Talk:Harry Benjamin Syndrome

Forgive my lack of eloquence, I am not good at saying things eloquently. Instead, please look at the meaning of my words only.

This article should not be a redirect, as HBS is not transsexuality. Transsexuality is an unrelated term and separate from HBS. The European nation as a whole recognizes HBS as the official medical birth defect it is, and the US is leaning that way as well, the biggest thing stopping it from being ratified is the insurance companies, and we all know that their only motivation is profit.

All the information I have put forth is available on many sites, a quick google will show my words to be true: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=harry+benjamin+syndrome Jaqie Fox 09:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Try a PubMed search instead: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez Although there are numerous websites advocating the existence of this condition, the term does not appear to be used anywhere in the medical literature. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy, or a platform for bringing new medical terms into existence. In the absence of any citations from the medical literature, I've redirected the article to Harry Benjamin. -- Karada 08:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Other than to make an as yet unaccepted claim for transsexuality as a physically sourced intersex condition, one of the main psychosocial uses of the term seems to be to a desire of HBS advocates to distinguish themselves (primarily straight gender normative middle class transwomen) from other transgendered people and the greater GLBT community, hence the distress over redirects to transsexuality or inclusion under the GLBT listing.

However, it's still just another term for transsexuality, the wikipedia entry on transsexuality includes a mention of HBS as an alternative term, and there is no acceptance of the term in medical or psychological circles and only marginal acceptance of the term within the transgendered community. It should redirect. --Kathygnome (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Who put this in the LGBT section?

This is a medical condition which has nothing to do with homosexuality nor transgenderism. Placing HBS under LGBT is just a way to harass and abuse persons suffering this medical condition. HBS has never been a part of the LGBT, and it never will be. This is a lie designed to harm the HBS persons and steal their place in mainstream society.--74.124.187.76 (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature SAS

Problem: The explanation of why Sex affirmation surgery (SAS) is preferred over genital reconstruction surgery (GRS) has been edited out. SAS is not a term understood my most readers and there is no paragraph explaining what SAS means and why it is preferred. If SAS is going to be used it requires such an explanation. I propose inserting one if there are no objections. JoanneProctor 19 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneProctor (talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nominated as POV

The article seems to be written by people believing in HBS and is not a neutral description of the topic. --84.153.114.24 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This article sounds skewed. I studied sex and gender in college and never heard of it before. What do the reputable medical organizations such as the APA and AMA have to say about this supposed syndrome? Furthermore the tone of the article sounds like propaganda.VatoFirme (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to be written by people believing in HBS and is not a neutral description of the topic. --84.153.114.24 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what both your problems are. At least two of the authors have HBS. Take a look at the feminine Essence pages. They have been written by people who believe in autogenephilia and homosexual transsexuals.

1. Autogynephilia is a legitimate theory and information on it deserves to be placed on Wikipedia, even though most people reject it.

2. If UTC and Vatofirme believes the page is imbalanced they are able to edit it. Just as I, for example, am free to go and edit discussions on the transgender pages. I don't because I believe that is a legitimate presentation of transgender theory.

UTC and Votafirme may not like the emergence of HBS. But not liking is hardly evidence of other people's imbalance. Nor is it good reason why other people should be denied information on it.

JoanneProctor - 28 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneProctor (talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually JoanneProctor, you yourself just admitted what the problem is: if most people reject a theory then it can hardly be presented as scientifically valid. But there are several very presumptuous and/or contentious claims about human biology in this article that are presented as if they are given facts. At this point I am not convinced HBS is anything other than a fringe social/political movement, and the defensive remarks from people who seem desperate to distance themselves from LGBT issues (EDIT: and most likely the social stigma associated with LGBT people) sure aren't helping to convince me otherwise.

I am not a transgender person and I don't have any interest in getting caught up in this social controversy. I am only interested in facts and reliable information about human sexuality. I have every intention of revisiting this article and rewriting it, and I will be careful to include credible scientific perspectives from reputable sources, as well as to highlight the social controversy surrounding this terminology.VatoFirme (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Before you start I hope you read the current page properly. When you do you will find that HBS is not another term for transsexualism per se. Nor is it a sexuality issue. It is quite specific to one particular condition. If you do read it you will find two examples of situations were individuals have feminizing genital reconstruction for reasons totally unrelated to HBS. Both these cases are sexuality issues. Hopefully you will recognize the difference.

I can't believe you actually wrote this, Vatofirme: "if most people reject a theory then it can hardly be presented as scientifically valid."

Are you actually arguing that if theory A has more adherents than theory B, then theory A must be more correct? Actually a theory can be scientifically valid and still be rejected because it can never be fully proven. I give you evolution as an example. Just because a lot of people believe a theory is correct, doesn't make it so. I give you the flat earth as an example. I give you 2,500 years of humoral medicine as another.

I give you 60 years of the identity paradigm being used to vindicate the infliction of surgical modifications of intersex babies genitalia, without a shred of evidence that it is beneficial, as a third. A practice adopted by doctors, it should be noted.

Remember them? The reputable professionals, represented by the APA and the AMA, that were so very right when it came to 'fixing' gay males. Who took years of convincing before they stopped sticking electrodes on men's willies, and giving them electric shocks to try and stop them from being sexually attracted to other men.

What I am reading here is a GLBT true believer threatening a police action to make sure that everybody goes into their proper boxes according to his lights, whether they like it or not. I also challenge you to show one single example on the public page, where LGBT has been disparaged.

I look forward to editing your edits. joanneProctor 28 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneProctor (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of ensuring that visitors to this page can access all the examples mentioned on this page I have restored and clarified the 'mangina' link. I can see no legitimate reason why this link was removed. It is a valid illustration of this phenomenon, and it should be available so visitors can see these different motivations and make up their minds for themselves.

If there are problems with this action I suggest that Wikipedia editors examine the appropriateness of the link. JoanneProctor 28 April 2009

A search on googlescholar, which searches academic databases, most of them private journal databases, turns up zero hits for "Harry Benjamin Syndrome." We could comment or speculate on the supporters of the terminology and their reasons for wishing to distinguish themselves from other transsexual people, but this isn't the place. This is an encyclopedia of facts based on research. "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is not an accepted term in medical or psych circles. It does not appear in scientific literature. It is not an accepted diagnosis under medical or psych standards. The article should redirect to transsexuality.--Kathygnome (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article should not be redirected to transsexuality because it keeps not relationship with it. Harry Benjamin's Syndrome is an intersexual medical condition recognized as such by prominent doctors who uses this terminology as Dr. Maldonado or Dr. Lutzky in Argentina, or Dr. Galante and others in Europe. These doctors had published medical articles using this terminology, see the HBS International site. International mass media, including BBC News, uses or used at some moment this terminology when referring to cases of primary transsexualism - modern Harry Benjamin's Syndrome. However it should not be confused transgenderism and transsexuality with Primary Transsexualism, which is a form of Intersexualism, a biological inborn condition (Gooren, Diamond, Kruijver, Playdon, Reiner, Swaab, Walker, Cohen-Kettenis, Connolly, Sutter, Jones et al. 2002-08). CharlotteGoiar (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)CharlotteGoiar

Yes, those authors have done work that implies that transsexuality has a biological component, but I'm unaware of them using the term HBS. Could anyone provide a citation for a single actual peer reviewed journal article that references the term and differentiates it from transsexuality? A full citation? --Kathygnome (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, We have policy guidelines on these matters...

From the boogey woman.  :-) All of the above scuttlebutt boils down to one thing. Notability, and wikipedia's agreed upon standards for inclusion in wikipedia. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources The first one says...

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

WP:RS says....

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Look at this article, it's a hot mess. There is not one reliable source, not a peer reviewed paper, not a new article, nothing but blogs and personal websites to back it up. What sources that are here which are presented as backing up HBS are in fact unrelated and deal with the idea that transsexuals have a brain sex which is not compatible with their physical sex. Wikipedia already has a great article dealing with that idea...Brain Sex. That article cites secondary sources which directly support what is there. Whereas what is engaed in here is non neutral violates WP:NPOV and is a synthesis of other data which is both Original research and synthesis which are NOT allowed on Wikipedia WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH. These all add up to reasons to propose this article for deletion. Instead I am going to refrain from that and give an unspecified amount of time for those who want this article to be here to find acceptable reliable secondary sources which can back up the claims made in the article. ( Even though I am really confident that they don't exist. As far as I know this idea is the property of a few vocal netizens with no scientific backing not even by some small group of researchers...Surprise me.)--Hfarmer (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as you know, your *opinion* has no greater standing than anyone else's, yes? "We" in your proclamation, meaning you of course, are not wikipedia and it would behoove you to put your ego in check once in awhile. Hfarmer, you have been quite a bully on other pages, but I hope you change your behavior here. It is not for you to act in the role of judge and jury on every subject where you think have a personal investment.

As to the idea that this isn't "science" in certain people's opinions, that isn't really the point. There is nothing to "believe in". This can certainly be described as political action by a group of people. This is single-issue advocacy: People born with a condition are trying to get the medical community and government to acknowledge and treat a problem, much like others have done in the past. This is about medical and legal lobbying, and any connection to the GLBT is simply because elements within *that* political group are trying to stop efforts at talking to the medical community and government. That's all. The GLBT activists do not get to own other people or their ideas, nor is it for them to silence those whom they think are dangerous. Wiki cannot be an organ for a political party, no matter how well-intentioned certain people think they are. Wiki is not a place to advertise per se, but it is not a place for some to decide what others should ignore either. Wiki should not be used as a weapon against one's political enemies, as has been threatened by several people here so far.

In fact the whole "Transgender" construct, and much of the GLBT itself, is a purely theoretical idea cum political agenda, isn't it? And yet we devote page after page on wikipedia to it, often without opposition or criticism of any kind. We even give plenty of space for the salesmanship of people like James Cantor, who has a monetary stake in the outcome of things he edits on. And yes, some of us are quite aware of the games being played with "credible sources" in order to establish notability for the "science" behind that "homosexual transsexual" monkey business.

If this page needs to be written to reflect that this is an advocacy position by people with a medical condition, then that's how it will be. We can discuss how to write the lead, and have a section on the proof they cite, the work done by the activists so far, and so on. But for you and others to come strolling in here brazenly making demands is beyond the pale. Certain people think they can run roughshod over pages with no regard for others, or indeed Wiki itself. I have to wonder how people like you and James manage to get away with the things that you do. Ariablue (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. I am not sure if you are new here but let me inform you of some of our other policies. Wikipedia has user conduct policies which dictates that all editors must Assume good faithWP:AGF, and refrain from personal attacksWP:NPA. Calling me a bully for pointing out wikipedia's policies would be doing both of those things.

As for your substantive points...

• You say "As to the idea that this isn't "science" in certain people's opinions, that isn't really the point. There is nothing to "believe in". This can certainly be described as political action by a group of people."...
  • Wikipedia policies say Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that editors need to find reliable secondary sources which back up what you write. This has been interpreted so strictly that it is almost only acceptable to quote or reasonably paraphrase these sources. As for medicine related points of fact there is an even stricter guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) which would be in effect here. The only sources that could look like they fit these policies do not actually mention HBS anywhere in them...unless you are willing to concede that HBS is a synonym for transsexuality.
• You say "In fact the whole "Transgender" construct, and much of the GLBT itself, is a purely theoretical idea cum political agenda, isn't it?"
• Transgender unlike HBS is used in many many many many reliable second and third party sources and is a widely accepted term in the english lexicon for all gender transgressive persons. The associated press's style manual has rules that dictate how transgender persons are to be reported on. HBS has yet to be used in such a way that does not mean it can't be in the future. However Wikipedia policy WP:CRYSTAL says that we can't have wikipedia go ahead of events. Wikipedia cannot make something noteable, that has to happen organically in the wild.
• yousay "If this page needs to be written to reflect that this is an advocacy position by people with a medical condition, then that's how it will be."

Wikipedia has policy to deal with people who want to dicate how this or that will be on an article. WP:OWN you do not own wikipedia. It is owned by the wikimedia foundation. The wikimedia foundation basically is the corporate front for the community of people who edit wikipedia and who came up will all the policies I have mentioned. Enforcement of those policies is not violation of WP:OWN. However insulting people and then trying to dictate to them is. Please consider what I have written above. To satisfy wikipedia policy for keeping this article you need to...

1. Satisfy the noteability criterion:Find one or two WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, sources such as peer reviewed research papers, news paper articles, or simmilar publications which use the term "Harry Benjamin Syndrome".
2. Use those reliable sources to rewrite this article in compliance with WP:NOR,WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV. To be safe you should only quote or paraphrase. Write the body first, then write the lead after you wrote the body to reflect the contents of the body.

If this article cannot be written to satisfy the notability criterion, and if it is written in a way that is pure synthesis, original research, and not neutral that could get it deleted. If it was just NPOV or just synth or a little bit of OR that would be ok. As this article is now it is purely those things, and fails the notability criterion.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with this page being deleted. I think that the person who created the original entry was ill advised. HBS is a grassroots movement that will be best left to develop organically. Furthermore I can see better uses for this page, which the public need not be prevented from reading merely because it is not on Wikipedia.joanneproctor 14 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneProctor (talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. As soon as this movement has gained some more mainstream currency and notability an encyclopedia article will be merited. Until then the message those who like HBS want to put out can be broadcast unfiltered on their own websites. Here on WP there are so many rules about what you can and cannot do, those rules, not personal feelings are what guide all our actions.--Hfarmer (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For you to say that is the height of hypocrisy. I've watched you WP:OWN pages for your personal agenda for quite some time. But it seems Wiki has no standards, because people let you continue on your rampage. You act pompously and have no regard for other editors, and I have seen this pattern of bullying and intimidation from you on other sites. This is the only place that puts up with your antisocial behavior. People should read http://www.intersexualite.org/Hontas-Farmer.html if they want further information. Ariablue (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Citing the rules of this website is not bullying nor is it ownership. Second of all you have more than one known transgender person on the page above and before me who wanted this article at least redirected. I know the people who favor HBS like to present it like a stone cold fact....but it isn't it just isn't. The only kernel of truth it's based on is the universally accepted idea that the roots of transsexualism lie in the brain. All the rest of it is pure speculation, and even plain wishful thinking. Such things are not encyclopedia matterial.--Hfarmer (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no transgender persons in the HBS movement. People with HBS are considered a part of the mainstream, and HBS has been used in the mainstream for a few years now. My own town will soon have a presentation that shows HBS as a subset of the mainstream and not a part of the LGBT nor TG lifestyle communities. HBS is a birth defect, not a lifestyle. Hontas Farmer is admittedly a homosexual, thus negating his claim that he is a transsexual woman. He has no right to dictate what TSism nor HBS is. There are no moral implications against persons with HBS nor true-TSim, but every major religion considers homosexuality immoral. Mr. Hontas Farmer the "transsexual" homosexual (really a transgendered male, not a TS) is not a true Muslim, because it is impossible to be a homosexual and a true Muslim. Everything he does is for attention. An MtF TS attracted to men is a heterosexual. If you were supposed to be born with a vagina, then you are supposed to like men. Calling yourself a homosexual man and a transsexual woman at the same time is illogical. And it is conjectured that he cannot change his name due to links to terror, but I cannot find that.--74.124.187.76 (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please protect this page. The medical birth defect of HBS is not a type of transsexualism, but a type of intersex condition and therefore a subset of the Intersex condition. Please protect this article and block anyone who keeps vandalizing this page and redirecting it to the chosen lifestyle of transsexualism. In my practice, I can easily tell a TS/TG case from an HBS case. People with HBS have the right to not be lumped in with TSs, TGs, nor homosexuals. People with HBS have their own community and do not acknowledge the LGBT community nor TGs and deny they are a part of such. People with HBS should know more than the arrogant liars who slander them, call them TGs, call them TSs, and say they are a part of the LGBT. They lie on people with HBS to deprive them of their rights. They hate people with HBS and *WANT* them discriminated against and killed. Do not use Wikipedia to further this conspiracy.--74.124.187.76 (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)