Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen

message: Has anyone read Charles Moser's paper claiming that autogynephilia occurs in women? "To test the possibility that natal women also experience autogynephilia, an Autogynephilia Scale for Women (ASW) was created from items used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic in other studies. A questionnaire that included the ASW was distributed to a sample of 51 professional women employed at an urban hospital; 29 completed questionnaires were returned for analysis. By the common definition of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93% of the respondents would be classified as autogynephilic. " 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19591032
If this is true does this not completely discredit Blanchard and Bailey? 75.84.159.117 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The unregistered user has also asked the same question at Talk:Feminine_essence_concept_of_transsexuality#Autogynephilia_in_Women..  Perhaps one location is sufficient.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The question was valid , if it is peer reviewed should it not be included in the controversy section on the book. The entire premise of this theory was that  having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman was unique only to these MTF's.  No study was ever done on  women, men or FTM's to this point. 93% of the regular  women being tested coming out autogynephilic is an amazing blow against the entire theory and needs to be included. This information is from 2011, why is it not included?76.93.64.21 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the point stands as a counter point to the books conclusions. A new section should be created citing  Moser's published  article demonstrating the alleged"  affliction occurs in women. Are there any disagreements with this ? 24.24.142.155 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autogynephilia in Women. 

message: There are two citations used a total of 11 times. One of the citations is to the "Archives of Sexual Behavior," which looks pretty plainly like a junk journal to me (editorial board full of people promoting a fringe theory). I don't think there will be consensus for removing the reference entirely. Still, I think this article is clearly relying too heavily on Dreger's defense of the work. Mentions should be trimmed, and better sources should be used where possible. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Archives of Sexual Behavior isn't junk, it actually has a quite good impact factor. Regarding the citation itself, most of the sentences where Dreger is cited seem to be uncontroversial and on the "Negative reactions" section. If you insist though, I guess we could cite her sources instead. Antiok 1pie (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Agreed that Alice Dreger should not be used too much, to follow WP:DUE. In some cases it depends on what type of statement is being made. If the statements are uncontroversial statements of fact, that is one thing. But if we are heavily relying on Dreger to frame the narrative, that would represent undue weight. Hist9600 (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasis on Alice Dreger