we create the Transmen attracted to men article from the materials above or add this to transsexual sexuality and classification of transsexuals for now? It doesn't belong here, because based on the way the term homosexual transsexual is used by James Cantor and friends, these are heterosexual transsexuals. If we can stay focused, I believe we are making some progress that last couple of days. Jokestress (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The model is not mine. I'm just describing the content of the relevant RS's.

Differential rates of HIV transmission are not taxonometrically relevant. (They do not pertain to etiology, for example).

I am still not hearing anyone agree with Jokestress regarding the taxonomy in the RS's (thus far, anyway).

— James Cantor (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Being higher risk for HIV transmission is not something that affects a person's care as a transman any more than having very light-colored skin (=high risk for skin cancer) affects that person's care as a transman. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Differential rates of HIV transmission are not taxonometrically [sic] relevant." So, we can just ditch the article [Men who have sex with men]? And tell the CDC that MSM is not relevant to taxonomies? --Puellanivis(talk) 02:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dosen't work that way. As wikipedians we are slaves to only being able to report the work of others. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Puellanivis, HIV (and other STI) transmission rates are clinically significant for men based on this aspect of their behavior. That's the entire reason why the MSM category was created: because some men (those having anal sex with other men) needed different care than other men (those not having sex with other men).

However, HIV transmission rates do not affect transmen as transmen. It affects them (and others) as people receiving anal sex. The fact that a transman that is attracted to men has a somewhat different risk for HIV infection than a transman attracted to women does not affect the psychotherapy, transition requirements, legal paperwork, surgeries, social relationships, success, etc. related to transsexuality. The HIV+ transman faces the same HIV-related problems that an HIV+ cis-gendered man would experience, and the same non-HIV-related problems that a non-HIV-infected transman would experience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the many problems with the term MSM for her was that the way the CDC UNAIDS and many other agencies defined it in their literature it included transgender women who had sex with men, and excluded transgender men who had sex with men. In short it ignored issues of identity totally. What I have seen lately is a moving away from that and reporting the statistics for "men who have sex with men and transgender". I have also seen literature where reserachers who don't deal with the mainstream transgender community (almost an oxymoron) or in cultures other than ours, who do not ID even as transgender. I have even read of men in india, male ID'd men, who have sex with other men who object to the term. I this is the wrong talk page for this. But I would not object to the articles name being changed to reflect this change in terminology. A change from Men who have sex with men, to men who have sex with men and transgender women, which is what is used in more recent literature.

Where I come down is that we have to report what those agencies say.... as a matter of fact even once those terms become disused we still have to report that they were used at some point in time. Political correctness is not one of WP's guidelines. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, my issue with the term was that it identifies individuals, but then claims to be about behavior. The idea that psychotherapy for a homosexual transman would not be different than that for a heterosexual transman is pretty bogus. I applaud WhatamIdoing for pointing out that the distinction of HIV risk is for the specific behavior, independent of any sort of identification. The point is however when talking about transmen, there exists a group of transmen, those who engage in sex with other men—cis-gendered or transgendered—which have clinical significance. As far as transition requirements, legal paperwork, surgeries, and social relationships are the same for autogynephiles as it is for HSTSs, so what does the lack of difference for transmen make then? Does anyone even have any research or WP:V or WP:RS in any case, that has actually looked into the differences between transmen based on attraction vs the "research" that has been done on transwomen? People seem to be skeptical about speculation about any difference between transmen based on sexual orientation, however there is a pretty significant group that seems to accept as flat fact that there is a difference between transwomen based on sexual orientation. If we are to have separate articles about transwomen based on their sexual orientation, then why aren't we going to treat transmen equally? If it's significant for one, then it should be significant for the other. --Puellanivis (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I am sure you know that gender variance and homosexual activity in the biological male has always interested society more than simmilar activity in biological females. That is part of the reason. When it comes to AIDS epidiemiology there are certain physical realities which make biological males (gay, non- gay ID'd MSM, transgender attracted to men apparently irregardless of SRS) more prone to infection. All of the data that these organizeation's have points to that. Back when we were discussing this I went to a local clinic and asked them directly why MSM is defined the way it is. What I have just told you is concisely why. Now it is insensitive to categorize transgender women as "MSM", especailly transsexual women. But we are a small group, statistically almost negligible in the population. Yet we have one of the highest rates of HIV infection. Comparable to that of male ID'd biological males who have sex with other males. I don't think this will satisfy you, but that is basically the reason. IMHO our feelings and identities etc must at some point take a backseat to things that could improve our chances of survival as a group. Effective HIV prevention education, based on the real life premise that men who have sex with transsexuals, and with other men, are just one big population through which HIV can and has spread rapidly.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as a point of fact, it's the rates of anal intercourse that matter. HIV spreads poorly through vaginal sex, and relatively easily through anal sex. It just happens that in the developed world, the people who have the most anal intercourse with the most partners are genetic males who have sex with other genetic males -- thus the risk group is "men who have sex with men", since "people who have anal sex a lot" probably would have been rejected by the media twenty years ago. A genetic woman who has anal sex with an HIV+ man is at exactly the same per-contact risk for HIV infection as a genetic man in the same position. If the terms had been created in one of the regions where anal sex is used as a no-cost form of pregnancy prevention, then it probably would have identified a different group and thus had a different name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Useful and interesting research, assuming that it isn't WP:OR, but it's different enough that it might be better served with a new page rather than trying to fit it in here. I understand that the definition of "men" in this usage is inadequate, but it was designed for statistical work where a non-binary view of gender is unlikely to have a measurable effect. Having the article explain that the definition of "men" used is not as specific as desired is relevant, but what else would you have us do with the article? SDY (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Such an article already exist. There is an artilce for Men who have sex with men. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, this conversation has been transcluded there and I thought it was an actual discussion there. I don't call myself "dumb" for no reason, y'know! SDY (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's my fault. I am still trying to figure out this transclusion thing. Oh no I got it right. I just did not post a warning.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)