Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homosexual transsexual/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:17, 28 October 2008 [1].

---

Homosexual transsexual

Nominator(s): Hfarmer (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because not only does it meet the FA criteria it hilites a subject of importance to the LGBT community. The article is stable, well referenced, well written, summary style etc. It does not have a picture but after much (archived on the talk page) debate adding a picture is a non starter. This article is the best article in a complex of articles about a controversial topic. However the "homosexual transsexual" has recieved much less coverage than the other related concept. Last but not least this article is a shining example of what editors who don't all agree on a controversial topic can do here at Wikipedia. Hfarmer (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The editor who has nominated this article seeks to legitimize this term by controlling the content of the article and related entries through the following WP:OWN-type strategies:

• Removing citations that explain why the term is controversial and deprecated (such as comments from experts Harry Benjamin and Bruce Bagemihl).[2]
• Unilaterally creating an infobox that includes the term and spreading the infobox throughout Wikipedia.[3]
• Nominating this and all related articles as good or featured articles (nominations which generally fail or get delisted). [4]
• Attempting to include User:Hfarmer's own photo as a textbook example of a "homosexual transsexual." [5]

As background, this editor strongly self-identifies as a "homosexual transsexual," but has never been diagnosed as such by proponents of the term. This editor considers the term to be more socially desirable than the other term used in the proponents' taxonomy, and has taken great pains to demonstrate both on and off Wikipedia that the term is applicable in User:Hfarmer's case. Proponents of this term have even written about their observations of "systematic distortion" among "male gender dysphorics" who are "nonhomosexual." [6] This nomination (as with all other failed good article and featured article nominations made by this editor) is part of a long-running attempt by User:Hfarmer to legitimize a self-identity that is based entirely on self-assessment and has never been corroborated by any proponent of this term. This is yet another clear case of this editor's putting personal goals in asserting a highly questionable self-identity ahead of the goals of Wikipedia. These controversial topics are all in the midst of significant debate, and this article is likely to be unstable and altered significantly during the course of the next few months. Jokestress (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh lord Jokestress you forgot to mention as per the procedure on this page your part in the editing of this article. Which you yourself played no small part in composing. You forgot to mention your role in the controversy surrounding this article. The fact that you are not a neutral actor in relation to this or anything related to this can be seen at Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy, The Man Who Would Be Queen, Autogynephilia, Jokestress's own website ["Transsexual Road Map:A Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence clearinghouse"],and on her yotube account NWSA Panel: Andrea James (part 1). Her now six years a activity against this theory makes her an obvious COI as was found in relation to TMWWBQ.

As for my own supposed bias I don't think User:James_Cantor (arguably a true "opponent" of Andrea James and her POV) would agree that I am on his side. Before he came I played the other side a bit to encourage a neutral outcome since his arrival I have only been a referee to their shooting match. I have two websites, "Hontas Farmer, Physicist at Large." and The Institutional Version hosted at UIC. I don't see how I am striving to portray myself as anything other than myself. I say call me whatever you like just don't call me late for dinner! Others may define me however they like for themselves but only I have the power to define myself for myself therefore I am not offended by any psychological theory's words. That apparently is all it takes to make one a "supporter" of her enemies to Jokestress.

I have been meaning to say thankyou to AJ for being the only person at the NWSA panel to mention the term "homosexual transsexual" in order to complain about it for what it is without a hint of angst or animosity for those who would be so labeled. It is so rare that it is even mentioned ever at all. Even here on WP the article Autogynephilia get's many more hits per day. Love it or hate it this is a concept that should get equal billing with Autogynephilia. That, and featuring OUR, your and my and the rest of the communities good work is my ONLY motivation for this nomination. (She says all the other nominations have failed but this article is a good article as we speak.)

From here on out can we please let the non involved editors, who dare to, comment comment? --Hfarmer (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to answer the photo allegation. If you read through the archived conversations she more or less challenged me to put my picture (same one I have on my webpage BTW) up here for that purpose. This is only after she rejected any other possible picture or proposal that I offered. I thought a picture would make the article much better and more understandbale as it does have, the last time I smog tested it, a 15th grade level of language use. But as I said after many long debates I now feel a picture is a non starter and no consensus would ever be reached on any picture, ever.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 11 - why is there a "cf" in front of the author's names? And it's lacking a publisher
• I'm assuming the hirschfeld ref is in German? Should note that.
• Several of your book refs are lacking page numbers. Double check them all for page numbers, please.
• Current ref 19 (Bailey) is Joseph Henry Press the publisher? If so, shouldn't be in italics. Needs a page number too.
• Please standardize your refs to Benjamen's work.
• Article titles should be in quotation marks for current refs 21, 22, 23 (Bentler, Blanchard, Blanchard)

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done all that you ask but for the references to Benjamin's book. I don't have a hardcopy but the online version we linked to is hosted by "The international Journal of Transgenderism". The page numbers that we do have are from people who do have access to such a copy. As for Dr. Bailey's book thought I once owned a copy after reading it a couple of times I gave it away. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I can't say I know anything about the topic or possible controversies, but I suggest if there is such an issue with this article it be taken to dispute resolution or some other process, not FAC. The prose is waaay too dense for someone without an understanding of technical phycology or the like to get that deep in it. It's also a very short article (<1000 words if you remove the lead) and therefor may not meet comprehensiveness concerns. Topics mentioned in the lead never come up in the prose, which suggests to me a bias, if unintentional. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the article is about a controversial topic the whole area of discourse is one big dispute with scope far beyond WP. (see Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy) As for the dense prose, frankly I agree, Using the readability scores it takes a 15+ grade level to understand the article. The trouble with writing a more plainly worded article on this subject has been that it starts to sound crude. It could basically be summed up in one sentence. Some MTF transsexuals were always attracted to men and psychologist call such transsexuals homosexual transsexuals. Hey, I think I'll add that to the lead.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Moni3

• The FAC page is no stranger to controversial topics. This one may qualify, but the majority of reviewers here care about comprehensiveness, accuracy, reliability, and readability. Right now, I have to agree that it's difficult to understand because the article makes assumptions that the reader has a background in sexology. Though most would like to have such a thing, it would benefit the article to explain some issues clearly:
• You might try by expanding History of term to make it simpler. (Sexologst) Richard Green states that since the term "transsexual" is very new (how new?), it is necessary to examine historical specifics to identify transsexuality in history (redundant?), and distinguish it from other roles that are described as "change of sex", such as homosexuality and heterosexual cross-dressing customs. (Break the previous sentence down to explain change of sex to an average reader) Green describes the cultural roles of groups such as the Two-Spirit, Hijra, Kathoey and Khanith, (a sentence about each of these roles from these cultures would be helpful) stating that these people are mentally indistinguishable from modern western transsexuals. (Can you provide Green's proof or reasoning for this?) In part, because of this history, past researchers have referred to the "homosexual" category as being the "classic", "primary" or "true" transsexual. (Does this mean all homosexuals are considered transsexuals? This is confusing.) At one time (when?) due to the heteronormative bias of many psychologists, transsexual people who did not fit into this category were often screened from receiving hormones and sex reassignment surgery
• I found this writing style throughout the article. I suggest going through it to simplify everything per the example of the first paragraph.
• Featured articles tend to stay away from bulletted lists unless it's completely unavoidable. I suggest putting the Leavitt and Berger study in prose to explain their findings.
• The Prostitution section is very slim and doesn't explore the association between transsexual homosexuals and prostitution as a sociological phenomenon.
• I find the same with the Frequency of Autogynephilia section (watch the capitalization in subheadings). These sections appear to list facts without exploring what implications they have on the people they describe.
• Overall, the article seems to lack substance of what all these facts mean. If your sources don't cover this, perhaps it is not the right time for an FA. If there are sources that cover this, you need to get to them and include them in this article. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much you have wrote here. I have also thought, though Jokestress disagreed, that the history section of this article should be longer and could be a bit better. However one has to understand why jokestress has disagreed with this in the past. She has argued that the people I list there are not transsexuals per se. That the word transsexual only has meaning in the modern medicalized sense of the word (having Sexual reassignment surgery etc.) I would argue that being transsexual is a state of mind before it is anything else so to me it is correct to say that transsexuals have existed since time began. Not everyone agree's. I will try to implement what you have said here.

I will withdraw this from FA consideration right now and make the improvements. I suppose I could have gotten this out of a peer review. But in the past getting peer review for this article has been hard. Thankyou for having the guts to touch it with a 10 foot pole. :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Withdrawing now. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.