Talk:Homosexual transsexual

Is this article still acceptable?

Given that the term "transsexual" is outdated, and the theories underpinning the description of trans women who are sexually attracted to men as "homosexual transsexual" are no longer used, this article presents this subject in an extremely uncritical light. Blanchard is broadly discredited -- the fact that his (and earlier, similarly incorrect researchers') work is presented in this much detail is odd. Specifically, the fact that Autogynephilia is no longer accepted is not mentioned, despite its significant problems.

Also, this entire paragraph (which is unchallenged by any criticism presented in this article) is wildly transphobic and is the ideological basis for the gay panic defense:

"Harry Benjamin writes that "Other transsexuals find prostitution a useful profession for emotional as well as practical reasons".[7]:50–51 Benjamin goes on to say, "How much more can his femininity be reaffirmed than by again and again attracting normal, heterosexual, and unsuspecting men and even being paid for rendering sex service as a woman?"[7]"

Somebody please fix this. I'm trans, and I could start cleaning this up, but I really don't want to spend more time looking at it.

As a starting point to indicate that I'm not just making this up, these two studies corroborate some of the above:

Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory: A Critique

Sexual Behavior, Desire, and Psychosexual Experience in Gynephilic and Androphilic Trans Women: A Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study

WestWren (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph quoted here as the source is so old and there isn't a need to quote it. Will think about what to do regarding anything else in the article. Your second source calls the Blanchard theory "one of the most prominent etiological theories of gender incongruence in trans women", so we shouldn't overstate its rejection based on certain studies over others. But that isn't to say it's being portrayed accurately here at present. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This whole article is about a decade out of date. Sexual orientation & gender identity are separate aspects of a persons identity, trans people can be gay hertosexual, asexual, bi or pan. The Homosexual / Autogynephilia has been widely debunked - it's homophobic as well as being transphobic. It's 2022 not 1982, please remove this whole article or re-write it completely to reflect the fact that many bigots use this terminology to other trans people based on the work of someone who was struck off and banned from treating people (Blanchard). Mriversct (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@WestWren: I don't really have the patience for this topic, but I've made my best effort here to eliminate Wikivoice usage of terms which I would consider blatantly transphobic (i.e. describing straight trans women as "homosexual transsexual males", and the use of "transsexuals" as a noun in general, etc.). Care was taken to elide or eliminate quotes, so as not to put anachronistic words into researcher's mouths.

I hope that reducing this kind of language in this article encourages more trans editors to contribute, and hopefully provide a properly WP:WEIGHTed view of this topic, preferably from the 21st century. I wonder if the best case scenario would be merging back into Blanchard's transsexualism typology. Tendentiously yours, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 04:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits! I've also wondered whether this article needs to be an article – if it's about the term itself, it could (and in my opinion should) very well live under Blanchard's transsexualism typology, like you suggested. (Also compare how Autogynephilia was merged into that article.) Currently the article also describes the people the term applies/applied to, and the science is old, with the references in § Description mainly being from the 1980s and 1990s – the science on trans people has evolved since then, and conflating sexuality and gender like the term "homosexual transsexual" does is quite passé. oatco (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the article contents should be merged into Blanchard's typology. And in general, this article relies way too much on primary sources, and all the terminology is very archaic and would be pretty offensive to some trans people who are attracted to men. It seems to casually misgender them in a way that Wikipedia should not be doing. And really, is the term "homosexual transsexual" relevant in any way outside the academic papers of a few scholars who are all closely connected with each other? Why give such weight to this one term? And why are a very small number of Wikipedia articles on trans people still using some terms like "transsexualism", that are more appropriate for 1972, than for 2022? In 2022, and in the DSM-5, "transsexualism" is now referred to as "gender dysphoria". A relatively small number of trans people identify as transsexual, whereas the vast majority identify as transgender. But even in cases in which they use the term transsexual for themselves, generally transsexual is not used as a noun. I don't have an issue with Blanchard and Bailey using dated terms in their own works (journals have their own standards), but Wikipedia should not accept potentially offensive or insensitive archaisms uncritically. Hist9600 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies about gender identity

For reference, we should be considering the following guidelines for respecting the self-identification of transgender people:

• Wikipedia:Gender_identity
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity

Referring to transgender women who are attracted to men as "homosexual transsexuals" seems to violate this policy and misgender trans women. Hist9600 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Should this article exist?

The lead says: Homosexual transsexual is a taxonomic category used in sexology, psychology, and psychiatry, to classify transgender or transsexual people who are attracted to members of the same biological sex.

The article itself counters:

• The term homosexual transsexual has been criticized by sexologists, linguists, and transgender activists as confusing and insensitive
• Though the term transsexuality was removed as a mental disorder from the DSM-IV and was replaced with gender identity disorder as a diagnostic label, attraction to males, females, both, or neither was specified in the DSM IV-TR. Which is a pretty wild sentence. Transsexual was not updated to GID. And what is the implication at the end? That homosexuality should/could be in the DSM?
• He opined that the question "is a transsexual homosexual?" had both "yes" and "no" answers depending on whether sexual anatomy or gender identity was prioritised, and that in cases of post-operative male-to-female transsexuals, describing them as "homosexual men" was against "reason and common sense".
• According to Leavitt and Berger, transgender people "vehemently oppose the label and its pejorative baggage."

And a big chunk of the article is based on Ray Blanchard's writing. So what does he think about trans people? Here's a quote from an essay he recommended about anime turning the kids trans: A strong identification with the cute anime girl forms. He finally admits he always wanted to be soft and gentle like her, carefree and cheerful like her, enjoy life in its fullest without the heavy chains of masculinity, like her. Oh, and here's his Christmas anti-greetings for annoying trans people, My holiday message: Autogynephilia per se does not make men obnoxious, nor does autogynephilic gender dysphoria. Autogynephilia in combination with other paraphilias or with personality disorders makes autogynephiles obnoxious. He says being trans is a mental disorder. He's pro conversion therapy. He thinks the trans community is growing because there isn't a strong enough goth community. Oh, and this gem, There is a popular narrative form that could fit desistance or detransition, namely demonic possession + successful exorcism. Rjjiii (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion this article should not exist. Any relevant information should be merged into Blanchard's transsexualism typology. Blanchard's concept of a "homosexual transsexual" has no relevance outside that typology, and it casually misgenders trans women (which is not something that Wikipedia should ever do). Hist9600 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The idea that heterosexual trans people are referred to using this blatant misnomer is both obfuscatory and extremely likely to give (justified) cause for offence. Obviously, we need to cover the term, so that anybody looking it up can find out what it is supposed to mean, but we should not give it a full article like it is any sort of a real thing that has any contemporary meaning outside of Blanchard's non-mainstream typology. This is complicated a little by the term existing pre-Blanchard but if somebody wants to make a merge proposal then I'll support it. DanielRigal (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Merging this article into Blanchard's typology article is a highly problematic proposition, as the term "Homosexual transsexual" is not something Blanchard invented - his research merely expanded upon the research that created the term. Just because you and others find the term offensive doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve to have its own article.

If this article isn't "up-to-date" with the research, that is perfectly fine; it can be updated. The mere fact that the term is a historical term doesn't mean that the term doesn't deserve its own article - that's flawed reasoning. Hooky6 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Should this article be merged with Blanchard's transsexualism typology?

There's a bunch of people over at the talk page of Blanchard's transsexualism typology suggesting that this article be merged with that one. Because there appears to be so much support I'm starting this unofficial merge proposal here. (And to be clear, I also support such a merge.) Loki (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons I give above above and also on Talk:Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Proposed_Solution:. DanielRigal (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The concept of a homosexual transsexual is only significant within Blanchard's typology. While the term may have technically emerged prior to that, its earlier usage was not significant enough to warrant an article. The equivalent modern articles are transgender man and transgender woman. Merging the contents of this article into the one for Blanchard's typology will provide valuable context to the idea, and also provide an opportunity to more succinctly summarize the concept. The current article seems like an info-dump that provides little context. Hist9600 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Merging these articles will create an even worse info-dump, you know. Hooky6 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not if the content is properly summarized in a way that readers can actually understand. Hist9600 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term "Homosexual Transsexual" wasn't even invented by Blanchard - it has a well-established history prior to Blanchard and his research. Merging the two articles will only serve to conflate concepts that are clearly completely separate topics, which will turn the article about Blanchard's typology into a sort of behemoth compilation of only vaguely-related research concepts in sexology. Hooky6 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  It wasn't invented by Blanchard, but it was invented by Karl Freund, and Freund did so as part of a theory that was a strong inspiration of Blanchard's typology, which we already mention in the article on it. Also, almost all the research on the topic was done by Blanchard and his supporters. Loki (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support The term may not have been invented by Blanchard, but it was refined by him and has grown to be associated with him. I do feel it needs some improvements as well. Not sure if that should come before or after the proposed move to Blanchard. Filiforme1312 (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• On a balance, support, for much the same reasons as Hist9600 laid out; the concept is only really notable within Blanchard's typology and work (and the few "orbiters", as someone so well named them on the other talk page, who've worked with him on that typology), and presenting in within its context will allow it to be covered better and without having to duplicate contextualizing information between these articles. Some of the early mentions of the concept of classifying trans people by sexuality which this article currently points to are entirely unrelated (e.g. Hirschfeld's), reminiscent of Wikipedia's very early days when articles covered everything called X all in one mishmash (e.g. the medical condition, constellation, and mythological figure of Cancer all in one place). -sche (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support As briefly mentioned in a thread above, the existence of this article is very clearly lending undue Wikipedia:WEIGHT to a direly outdated clinical perspective. It is of course important not to erase the history of that perspective, but that's covered perfectly adequately at the Blanchard typology article. Giving a tiny sliver of it this much space gives the impression that, under the WEIGHT criteria, this concept is espoused by a majority of reliable sources, which couldn't be further from the truth. Personman (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Outdated terminology that should contextualized in that way, not treated as a way people are or should be described. Galobtter (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Academic coverage of this term is too scant to support an independent article; notwithstanding the term's origin, almost all usage is by Blanchard and his few supporters, and almost all secondary usage is in the context of discussing them. Additionally, large parts of this article are WP:SYNTHy (citing sources that don't use the term "homosexual transsexual", at least not in the sense the article itself refers to), and this synthesis is an inevitable result of trying to create an entire article for a subject where coverage is marginal. --Aquillion (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Support this is outdated terminology. One wonders if Blanchard's transsexualism typology should be merged with Ray Blanchard himself since so few mainstream scientists believe in it. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to merge this article into Blanchard's transsexualism typology. I do so, rather than file a request for someone else to close, on the advice of Wikipedia:Closure requests: "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. [...] When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure." -sche (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)