Talk:Androphilia and gynephilia

message: Gynephilia is philologically inconsequent, [...]; while gynophilia is formed in violation of Greek word formation rules, [...]
Picky, picky. It's no worse than "television". Shouldn't an Etymology section just say what the etymology is rather than criticising it? David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I don't know if this article should mention it, or how the book should be entered into wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.255.214.83 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will remove. Crossroads -talk- 17:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Androphilia: A Manifesto by Jack Malebranche 

message: This is a minor point, but the sentence, "The third common term that describes sexual orientation, bisexuality, makes no claim about the subject's sex or gender identity," seems out of place in the Sex and/or Gender section, as there are actually many non-normative terms to describe sexuality, and this section really concerns itself more with the reason why gynephilia and androphilia are sometimes preferred.  It might be appropriate to edit the sentence so the language is less POV--perhaps "other common terms that describe...including bisexual and (queer? other suggestions?), make no implication about the subject's own sexual and gender identity and are broader in terms of the objects of one's desire.  (I'm very open to revising that wording.)  I still feel, however, that sexual orientations other than gynephilia and androphilia really fall beyond the scope of the article. Locho269 00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The third sexuality? 

message: I propose merging any usable content from:
*Transmen attracted to men
*Transmen attracted to women
*Transwomen attracted to men
*Transwomen attracted to women
Into this article, the rest can be sent to articles concerning transmen and transwomen if it's not already there. These are splitting gender hairs and conflating social and gender identities. The articles all seem to mirror information we already have and justifies a sexual identity onto a gender identity that casually implies most or all transmen are this or that, this may also be reaching into original research concerns. It causes more problems then simply explaining what Gynophilia and androphilia are and linking to existing articles about transmen and transwomen that appropriately details history. In any case it would be wisest to merge and clean-up content at Gynephilia and androphilia.  -- Banjeboi 03:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorse this comment. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with Jokestress on this. I believe that the articles are too specific and need to be merged somewhere, and transgender sexuality is a better place than here. If they grow big enough, there might be justification for splitting them out later, but keeping them in one article for now should result in a better quality article. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging to transexual sexuality definitly sounds like the best suggestion so far. Having every combination of gender & sexual preference is overboard and does a disservice to curious readers. Having all the info on one page is better in every way.YobMod 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with redirecting the goal article to transgender sexuality.  -- Banjeboi 13:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if that is totally appropriate, since those articles are not just about sexuality. But I will not object to this informaiton being there.  But I am not sure it is the absolute best option.  Perhaps a rename of the article transgender sexuality to something else to reflect this change? --Hfarmer (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm missing something, we do consider transmen and transwomen within the umbrella transgender? And these article do refer to attraction as their main purpose. Any other content can be merged to other articles as appropriate so we don't lose anything.  -- Banjeboi 20:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The logic we used in specifying attractions was that by way of their attractions different and distinct issues arise. This is information that is IMO too detailed for the articles "transsexual" and "transgender" which are huge as they are. As for transman and transwoman being transgender.... Well, in my experience the term transwoman was only applied to transsexual women, not CD's, DQ's etc.  People who though they may dress as a woman occasionally, will punch you in the mouth if you call them a transwoman. IMHO the word in front of these should always have been transsexual not transgender.  Moving them was not discussed very much at all.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those issues can be clarified at the article level. In the lede, for instance, it's perfectly reasonable to clarify ____ term is often broadened to include x, y and z.  -- Banjeboi 13:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Indeed, and that's why we already have Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies and why most of the editors working on trans articles are members of that project. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Indeed" :-/ Perhaps that explains why this is just a big steaming mess.  Perhaps more focused attention is needed to the specifics of transgenderism which is really a misnomer since there is no single unifiying ism there.  There are a bunch of social, psycholocial, or physiological phenomena which lead to notable gender variance.  Where as every letter in LGB more or less repersents one idea T means many many things. Understand what I am saying?--Hfarmer (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I certainly do but disagree that every letter in LGB more or less repersents one idea, they really don't. Even within a small network of lesbians, for instance you will find widely varying concepts of definition, identity and culture. The one constant in LGBTI cultures is that there really is no one constant.  -- Banjeboi 12:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The differences between a CD and DQ and a TS are way more significant than those between say... a leatherman, and a bottom.  CD's DQ's and TS's are totally different species, while lipstick lesbians, and radfem stone butch lesbians are more like varieties of one species.  :-/ maybe that's not the best analogy.  But do you get my drift?  To be a transsexual is to live every moment in the gender opposite to that role which was assigned at birth.  A transsexual like me is a transwoman even if naked as a j-bird, a CD or a DQ not so.  Understand? --Hfarmer (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't share this view but understand what you are saying. Labels are not so clear cut and people do change, and change again. This is, in part, why self-identification is important to our articles.  -- Banjeboi 01:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: CDs, DQs and TSes are all at different places on the transgender continuum that includes full-time CDs, non-op TSes, de-transitioned TSes, borderline personality disorder pseudo-TSes, etc. There are too many variations along the scale to really be able to define an arbitrary point as the boundary between "us" and "them", and I've never seen any situation where doing so is productive except for some anti-TG churches, where a division makes it easier to ignore the post-op TSes and attack all other TS TG people. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes  but differnt points on a spectrum is enough difference to warrant separate articles...and once enough separate articles exist, a separate project (at least defacto) comes into being.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, if we had unlimited interested editors this wouldn't be an issue but generally we don't. Many good ideas for Wikiprojects don't take flight because they simply aren't sustainable.  -- Banjeboi 03:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi Merge discussion 

message: Here is what I think is needed to make some sense of this whole mess.  A unified project or just a less formal effort to reorganize the transsexual/transgender articles.  . i.e. The article transgender needs to be trimmed and sub articles spun off of it. One of these will be transsexuality.  Then this information should be put in the proper sub articles.  i.e. I am sure one about legal concerns exist. Some of this information can go there.  I am not sure if a unified overview of transgender/transsexual history is on here, the closest is I think transsexual/transgender in non-western cultures.  That one could be repurposed to cover transgender/transsexual history across the board, with subarticles. Then there are of course the always contentious articles which deal with the way psychologist/sexologist have treated T's, their theories etc.... eitology of transsexualism get's close to being an umbrella for all of that but not quite. 
Let's face it this discussion really is about overall organizeation of the information about transsexual/transgender issues.  Right now there is none.  There are patches that are well organized and well written here and there, but overall it's a mess of articles that talk right past eachother.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and that's why we already have Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies and why most of the editors working on trans articles are members of that project. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Indeed" :-/ Perhaps that explains why this is just a big steaming mess.  Perhaps more focused attention is needed to the specifics of transgenderism which is really a misnomer since there is no single unifiying ism there.  There are a bunch of social, psycholocial, or physiological phenomena which lead to notable gender variance.  Where as every letter in LGB more or less repersents one idea T means many many things. Understand what I am saying?--Hfarmer (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I certainly do but disagree that every letter in LGB more or less repersents one idea, they really don't. Even within a small network of lesbians, for instance you will find widely varying concepts of definition, identity and culture. The one constant in LGBTI cultures is that there really is no one constant.  -- Banjeboi 12:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The differences between a CD and DQ and a TS are way more significant than those between say... a leatherman, and a bottom.  CD's DQ's and TS's are totally different species, while lipstick lesbians, and radfem stone butch lesbians are more like varieties of one species.  :-/ maybe that's not the best analogy.  But do you get my drift?  To be a transsexual is to live every moment in the gender opposite to that role which was assigned at birth.  A transsexual like me is a transwoman even if naked as a j-bird, a CD or a DQ not so.  Understand? --Hfarmer (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't share this view but understand what you are saying. Labels are not so clear cut and people do change, and change again. This is, in part, why self-identification is important to our articles.  -- Banjeboi 01:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: CDs, DQs and TSes are all at different places on the transgender continuum that includes full-time CDs, non-op TSes, de-transitioned TSes, borderline personality disorder pseudo-TSes, etc. There are too many variations along the scale to really be able to define an arbitrary point as the boundary between "us" and "them", and I've never seen any situation where doing so is productive except for some anti-TG churches, where a division makes it easier to ignore the post-op TSes and attack all other TS TG people. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes  but differnt points on a spectrum is enough difference to warrant separate articles...and once enough separate articles exist, a separate project (at least defacto) comes into being.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, if we had unlimited interested editors this wouldn't be an issue but generally we don't. Many good ideas for Wikiprojects don't take flight because they simply aren't sustainable.  -- Banjeboi 03:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A Transsexual/transgender project

message: "Gynephilia" and "androphilia" are two different terms. Eech of them has its own meaning, its own history, its own context. Its no practical to combine both of them in a conjoint article. Each of those two items is important enough for a separated article. --ŠJů (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Disregard, I have changed my mind, they are best presented together. Kyle112 (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Split ftw.24.164.65.65 (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split request 

message: Philogyny, which is a stub article, should probably be merged into this one - it apparently means 'fondness, love, or admiration' towards women rather than strictly sexual attraction, but it's a similar enough topic that I don't think it needs a separate page. (Note that 'philogyny' and 'gynophilia' are just the same Greek words in a different order.) Robofish (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose; these are different concepts. The ones described here seem to be terms coined in the 20th century for taxonomy (orthogonal to the homo/hetero distinction), or in contrast to pedophilia. Philogyny is a concept in classical thought. Conflating them would be anachronistic. Qwertyus (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Qwertyus is correct. Jokestress (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philogyny 

message: Can this article be renamed to Ambiphilia, androphilia, and gynephilia? This article aims to use behavioral science concepts to describe sexual orientation in non-bias/non-gender binary terms. Yet the title contradicts itself with only 2 types of -philias. --71.160.93.144 (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Would you please give your reasoning? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel we can consider it, but ambiphilia/ambiphilic is more commonly used in chemistry. Furthermore, ambiphilic as a term still assumes a binary, ambi- meaning "both" as in ambidextrous and what-not. I recommend ambiphilic as a standalone about the use in chemistry, with a hatnote saying for the use in behavioral science, see androphilia and gynephilia. Thoughts? Jokestress (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like it would serve the reader better. Insomesia (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: Looking through this section, it is not only very confusing for readers, but so much of the information is: (1) not presented in proper historical context, (2) flatly outdated, sometimes 30+ years out of date, (3) promoting terms that are extremely archaic and no longer in common use. I'm not sure exactly why this section is so outdated and jumbled, but it really needs significant cleanup to be readable. Note also that the article for homosexual transsexual was merged into Blanchard's transsexualism typology, because it's an outdated term used only within the context of that typology. That typology, meanwhile, has not received mainstream acceptance since it was proposed in the 1980s. Hist9600 (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated section: Gender identity and expression