Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology

    Lead, again

    @Zenomonoz I'm honestly curious which study you think supports your conclusion. As far as I can tell there are two studies that find explicitly that cis women experience autogynephilia (Veale et al 2008 and Moser 2009, like I said in my edit summary reversing your edit), but also that Bailey and Hsu 2022 claims to contradict them but, as is pointed out in Serano and Veale 2022, their data also found that cisgender women do experience some autogynephilia, and simply dismissed small scores without reasoning.

    So as far as I'm concerned that is 3/3 studies that have investigated the question that have found when such studies are done they demonstrate most women, cis or trans, experience some level of autogynephilia. That wording is very specifically chosen to not claim the studies find the same level of autogynephilia (they don't), just that they find most cis women do experience it at all. Loki (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't go that far re: Veale, who states: "Although a number of biological female participants endorsed items on the Core Autogynephilia and Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy scales, no previous studies have reported biological females with such sexual attraction. Because of this, it is unlikely that these biological females actually experience sexual attraction to oneself as a woman in the way that Blanchard conceptualized it. However, the scales used in this research were not sufficient for examining this".
    As for "Bailey and Hsu 2022 claims to contradict them but, as is pointed out in Serano and Veale 2022, their data alsofound that cisgender women do experience some autogynephilia, and simply dismissed small scores without reasoning" – this is a subject of debate for researchers, not Wikipedia editors, and it's something the authors reject. I don't think Moser & Veale, as primary sources, are sufficient for us to claim (in WP:VOICE) that cis women are autogynephilic.
    Zenomonoz (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first quote is a question of construct validity and there is no evidence that the autogynephilia scales measure "sexual attraction to oneself as a woman in the way that Blanchard conceptualized it" for any tested class of individuals.
    Moser's study is cited in Lehmiller's book The Psychology of Human Sexuality anyways, as well as many other books on sexuality (Sexuality and Gender for Mental Health Professionals, Sexuality and Its Disorders: Development, Cases, and Treatment) as evidence the phenomenon exists in cisgender women. Katzrockso (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we are talking about Moser & Veales responses to Bailey & Hsu (2022). Not Moser's earlier study. Mention of Moser's study in other books is not relevant to the current discussion. I've let the excessive primary sources on this article slide for the sake of including critique of Blanchard's typology, so maybe slow down a bit before you post. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding specifically to "I don't think Moser & Veale, as primary sources, are sufficient for us to claim (in WP:VOICE) that cis women are autogynephilic." Katzrockso (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was referring to Serano and Veale (2022) and Moser (2022), which are responses to Bailey & Hsu (2022). Zenomonoz (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you are misrepresenting @LokiTheLiar, who said "As far as I can tell there are two studies that find explicitly that cis women experience autogynephilia (Veale et al 2008 and Moser 2009". Why you would respond to Loki's claim with some red herring about Moser 2022 that nobody mentioned, I'm not sure. Katzrockso (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly mention of Moser's study in other books is relevant per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Loki (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @LokiTheLiar I had forgotten about these recommendations from WPATH - you had asked about this before; [1] [2] -
    WPATH recommended that "autogynephilia" be removed from the DSM-V "As stated in our initial critique, there
    is no empirical evidence for the inclusion of the specifiers “with fetishism, autogynephilia and autoandrophilia”".
    The DSM is in general a mess of a document (see how many criticisms have been put out per year) and it's not clear that Wikipedia should be presented these speculations by Blanchard seriously. A small group of researchers (Hsu, Lawrence, Blanchard, etc) repeatedly publishing extremely low-quality speculations isn't evidence of much of anything. Katzrockso (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't remember asking about that. FWIW I think the thing we have in the article is fine: "The DSM says this but WPATH disagrees" seems like basically all we can do given the status of the DSM. Loki (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Autogynephilia" doesn't exist in the DSM-V either as a paraphilia/sexual orientation/diagnosis either, it's used a descriptive factor for a few disorders. Katzrockso (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I already suggested on the fringe noticeboard [3] that you cease the advocacy for removing sensitive topics on Wikipedia. Wikipedia discusses controversial ideas, if only to refute them. Multiple experienced editors agreed with me. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no suggestion that the article should be removed or that the theory shouldn't be discussed - I think having an article about this is a perfectly fine idea. We just shouldn't present it with WP:FALSEBALANCE. Please don't make WP:ASPERSIONS that I am trying to "remov[e] sensitive topics" from Wikipedia, when I was merely suggesting that including a WP:FRINGE source written by "independent researchers" with no relevant genetics experience is not warranted. Katzrockso (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote: "it's not clear that Wikipedia should be presented these speculations by Blanchard seriously. A small group of researchers (Hsu, Lawrence, Blanchard, etc) repeatedly publishing extremely low-quality speculations isn't evidence of much of anything" – which I don't think can be interpreted many other ways. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't go that far re: Veale
    Why not? The table in Veale et al 2008 is quite clear that both cis and trans women often report some level of autogynephilia, and the full quote is actually:

    Finally, our findings bring up an area in need of further research. The concept of sexual attraction to oneself as a woman (autogynephilia) has never been assessed among biological female participants previously. Although a number of biological female participants endorsed items on the Core Autogynephilia and Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy scales, no previous studies have reported biological females with such sexual attraction. Because of this, it is unlikely that these biological females actually experience sexual attraction to oneself as a woman in the way that Blanchard conceptualized it. However, the scales used in this research were not sufficient for examining this, so further research is needed to confirm it.

    Or in other words, this is a call for more research. That more research has since been done, and confirmed the unexpected finding. The Veale that did Veale et al 2008 is the same Veale that co-authored Serano and Veale 2022, so clearly she now believes the evidence is sufficient to conclude that cis women experience autogynephilia and Blanchard was wrong.
    As for "Bailey and Hsu 2022 claims to contradict them but, as is pointed out in Serano and Veale 2022, their data alsofound that cisgender women do experience some autogynephilia, and simply dismissed small scores without reasoning" – this is a subject of debate for researchers
    I disagree. I think when paper 1 says "we found X but we're ignoring it" and paper 2 points out "you found X but you're ignoring it", we can say "X is true".
    The debate is not whether Blanchard found that cis women experience autogynephilia. Everyone agrees with that: the debate is whether that finding is clinically significant, which we don't make any claim about. Loki (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem very intent on also turning this into a debate of technicalities, and doing your own analysis of sources. I'm not interested. The lead is back how you wanted it. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, I disagree these are technicalities: we have three sources that say the same thing, and that thing is, as pointed out by several of our sources, quite bad for the theory. That's no technicality, that's a crucial fact about the scientific status of the theory, especially since that specific criticism is very common in (the many) critical sources. In any other article about a scientific theory, "the theory makes claim X, but every study that has investigated claim X finds it to be false including studies done by the people behind the theory (yet they still make claim X by downplaying their own data)" would be extremely relevant. Loki (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I am relaying that a primary source critique (Serano and Veale, 2022) is not the 'final say' on Bailey & Hsu 2022. That just isn't how social science works, there is more room for debate and things are less settled. Bailey and Hsu have published their own response to Serano & Veale and suggest their interpretation is improper [4]. Serano & Veale did not offer additional response.
    Further, I think "crucial fact about the scientific status of the theory" is your rightful opinion as an editor, but it misses some things. Moser was actually more cautious, stating: "It is possible that autogynephilia among MTFs and natal women are different phenomena and the present inventories lack the sophistication to distinguish these differences". In addition, there is also Lawrence who offered a number of critiques of both Moser and Veale, although this source is not yet used in this section on the Wiki article. Clearly, this is something that will need further research and remains debated in WP:RS. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war

    Snokalok, this is a strange thing to get into an edit war with me over. And this edit summary is strange / bordering on casting aspersions. What has the Cass review got to do with this? You are failing to WP:AGF when another editor is attempting to bring the article in line with guidelines.

    As for "ONUS is on the implementer of the proposed change": yes, and as I indicated, it would make far more sense to use a secondary source for this. We don't use primary sources to make matter of fact statements in WP:VOICE. In the paragraphs that follow this sentence, it becomes clear that Moser, Veale and Serano argue cisgender women exhibit autogynephilia, while Lawrence, Blanchard, Bailey and Hsu argue the opposite. It isn't up to you, as an editor, to be making claims about which WP:RS conclusion is correct. This is clearly in academic dispute, and more research is needed.

    The sentence I removed, which you restored, is equivalent to citing the Bailey & Hsu (2022) paper and writing "however, other research challenged this methodology and shows that cisgender women do not experience autogynephilia" – which would be ridiculous in WP:VOICE. Everything should be attributed, as is done already in the paragraphs that follow. Hence my change was appropriate.

    Zenomonoz (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    this is a strange thing to get into an edit war with me over I mean, if you're reinstituting a change that keeps getting reverted, I think that that's firmly just you edit warring against the status quo.
    And this edit summary is strange / bordering on casting aspersion Because I said that Blanchardianism is an overwhelmingly defeated theory and that your proposed wording does not reflect this and instead leans towards framing the criticism of it as a minority viewpoint? If that's an aspersion, take me to ANI.
    it would make far more sense to use a secondary source for this. And I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing you rewording the lead blurb of that section in a way that makes the criticism sound like a minority viewpoint and not the viewpoint that won out so thoroughly that not even the report acknowledged by the entire global medical community as a hatchet job to justify stripping away gender affirming care touched it.
    This is clearly in academic dispute, and more research is needed. In a time where there has been an absolute deluge of papers and reviews exploring gender dysphoria and its causes, the last independent source (ie not written by J Michael Bailey) on this page to even come close to supporting Blanchard's theory was a 2016 review that just said that trans people of different sexual attractions have differences in neurology - which is pretty weak all told. The last *institutional* support was in a 2013 section of the DSM authored by Blanchard himself, which only attached the concept tangentially to transvestism. Meanwhile we have, in article, the global medorg overseeing trans care openly rebuking the concept. This is not in academic dispute, the global medical community has firmly decided, and even if they hadn't, again, I don't see why that justified wording the opening of the criticism section in such a way as to connote that criticism as a minority viewpoint. Snokalok (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you replied to my actual point about misuse of WP:VOICE and primary sources. Your large blurb at the end seems to misconstrue my point too. I am saying that it remains an academic debate as to whether or not cisgender women experience autogynephilia. I'm not interested in debating the validity of the typology because that isn't my job as an editor. It might well be wrong. I'm interested in reflecting the WP:RS.
    Zenomonoz (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It might well be wrong. I'm interested in reflecting the WP:RS. Right and I'm saying that RS as reflected in the article are firmly against the typology at this point.
    I don't think you replied to my actual point about misuse of WP:VOICE and primary sources. No, what I'm saying is that if you want to add secondary sources, feel free. I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying that going from "The concept of autogynephilia has been criticized" to "Critics of the autogynephilia concept" Is a substantial change of phrasing which weakens the criticism in a way that the article does not at all support. I don't think we can say or imply that scholarly debate is alive and well when our article effectively boils down to "The global trans healthcare org conclusively says no and even the originator of the theory himself didn't attach it to transsexuality when writing his section of the DSM." vs "The guy that very famously burned his career alive in the early 2000s pushing this theory is still trying to push this theory 20 years later". That's not active scholarly debate. That's one man crying out into the void. Snokalok (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguments of total debunking or whatever have already been addressed on this talk page before. E.g. see Crossroads comment here and the discussion around it (e.g. from WhatamIdoing). You are absolutely entitled to the opinion that Blanchard's typology is totally debunked, and I sympathise with your disagreement with it. The term 'proposed' in the lead was suitable because it remains debated. We aren't going to rehash this all over again. The discussion linked seems pertinent. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Right that's 2020, which is five years ago. I'm going to argue that the consensus from then should probably be updated.
    2. It doesn't remain debated. I don't see anyone in the article debating it. I see J Michael Bailey, one of the original proponents of the theory whose career - may I restate - died on this hill, continuing to push it. That's not scholarly debate. I'm not saying the theory is debunked, it's not my place as an editor to say that. I'm saying the field has abandoned it, as can be demonstrated by the fact that the only person still fighting for it is one of the original proponents whose career died for it 20 years ago, while every major org of any relevance either retracted support for it over a decade ago, or openly rebuked it. There is no debate. This is not my personal opinion, it's the field's. If I have to make an RFC, I will. Snokalok (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We should cut out that entire section which is full of responses back and forth - there is a line of research showing autogynephilia in cis women, we can cite multiple reliable secondary sources saying that autogynephilia has been observed in cisgender women, explain the research and then mention "some authors have criticized this research" and leave it there. No need to go "this person responded" "this person replied", which gives WP:UNDUE weight to commentaries and replies that have zero bearing on the secondary literature. Katzrockso (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page discussions have already debated this point before. E.g. per WP:Primary sources, we can use primary sources as long as we are careful with them in the ways outlined. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not these discussions happened, WP:CCC and I presented what I believe to be a compelling reason to modify the text in a way that prevents ridiculous summarizations of back and forth commentaries that have no significant impact. Katzrockso (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed all of the irrelevant back and forth. I would like to cut out most of the unnecessary detailed description of Moser's methodology too, but I will work on that tomorrow. If someone can find reliable independent sources that cover this dispute over Moser's study, we might be able to include criticism in a more balanced way. Katzrockso (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zenomonoz you seem to be fixated on classifying every source as primary or secondary and justifying inclusion or exclusion on that basis, but there is more one reason to include or exclude any material or source.
    How about we discuss whether or not adding every commentary back and forth is actually WP:DUE for inclusion, since that was the basis of my removal. Katzrockso (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Due? You wiped Anne Lawrence's paper which features critique Moser, and is published in a secondary source WP:RS journal. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every reliable source that gets published is due for inclusion. What encyclopedic value does this add for readers to understand the minutiae of a back and forth debate between researchers, largely consisting of commentaries and replies? These commentaries have seldom (if ever) been discussed in any context of autogynephilia in overview discussions of the concept and its criticism. See also WP:BALASP. Katzrockso (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are secondary sources covering the dispute over autogynephilia in cisgender women. Removing everything critiquing the idea as 'undue' is unjustified when there are secondary sources like the one I highlighted. There is nothing undue about a paper published in a high impact factor journal like European Psychologist. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. What if we add the Lawrence article you cited above back in but leave out the rest of the back and forth stuff, since that was my main concern (I already mentioned above the possibility of adding back criticism). Per WP:BALANCE, we should discuss Moser's study with somewhat more material and also mention the criticism of it. Katzrockso (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do actually think, as I read over this now, that we probably don't need to go over the finer points of the back and forth. That's not to say that it's not reliably sourced, just that I don't think it's DUE Snokalok (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Snokalok, did you actually read Katzrockso's comment? I'd appreciate if you don't revert me when a discussion is ongoing. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It kind of read as them offering a middle ground between the two of you and less as a statement of their ideal position. Snokalok (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, which doesn't mean you need to reinstate the original edit. If we are trimming, it's going to be trimmed to critique discussed in secondary sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay but Lawrence 2017 doesn't seem like a secondary source as I look through it, it just seems like a personal reply saying "Nuh uh" - closer to a blogpost than anything resembling a serious academic review. @Katzrockso I'd still be a proponent of its removal. Snokalok (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a review in a well respected secondary WP:RS journal. "Closer to a blog post"? Zenomonoz (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's one deeply involved (conflict of interest) person's take on the field and on the views of those she opposes, published in a respected journal. But that does not guarantee its reliability for anything but Anne Lawrence's views, nor its notability. Snokalok (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't how a conflict of interest works. Serano, Moser and Veale are also "deeply involved". Zenomonoz (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair evaluation, I was just trying to help build consensus and avoid edit warring by compromising, since my biggest concern with the section was the unencyclopedic description of each back and forth reply. We can discuss the merits of whether/how to include the Lawrence paper as well - it has been a while since I read her paper.
    My concern with listing it as a "secondary source" is that she is merely repeating criticisms she made in her commentary on the Moser paper - and her criticisms have received precisely NO WP:USEBYOTHERS, only self-citations amongst the proponents of Blanchard's typology. All of the secondary literature that discusses Moser's paper (book chapters, sections in psychology and sexology books, etc) do not mention Lawrence's criticism of the paper and just explain Moser's results as demonstrating autogynephilia in cis women. That's why I thought it wasn't the best choice to include these criticisms, but I don't have particularly strong convictions on this specific paper. Given that the theory as a whole has little empirical support or acceptance by practicing clinicians, including the published beliefs of a small sect of true believers on this criticism is a tougher question. Katzrockso (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you kindly remove it as you did previously? Snokalok (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have no problem removing it, I just don't want to spark an edit war, so if we agree that there is a consensus to remove it here, I have no problem removing it again. Katzrockso (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in favor of its removal, and you appear to be generally in that direction as well. Whether that is consensus is not mine to say, but I would say that I am in favor and you seem to be as well. Snokalok (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will remove it since I think we have a weak consensus in favor of removal, if it is removed again, we can proceed with further dispute resolution processes. Katzrockso (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, while I'm not necessarily attached to it (I think more of this article is cited to proponents than should be already), I do think that the quick attributed mention we had of Lawrence's opinion is probably DUE. Loki (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is that? If we decide that it is DUE, it needs to be worded in a way that doesn't suggest that her belief is a prominent part of the literature. For example, in Economic effects of immigration, we cite Borjas' criticisms of the Mariel boat lift research only by mentioning "However, the six-month period of this migration was too brief for most firms or individuals to leave Miami" instead of his loquacious assertions about the event study. Katzrockso (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're going to need to revert your removal. There was no consensus for it. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe there was consensus for removal, you are more than welcome to revert me and we can move to a more formal dispute resolution process. Katzrockso (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I also would not like to be counted as contributing to any consensus against removal. My opinions here are not strong. Loki (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the way we had it suggested her belief is a prominent part of the literature. It was already attributed, and fairly short. Loki (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @LokiTheLiar I'd much rather cite the paper that Zenomonoz pointed out than the back and forth commentary between Moser and Lawrence - I believe replies/commentaries on papers are very rarely warranted for inclusion on Wikipedia unless those commentaries/replies are taken by the academic community (as evaluated by WP:USEBYOTHERS) to establish the original study/piece of research as significantly flawed in some manner. This is in part because replies/commentaries are often subject to a significantly lower standard of peer review, if subject to peer review at all. Indeed, Lawrence's piece is a "letter to the editor", which are rarely if ever peer reviewed (and are published at the discretion of the editor). I think there needs to be a strong countervailing reason to prefer these commentaries over the peer reviewed article that was there before. Katzrockso (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I actually like the two sentence summary Loki put back in Snokalok (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Structure

    The structure of this article is a mess - does anyone have ideas on how to organize the sections in a better way? Maybe some of the the sections under "autogynephilia" should be dispersed into other sections, but I'm not exactly sure what sections we should have. I think Blanchard's transsexualism typology#Inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders should be under history, for instance. Katzrockso (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blanchard,_Bailey,_and_Lawrence_theory