Talk:Transsexual/Archive 5

message: Smartgirl62 has brought up some excellent points about splitting the main article into smaller ones. It is getting too long right now.
The etiology section (causes of transsexualism) is good and could be split into a sub-article with summary style in the main article. It appears we also need an article on transsexual taxonomies that have been proposed over the years. I recommend we take a minute to think about larger issues of organization, to save a little effort revising later.
Smartgirl just started an article on the BBL theory, but I believe we should step back for a minute and think about the name of the article. "BBL theory" is inaccurate for a few reasons. First, it is a behavioral model, not a theory. Second, it is in apposition to models of gender identity. It categorizes people by sexual orientation: homosexuality or paraphilia. It also suggests this is their "motivation" for transition. While BBL is a good shorthand for this, there are others who have promulgated this model, including Kurt Freund and Ken Zucker at the Clarke Institute.
In addition to behavioral models which classify observed phenomena, we need to organize causation hypotheses to explain observed phenomena. While they interact, some taxonomies make no direct claims regarding causation.
The concepts can broadly be classified in the following categories:
Heredity 
:Nature/genes
Environment
:Prenatal factors
:Social factors
Supernatural
:Possession
:Divine gift/curse
Or in the case of medicalized models, in terms of disability/disease:
:Psychosexual pathology (BBL etc)
:Psychopathology (GID  etc)
:Pathology (“birth defect” etc)
Some of the above is first blush thinking on organization, but it might help demonstrate patterns more clearly to contextualize and structure things a bit. Much of the controversy is about differential diagnosis and the ramifications of those. A lot of the “two-type” stuff like homosexual/autogynephile is related to the Benjamin Scale, which should be acknowledged as an influence in the primary/true/classic vs. secondary/pseudo/non-classic debate. Most of the debate is about who is a “real transsexual” (to use Anne Lawrence’s defensive self-description) and who is not. Lawrence’s work can be seen as a power move within an established medicalized hierarchy. 
It’s clear to everyone that there are a wide range of identities and expressions currently described as “transsexual,” but the debate centers on how many (if any) subsets exist within that group, and where the threshold for inclusion lies. Some (myself included) are beginning to ask if the term is even worth defending or saving in the long run, since it seems to have been appropriated by many who see it as more socially acceptable than the way the had been labeled previously. 
We also need to be clear that these taxonomies have only been applied to MTF trans people, because BBL & co. think FTMs are a monolithic group for some reason, or that "paraphilia" does not occur in "females" (as they seem to see FTMs).
Finally the article needs to lay out some larger issues: does “transsexual” describe a trait? A behavior? A desire? A medical procedure? A political identity? A disease? All have been proposed, but I don’t think there is any consensus on even this most basic issue. 
We might also think about a template and a series of articles like the box at the top of Sexual orientation.
Thanks to Smartgirl62 for bringing up some important issues about the direction of this series of articles! Jokestress 00:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizing subsections 

message: Like Martine Rothblatt, important stuff. Jedpressgrove 23:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See List of transgendered people. Rebecca 23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should create a list of famous transexual 

message: Shouldn't RHPC be mentioned somewhere in how it's depicted in media? Just a thought... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEasterBunny (talk • contribs) 
* I fail to see the relevance to transsexualism (apart from the reference in 'that' song! :) - Alison✍ 02:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rocky Horror Picture Show]] 

message: Well I have more free time for at least the next month so I can figure this out.  I will be taking another crack at the photo montage.  I will use images taken from wikipedia articles that are either public domain or "fair use".  I figure it is fair use to use a picture here under the fair use rule because I looked up the issue on the website of the US copy wright office.  US copy wright office:Fair use.  The first use it describes as fair use is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,"  This sounds to me like it is taylor made for a situation like this.  I will use images from many of the same wikipedia articles I got pictures from before except ones that have been explicitly objected to already.  Since these pictures have been found to be of the community standard of wikipedia I really can see no valid reason to object to them now.--Hfarmer 18:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Montage Take Two

message: if no one objects.--Hfarmer 02:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do, and will revert it instantly should it be added. Rebecca 05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok Rebecca what I'm going to do is insert the picture and perhaps seeing it in context will soften you.--Hfarmer 11:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I will add the latest picture

message: Could someone block this guy!  I spent the past hour reverting his vandalism on this page...
Marrilpet 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User 147.160.181.8 

message: I've replaced the paragraphs on the transsexual versus transgender issue, as the previous version seemed to have an unclear understanding of why transsexuals sometimes object to the broader term and implies it's some kind of twisted elitism. In my experience, this is not the case. --JaceCady 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transsexual vs. Transgender 

message: I'm looking at the intro and thinking that inserting a heading such as 'Gender disphoria' between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs might be in order, as the intro looks a little long as is. --AliceJMarkham 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, or we could move some of it to later in the article and just shorten up the intro?NickGorton 16:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a better option. I wasn't really thrilled with my idea, I just thought that it might be a quick way to shorten the intro down. --AliceJMarkham 02:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split intro?

message: 1) 'Disease' is not necessarily obviously derogatory, so I left it at perversion and sin which are.
2) Added information about the historical context of the split in the TG community along the lines of transsexual vs everyone else.
3) Lynn Conway's data suffers a great deal of problems. Its GIGO, but then even after the GI, she jiggers with the numbers in wholly unacceptable ways... Not the least of which is that in the article she posted on the web, she admits its 'not scientific' (despite the fact that she styles it as a scientific paper and not surprisingly it is taken by many as one - here being a case in point.) I think she said something like it was 'investigative journalism.' I would have other ways to describe it.... starting with pseudoscience: 'information that has the appearance of science but does not follow the scientific method, usually lacking peer review and repetition of observations by independent researchers'. Given that, I think using the much more reliable source would be best.NickGorton 16:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, excellent. I was hoping someone would have some citable information; I'm just working off of personal knowledge. I did, however, take the liberty of editing out "and many other people that transgress gender norms", since it's redundant to add an "etcetera" item to the list when the sentence already notes transgender to be a broad umbrella term. I think it flows a little better that way. --JaceCady 02:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This highlights a broader issue with this article and related topics on Wikipedia - the lack of reliable sources, and the use of some profoundly dodgy ones. I was doing a major piece of coursework some time ago and attempted to use these pages to put me in touch with some reliable statistics, and found it basically useless. Moreover, I found things like major claims being cited to a study of ten(!) people. This article could really do with someone going over with a fine-tooth comb and citing stuff. Rebecca 03:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed it does. I'm switching majors from biology to psychology at the moment, so hopefully I'll have some citable information in the near future; at the moment, I don't have access to a good academic library since I'm also transferring between colleges. --JaceCady 15:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We may also wish to cite WPATH Standards of Care rev 6 referring to the Dutch stats: "The most recent prevalence information from the Netherlands for the transsexual end of the gender identity disorder spectrum is 1 in 11,900 [assigned] males and 1 in 30,400 [assigned] females." Jokestress 08:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More recent edits 

message: This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal.  This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.
A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned.  This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts.  Please be alert for suspicious activity.  Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. DurovaCharge! 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community ban of the [[Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Joan_of_Arc_vandal|Joan of Arc vandal]] 

message: Hi everyone, I have to say that this article is great, i never expected so much information on this. But i want to ask something that i didn´t understand on this article.
What is it necessary to do for the legal sex change?
and HAppy 2007 for everyone on wikipedia, and for all the white & nerdies, jeje, i luv that song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.77.13.14 (talk • contribs) 
* Check out Legal aspects of transsexualism - Alison✍ 23:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would suggest that you checkout the various online webforums.  Such as Beginninglife.com, Genderpeace.com trueselves.com.  These all have different perspectives and are good sources of information and support.  To be frank I have to warn you if you are below a certain age, say 30, you will encounter some form of hostility or the other on BL.  If you are above the age that is considered genX you will be excluded from trueselves.  Genderpeace has allot of history and good archives.  At the very least you will get in contact with another mexican who has gone through it and can help you.  I hope this is useful to you. --Hfarmer 03:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the sex change