Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Criticism section

As seen with this edit, I removed the "Criticism" tag, stating, "Criticism sections are allowed, which is why they are validly used in various Wikipedia articles, including WP:GA and WP:FAs. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure does not say they should not be used. We don't use [such a section when it is not needed]. We need it in this case. We aren't going to place all of these opinions in sections they don't belong in." The Wikipedia:Criticism essay that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure points to is also clear, in its Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section that "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate." and why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The format of any other article (WP:FA or not) says nothing about how this article should be written. To achieve a neutral article, WP:STRUCTURE does in fact say we should Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative. I see no justification for a separate criticism section, either here or in the cited CRIT essay, which specifies that such a section may be appropriate if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location, but that they should still be avoided in most cases. Rather than criticism of Blanchard's theory being treated as an "organic whole", reliable secondary/tertiary sources indicate that controversies are integral to the theory's notablility.

After giving a brief overview of the theory, Bancroft (2009) focuses the rest of their coverage on the controversy over Bailey's 2003 book, noting that his reducing of gender identity to a question of simple lust "seriously demeans" trans identities. Davy (2015) describes the underlying research as "contested" (citing Moser), devoting three out of four paragraphs to criticism. Regarding autogynephilia in particular, Sánchez & Vilain (2013) describe it as a "controversial concept", and Pfeffer (2016) includes it as one of several "contentious and controversial debates" relating to transgender sexualities. In a general entry on transgender studies, Bellinger & Meiners (2017) bluntly describe it as a term used to "diminish and humiliate" trans people; in the same volume, Sojka (2017) devotes one of their two paragraphs on the topic to critiques, noting "significant academic controversy" arising from the theory.

Readers who follow the link to Autogynephilia will be directed to a sub-section that should present the duly weighted viewpoints of reliable sources. Segregating different views about this one aspect of the theory in different sections is a form of content forking and should be avoided. The idea that certain views "don't belong" in the main section is a personal opinion and not based in any Wikipedia policy. If, as Flyer22 Reborn has previously argued, autogynephilia is a notable topic in itself, then it only makes sense to present all the relevant views in the eponymous section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

How to structure articles is significantly opinion-based, and varies on a case-by-case matter. This is seen throughout Wikipedia, whether it's WP:MEDSECTIONS, MOS:FILM, or something else. That is why I brought up the format/quality of other articles. I'm not interested in editors' personal opinions about the concept or specifically autogynephilia, which are obviously notable (and is why you are finding the WP:Reliable sources you have found on the matter). That the concept is controversial, especially with regard to the transgender community, doesn't at all mean that we shouldn't have sections for aspects that clearly and cleanly focus on those aspects without clogging up those sections with critical commentary or society and culture material. This is why you don't see the Alternative medicine article, which is about a highly contested topic, loading each and every section with a bunch of criticism and society and culture material. That article presents what the aspects are (such as "Definitions and terminology" and "Types"), what they entail, and has a "Risks and problems" section that mainly documents the criticisms. This article should stick with sections such as "Terminology" and "Historical background," and then get into all of the debate afterward...except for places where dissent material is important (such as the second paragraph of the current "Autogynephilia" section). And the debate is mostly societal. What sources are speaking of the debate as mostly a medical debate?

It makes sense to include that critical commentary material in that second paragraph of the "Autogynephilia" section. It is specifically about peer-reviewed articles critiquing the methodology used by Blanchard, follow-up research, and that Blanchard's findings have been questioned as not having been replicated by other researchers. But if we are talking about authors' personal opinions about why they personally don't like the typology, the language being misgendering language, and accusations of misconduct, yes, those things belong in their own sections, not mixed in with the general research material. It just so happens that those sections are currently grouped under a "Criticism" heading. Your argument that "segregating different views about this one aspect of the theory in different sections is a form of content forking and should be avoided" is odd and not supported by the WP:Content fork guideline. I'm not saying that the current structure is the best (it's not), but autogynephilia is relevant to more than one section. When an aspect is relevant to one more than section and it's important to include mention of it in more than one section, we don't group everything about it in just the one section; we cover the material organically, throughout. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I made some adjustments and Flyer22 Reborn may have some thoughts on them. But yeah, we do not need to have all the criticism of autogynephilia in that immediate section.

And we do have some criticism in the lead as well as some under autogynephilia, as Flyer mentioned, and a bit under DSM. It's not all under "Criticism" anyway. So we don't need to disperse it all throughout, in a manner that would likely be POV. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what likely to be POV means. NPOV policy explicitly suggests "folding debates into the narrative" in order to be more neutral. The idea that we should place authors' personal opinions about why they personally don't like the typology, the language being misgendering language, and accusations of misconduct in a separate section is not based in any policy or guideline that I know of. We go by coverage in reliable, independent sources. If these criticisms are discussed prominently in such sources, then burying them in their own section far down on the page is a failure to give them due weight.

A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject, exactly like we have here. It's more logical to put criticisms of autogynephilia, in particular, under § Autogynephilia. Serano's (2010) and Moser's (2010) critiques are about autogynephilia specifically, not the typology in general. And both are peer-reviewed articles critiquing the methodology used by Blanchard, etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to formatting this article, you are arguing on your personal opinions. Formatting articles are largely subject to personal opinions and are case-by-case matters, as I've already made clear. There is no strict rule regarding them, although MOS:LAYOUT is followed across Wikipedia (as it should be). Your link to WP:CONTENTFORK does not support you...even with the "or passages within articles" bit. As seen here and here, that piece was added in 2016 without review and is not covered lower on the page. It makes no sense, which is why I removed it. I have that page on my watchlist and missed that addition. If I'd noticed it then, I would have reverted it. Your "burying them" argument? There is no "burying" by having the material in their own sections, which are clearly seen from the table of contents. How, for example, does spreading this terminology content throughout the article makes sense in any way? If we are going to have a Criticism section, which I think we should, I do not see why different criticisms should not be in the "General" subsection of the "Criticism" section. The section is called "General" because it's covering different aspects, as opposed to something like the "Terminology" and "Accusations of misconduct" sections, which are focused on a specific aspect respectively. Autogynephilia is a big part of the typology. Readers will easily deduce that the "General" subsection covers different criticisms about the typology. With regard to the Autogynephilia section, I already stated that it makes sense to include in that section critical commentary about peer-reviewed articles critiquing the methodology used by Blanchard, follow-up research, and that Blanchard's findings have been questioned as not having been replicated by other researchers. "But if we are talking about authors' personal opinions about why they personally don't like the typology, the language being misgendering language, and accusations of misconduct, yes, those things belong in their own sections, not mixed in with the general research material." With or without the "Criticism" heading, the "Accusations of misconduct" material, for example, belongs in its own section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Flyer22 Reborn. And I'm not going to debate this in circles endlessly. If I change my mind (unlikely) I will say so. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Wording of the lead

There's been some back and forth about the wording of the lead: [1], [2], [3], [4].

The current wording may mislead readers because it skirts too close to presenting Blanchard's disputed theories in Wikipedia's voice. That's why the phrase according to Blanchard, or something like it, should be present somewhere in this paragraph. To just say Blanchard categorized trans women into two groups creates the impression that the two groups in question indisputably exist. (If you read a sentence like "The teacher categorized the children into two groups: blue-eyed and brown-eyed", you would not question that the students were actually blue-eyed and brown-eyed.) WanderingWanda (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As those diff's show, this is not a back-and-forth at all. This is every editor except WanderingWanda being in consensus, with Wanda repeating her disruptions on this page.— James Cantor (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, I think you're reading too much into this. Categorizing things is an action. Did Blanchard take that action? If so, then we say he did it: "Blanchard categorized..." Even if he categorized people into obviously nonsensical categories, or into categories that we think are wrong, he still actually did categorize them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

For years, the paragraph has maintained a neutral distance with variations on the phrase "according to Blanchard". Here's a more-or-less random diff from 5 years ago: homosexual transsexuals, whom Blanchard says..."autogynephilic transsexuals", who purportedly are. I don't even want to go as far as that. I agree with the IP and with James Cantor that we shouldn't be repetitive. My version just has a single variation on "according to Blanchard" rather than two. It's a middle ground. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Not a her. 2. Polite discussion is not disruption. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Wanda. I think it's important to make it clear how widely discredited Blanchard's theories are, not only because wikipedia is about truth, but because Blanchard's theories can be actively harmful to the communities they target. Furthermore, I also don't see how their(?) behavior is out of line. Tornado547 (talk) 03:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about that. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4809047/#S6title lists it as one of multiple typologies and stage models. The idea that Blanchard's typology (the idea that androphilic transwomen [the ones that used to be called "true transsexuals"] are clinically a bit different from other transwomen [the ones that used to be told that they weren't actually trans], e.g., in age, height, etc.) is "widely discredited" seems to be more about what the internet says than what the academics say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them widely discredited because I wouldn't call them widely anything: as far as I can tell, the scientific community hasn't paid much attention to the theories (let alone the general public.) This is something proponents of the theories themselves like to complain about. I don't particularly like The New York Times, but it's considered America's "paper of record", so here's a fun exercise: try typing "dysphoria" into their search bar and note that over 1000 articles pop up. "transgender": over 7000. "penis envy": over 100. "autogynephelia".... is that a tumbleweed blowing across the screen? WanderingWanda (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times, whatever its relative merits and demerits otherwise, is not really a great source for figuring out what the academics say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tornado547 on the general lack of support for Blanchard's work. I think this could be a mild WP:FRINGE issue, Blanchards theories being notable does not make them mainstream consensus. It's not a matter of whether the theory is generally popular, it clearly does not have broad support in it's field of scholarship. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, the article is specifically about a type of categorisation in a scientific context not in a general one. Therefore I do see the point that "Blanchard categorised" could put on undue weight I struggle to see it as anything other than minor. I see a neutrality issue with suggestion that one side is trying to reduce the "acceptedness" of the theory, and that neutrality issue goes both ways. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely a difficult issue. Of course anything WP:FRINGE is going to be, but given the emotional charge and controversy behind gender as a whole. I personally think it's a good idea to make it clear exactly how wrong Blanchard's theory is, but I'm admittedly somewhat biased hereTornado547 (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand WhatamIdoing's point. All this talk about "it's been debunked," "it's widely discredited", "it's fringe." Where are the WP:SCHOLARSHIP/WP:MEDRS-compliant sources stating this? Like I stated elsewhere: Regarding "and has been debunked for the most part", do you have a source for that? And I don't mean a WP:Primary source or an activist source. I mean a WP:MEDRS-compliant one. Because the 2016 review I have here found support for the predictions of Blanchard's typology that androphilic and gynephilic trans women have different brain phenotypes. It stated that although Cantor seems to be right that Blanchard's predictions have been validated by two independent structural neuroimaging studies, there is "still only one study on nonhomosexual MtFs; to fully confirm the hypothesis, more independent studies on nonhomosexual MtFs are needed. A much better verification of the hypothesis could be supplied by a specifically designed study including homosexual and nonhomosexual MtFs." The review stated that "confirming Blanchard's prediction still needs a specifically designed comparison of homosexual MtF, homosexual male, and heterosexual male and female people." Of course, the source doesn't support all of Blanchard's commentary on trans women. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Are we now using WP:MEDRS as the standard of sourcing for this article? In that case we should not be citing Blanchard's own studies, which are primary sources for this topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing and Flyer22 Frozen have it correct. There is no scientific consensus that the typology is wrong, let alone WP:FRINGE, and this is clear from the sources these two editors have pointed out, and from the many already in the article. As for citing Blanchard's studies, they can be cited alongside secondary sources per MEDRS's statement Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources. And any drive to remove sources will of course cut both ways. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

A facile interpretation of MEDRS would prove to be an uncomfortable fit, since sexology (and other relevant fields, such as gender studies) doesn't appear to follow the biomedical model of emphasizing review articles as the source of What We Believe at any given point in time. I searched for transwomen on PubMed and found just 17 review articles during the last five years. They were focused on surgeries, fertility preservation, and drug side effects.

However, when you look into reference works and textbooks, you see statements like "The DSM-V also continues to include transvestic fetishism and autogynephilia as causes of TSTG that provides the basis for pathologization of TSTG by opponents" (from ISBN 9781440831270). I conclude from its inclusion in DSM-V that the idea of autogynephilia is not actually "widely discredited", no matter how many times individual editors assert that here. It might be relatively unimportant in practice, and willful misunderstandings of it might be popular among some anti-trans groups (Blanchard: "More people than just the old-fashioned 'true transsexuals' are transwomen." Idiots on the internet: "Blanchard said you all aren't real transwomen!"), but that doesn't mean that the theory is actually discredited.

The same author (Thomas E. Bevan) says "WPATH has objected to the continuation of autogynephilia because it is unproven." He dislikes the theory, but he chose the word unproven rather than the words that editors usually put on this page, such as disproven, widely discredited, wrong, fringe, etc. We might do well to follow that source: it is neither proven nor disproven.

The thing that worries me long-term is what's reported in doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.04.354: autogynphilic transwomen are afraid to tell their own therapists about their own experiences, because they believe that telling the truth will make them ineligible for proper treatment. Whatever POV editors might personally hold about Blanchard's typology, it would be nice if this article did not contribute to their fears. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that inclusion in the inclusion of autogynephilia in DSM-5 is highly specific, as is made clear in the article, and does not meaningfully ratify the typography beyond it's use as a specifier. It's not that the idea of autogynephilia is disproven rather Blanchard's extended use in the typography unsupported. Secondly I always get confused by the need to prove that something is disproven. A lot of the criticism of Blanchard's work is based on poor quality of data that has been provided to support it. Therefore I don't understand the conclusion that the theory is credited to begin with even if it is evidently notable. Symmetricnoise (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that it's used (in any form at all) by the most authoritative source of what mainstream psychiatric opinion is indicates that it's not actually "widely discredited", as some editors here have claimed. This is the only reason that its inclusion matters: some editors learn about this from less reliable sources, and they show up here and say "Oh, all the YouTube videos I've been watching say that this is vile stuff! It's garbage! Nobody believes it! Kill it with fire!" But when you get into the sources and you see that, aside from a historical effect (the one that made it possible for many non-"true transsexuals" to get treatment during the 1980s and 1990s), it's kind of a scientific yawner. You could say that in the centuries-old Lumpers and splitters debate, Blanchard turns out to be a splitter. You could say that he had the sense to see what was plain to anyone with eyes, which is that a feminine gender identity is not the exclusive purview of people attracted to men (and thus he's a boundary-mover rather than a splitter, because he helped make the mainstream gatekeepers admit that non-androphilic transwomen existed and weren't cross-dressers). But it's no good saying that mainstream experts utterly reject this idea, because they don't. They may not care about it, but they haven't rejected it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

My issue is not that it's rejected but that it was never accepted. "Use in any form" still only implies notability, not consensus. From a scientific perspective you appear to be describing a fringe theory. Something that has been proposed, that the scientific community has not formed positive consensus through review (WP:FRINGELEVEL). I agree that we should not use the term "discredited" without an academic review level citation, which would be consistent with treating this article as fringe. The original discussion was about the wording and the neccesity of careful attribution, which would be consistent with the guidlines in WP:DESCF. Also as an aside I don't understand the fixation with the weight lended by mention in the DSM, if I understand it correctly the DSM is a diagnostic manual for pyschiatric practice informed by academia but not a "most authoritative source of what mainstream psychiatric opinion" in the academic context. In this case a use of a single term from the typology only lends weight to it's use for diagnosis of the condition for which it is a specifier, not to the academic theory as a whole.Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the WP:FRINGE guideline (which applies to all content, not just fringe theories), this typology falls under "Alternative theoretical formulations". Note, though, that it says such formulations should be "put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective". In this area, however, there does not appear to be a single mainstream perspective. Rather, it is debated. And it is not comparable to fringe theories that are ignored by the relevant academic community. Rather, researchers of the causes of gender dysphoria and related phenomena are generally well aware of the typology. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: the part of WP:MEDPRI you omitted says, Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints ... If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources – the secondary sources should be used. In other words, primary sources shouldn't be the sole sources for controversial claims, whether in a MEDRS context or otherwise (per WP:PSTS). For example, § Research needs much more support from secondary sources.

@WhatamIdoing: respected psychiatrists, notably Thomas Insel, have taken the DSM-V to task for its lack of empirical rigor. So I wouldn't use it as proof of the theory's acceptance by academics, any more than the New York Times. I agree we should follow sources like Bevan, 2015. (Fortunately, textbooks like this are considered excellent secondary sources per MEDRS, no "facile" interpretations needed). Rather than "concluding" anything based on the mere fact that the DSM includes autogynephilia, we might take note of how the source actually describes it: as a concept that "does not qualify as a scientific theory or hypothesis" Clearly it's more than a "dislike" on the author's part. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, note that I said that they can be cited alongside secondary sources. This was in response to your false claim that Are we now using WP:MEDRS as the standard of sourcing...In that case we should not be citing Blanchard's own studies. No need to lecture me on PSTS or anything else. And note the emphasis in MEDPRI on proportionate representation of opinion in a field. This means that the DSM-5, as the bible of psychiatry, and being from and representing that community of experts, carries very hefty WP:Weight. Bevan's book, which is obviously only by one person, and which says "A New View" right in the title, is not going to be treated as having the same weight as the DSM-5. Nor do the views of Insel or these few unspecified others who criticize the DSM-5 in general override the DSM-5 itself, which is a very WP:Synth-ey argument to make anyway. Lastly, the claim that the DSM-5 carries the same weight as The New York Times is so far off that it needs no further commentary from me. Indeed, I can't escape the impression that your bit about the DSM-5 is cherry-picking of sources in the interest of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS also allows primary sources to be cited separately, especially for historical content and other content that isn't Wikipedia:Biomedical information. (I actually tried to change that once upon a time, in favor of listing relevant historical papers in ==Further reading==, and editors rejected the idea.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it doesn't. Non-science doesn't mean nonsense. Most educated people would be offended if you said that they disliked music, or literature, or art museums, or any number of other non-scientific things, and yet you're putting forward the claim that him writing that "it isn't a scientific theory" as proof that he hates the idea, rather than as proof that he actually knows what a formal scientific theory is, and how much that differs from the pop culture notion.

A typology isn't supposed to be a scientific theory, or even a hypothesis. A typology supposed to be an observation, not an explanation. This is more like natural science than like experimental science: you describe what you observe. Blanchard observed that there were some clinical differences between androphilic transwomen and the rest of them. Others have observed that there are some clinical differences between "primary" and "secondary" trans folks (that's people who felt trans from a young age vs the rest of them). In other subject areas, people observe differences between Type A and Type B personalities. These observations aren't factually wrong merely because they're at the level of "an apple fell on Newton's head" instead of at the level of "every object's mass exerts a specific, calculable amount of force on every other object". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying Bevan "hates" the idea at all. I am saying that according to him, it is not a credible scientific theory or hypothesis. That goes beyond a simple personal disliking of the idea, as well as a noncommittal stance like "neither proven nor disproven". As for whether the typology is not "supposed to be" a scientific theory, try telling that to Blanchard and Lawrence. Blanchard lists several "theoretical statements" involving AGP, which are summarized in the article already. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The typology exists, the typology is generally accepted, and the typology is not a scientific theory or a scientific hyothesis. It is possible to construct and test hypotheses related to the typology (e.g., Are only two types, or might there be three or four?), and some people have done so, but the typology itself is not a theory. The typology says that these transwomen and those transwomen are a bit different, but does not make predictions or explanations beyond that (which means that it's not a theory. Theories explain and let you make predictions). It is no more a scientific theory than saying Humboldt's lily and Panther lily are different lilies. It can be true, and it can be an accurate observation in the tradition of natural history, but it's still not a scientific theory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

In that case, the "typology" is only a minor part of the article, which should be renamed something like Blanchard's autogynephilia theory. Elements of the latter include the ideas that:

• Autogynephilia is a sexual orientation;
• Autogynephilia is a paraphilia, specifically a type of erotic target location error;
• All trans women who are not attracted to men are autogynephiles;
• Autogynephilia does not occur in natal females;
• The desire for sex reassignment among some natal males is a form of internalized pair-bonding;
• Autogynephilia is a type of heterosexual impulse that also competes with heterosexuality, also called pseudobisexuality.

All these are mentioned in the article. The word autogynephilia itself presumes an explanation or prediction, namely that trans women who fall into one of two "types" are defined by erotic attraction to themselves as women, which Blanchard calls a paraphilia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Once upon a time, we had multiple separate articles on the various pieces, but a group of editors who personally reject the typology decided to put it all in the same page, and thus the criticism of autogynephilia has to be shoehorned into a page whose contents ought to be more like "These transwomen are not quite like those transwomen, even though they are all transwomen." I'm doubtful that you'd be able to convince everyone to re-split the articles. And, as a practical point, it'd probably do more good in the world to create an article on Transgender and autism than to worry about this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, what "multiple separate articles on the various pieces"? I mean, for example, the Homosexual transsexual article still exists. I did oppose autogynephilia being a spin-off article, but not because I personally reject the typology. Also, it seems to me that "typology" in the title is an aspect of the topic's WP:Common name. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

You commented here, but I still don't know what is meant by "multiple separate articles on the various pieces." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that the typology is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with autogynephilia being a prominent aspect of that and not so much its own topic. That term redirects here, so all is good. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I haven't suggested splitting any article. If Transgender and autism is a notable topic, then you are certainly free to boldly create an article on it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a notable article. It's also, unlike this, a very clinically significant subject (e.g., it accounts for a sizable fraction of the excess suicide rate among trans people). My point about splitting is that if you want to go into even more detail about autogynephilia, then it should be done in a separate article. This article already gives WP:UNDUE weight to autogynephilia. (Also, if it were split, then Wikipedia could cover autogynephilia among non-trans folks and autoandrophilia more easily.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Autogynephilia is a significant aspect of the topic. I really can't see how the article gives undue weight to it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of undue weight, the top ten results for "autogynephilia" on Google Scholar are either papers by Blanchard or prominently mention Blanchard, so I don't think the topic is out of place here. One could make an argument for a WP:SPINOFF article, but this one is just 65 KB or 7,700 words long, which is well within the readable limit. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Since this section is full of commentary about what others think of the typology, commentary on the debate, and happenings on the Internet regarding the topic, I'm linking to this 2019 interview with Blanchard about all of the debate, including happenings on the Internet such as trans women who have autogynephilia being silenced about their autogynephilic feelings by activists. And, no, I'm not suggesting that this source be used in the article. But if a "Society and culture" section was created, one of the standard sections seen at WP:MEDSECTIONS, his commentary in this interview could go in that section. The "Criticism" section is essentially a "Society and culture" section. I wouldn't be opposed to it being retitled "Society and culture" if it included more rebuttal commentary from supporters of the typology or those who are neutral (or sort of neutral) on the topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

That would unfortunately be a false balance. Neutrality doesn't mean we need to go looking for "rebuttals" to published, secondary sources, especially in the form of a primary source like a Q&A with Blanchard. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Nope, not speaking of false balance, especially since neither you nor anyone else has proven that the opponent view is the consensus view. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

And you very well know that I don't need to be told what being neutral means on Wikipedia, or a lecture on primary sources, especially when one can point to archived sections such as Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology/Archive 2#Primary sourcing. But go on with your usual "must condescend to the very experienced Wikipedia editor, Flyer" nonsense. It is one of the things you do best. Time to ignore you yet again. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about any "opponent" of the theory, so that's a red herring. I'm talking about giving the same weight to a Q&A on a political website as an academic textbook like Bancroft, 2009 or a peer-reviewed critique like Moser, 2010. The idea that these sources need some kind of "rebuttal" is illogical and not backed up by any policy. Sorry if that seems "condescending", but I think it's worth being extra-careful with sources on a controversial topic like this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you are talking about, your reference to WP:FALSEBALANCE is odd. That policy section is exactly about making sure that we do not give minority views the same weight as mainstream views, which makes the "neither you nor anyone else has proven that the opponent view is the consensus view" part of my comment on point. No one stated anything about "giving the same weight to a Q&A on a political website as an academic textbook." And the WP:FALSEBALANCE policy section is not about that. You often argue against a point that was never made or implied. You even recently did this with Crossroads above on the topic of primary sources, when he clearly stated "alongside." As for you being sorry about being condescending? You do it all the time, which, as you know, I've addressed before. Anyway, one of my points, which I suppose I should have stated even though I thought it was obvious, is that if the section is going to be called "Society and culture", the section should not be made up of mostly criticism with no rebuttal commentary or other commentary from supporters of the typology as though the criticism is the consensus. Also, the new heading would be misleading since readers would be expecting to read about how the topic is impacting society and culture rather than a bunch of criticism about the typology. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Now if one is referring to the "Good research" (WP:BESTSOURCES) and "Balance" (WP:BALANCE) sections, which are not subsections of WP:FALSEBALANCE, of course something like the Blanchard interview should not be used to report on the research in some academic way. But his opinions on the research or the political environment regarding the research? We include material like that all the time in our "Society and culture" sections. Of course, WP:Due should be considered. And in some cases, so should WP:About self. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

No one stated anything about 'giving the same weight to a Q&A on a political website as an academic textbook.' Then what exactly is the suggested use for this Q&A in the article?

[I]f the section is going to be called 'Society and culture', the section should not be made up of mostly criticism with no rebuttal commentary or other commentary from supporters of the typology as though the criticism is the consensus. I think "Society and culture" is certainly a better section heading than "Criticism", but this concern is a non-sequitur. If published, reliable sources focus on criticism/controversy, then that's what we present. If criticism/controversy doesn't represent "consensus", then it should be easy to cite sources to that effect. In any case, we achieve balance by sticking to secondary and tertiary sources, not digging up obscure interviews with Blanchard. There's no Wikipedia policy I'm aware of that says we should seek out "rebuttals" to well-sourced criticism. This is what I meant by "false balance".

[T]he new heading would be misleading since readers would be expecting to read about how the topic is impacting society and culture rather than a bunch of criticism about the typology. This is certainly ironic considering the resistance I encountered when I suggested that criticism shouldn't be concentrated in one section of the article. Nevertheless, some forms of criticism and controversy are valid social & cultural responses. For instance, when the typology is criticized as transphobic or as sexualizing trans women's gender identities, that is a reaction from people in society. Once again, we simply summarize the best sources on the topic. I don't see where MEDSECTIONS suggests limiting social & cultural issues to "impact" alone, and I fail to see how adding "rebuttals" from supporters does a better job of explaining said impact.

But [Blanchard's] opinions on the research or the political environment regarding the research? We include material like that all the time in our 'Society and culture' sections. What works in some other article is not necessarily appropriate for this article. This isn't a biography of Blanchard, and ABOUTSELF doesn't justify using marginal sources for commentary on the "political environment". We already have a decent source for Blanchard's views about his research here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

If published, reliable sources focus on criticism/controversy, then that's what we present. If criticism/controversy doesn't represent "consensus", then it should be easy to cite sources to that effect. The best sources are not generally focused on criticism - some are, some aren't - and we already have cited numerous sources to that effect in the article. And she is absolutely right that if a section were purportedly about society and culture, then it could not solely be about negative responses unless society and culture related sources were only about that, which, again, they are not. You need to stop acting like the criticism is the only legitimate and well-sourced position. At any rate, I don't see the need for section retitling or adding the Q&A at this time. And bringing back the archived discussion served no useful purpose, as you could have simply linked to it; and it was not prematurely archived. You need to let these things get archived rather than clutter up the talk page perpetually. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

This page presently takes up around 52 KB – well below the recommended threshold for archiving. And it's useful to have a related discussion visible on the page.

What would be an example of the best sources [that] are not generally focused on criticism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Don't know what Sangdeboeuf is going on about. As made clear, WP:FALSEBALANCE doesn't support their argument about the sources. And once again they are arguing against points that were never made or implied. So I'm not continuing this aspect of the discussion. I know from experience that it is futile. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Careful not to hyperventilate. I asked how you specifically propose to use this Q&A in the article. Can you answer that? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and as Blanchard makes clear in that interview, things have significantly changed since 2004. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Great. Let him publish that in a peer-reviewed journal or via another reputable academic outlet, then it might be appropriate for this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, just because it does not exceed the size over which it should be archived does not mean it can't be archived if it is smaller; indeed it was supposed to be, but the bot is broken or something. As for great sources not focused on criticizing the typology, try this and this and this and this and this and this, plus numerous peer-reviewed research articles. Now, if one ahead of time decides that all such sources don't count because they are by "supporters" of the typology, of course you end up with only critics. The conclusion is baked into the premises. It's circular reasoning to say that sources that do not criticize the typology are bad sources because they don't criticize the typology. Anyway, debating this further is indeed "futile". Crossroads ^-talk- 00:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't stated that these sources "don't count", so you're only debating with yourself there. Indeed, most of these sources are already cited in the article, so I don't see the problem. The exception is Galileo's Middle Finger, which is from a mass-market publisher, not an academic one, so I don't think it's usable here. Men Trapped in Men's Bodies is 242 pages long. Which part of the book deals specifically with issues related to society and culture? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Just preemptively handling an objection. Why are you saying "I don't see the problem"? You just asked for an example of the best sources [that] are not generally focused on criticism. Feel free whenever to acknowledge I provided that. As for Galileo's Middle Finger, it being from a mass-market publisher is not forbidden anywhere in WP:SCHOLARSHIP; this is just another made-up rule against content you don't like. And, it is by a qualified historian and has been cited 93 times in Google Scholar. As for Men Trapped In Men's Bodies, I don't see the relevance of that question at all and I'm not wasting time on it. The point is and was that criticism is not the one and only mainstream view. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen proposed renaming part of the article "Society and culture", suggesting that we needed to present a "rebuttal" to the existing sources in that area. That is that context in which I said If published, reliable sources focus on criticism/controversy, then that's what we present. Where does Men Trapped In Men's Bodies say anything relevant to social/cultural aspects?

Citations on Google Scholar don't imply that something is a reliable work of scholarship. The 2018 anti-political-correctness treatise The Coddling of the American Mind, one of the works that cites Galileo's Middle Finger, has 353, for example.

There doesn't need to be a written "rule" that says to be cautious of mass-market books in a scholarly context. (Are we to understand that such a work has been "vetted by the scholarly community"?) The onus is on the person who wants to include material to show that the source is reliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Guillamon et al., 2016

Crossroads: the statement "A 2016 review found support for" aspects of Blanchard's typology is POV and misleading. What Guillamon et al.'s conclusion actually says is, "The review of the available data seems to support" Blanchard's hypothesis (my emphasis). James Cantor is mentioned in a brief aside, not in the conclusion, which represents the main points of the review. That's why I said mentioning Cantor was WP:UNDUE. The existing text is made even more POV by tacking on the part about needing more specific studies to "confirm" Blanchard's prediction after the part about "support". Most readers, who are not well-versed in scientific writing styles, will see "found support for" in the first sentence and come away with the idea that the hypothesis was "confirmed". Finally, regarding this being one editor "versus 2", I'm sure you know by now that consensus is not reached via a count of heads. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:NHC also says, If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. There's no formal close here, but it shows that "headcounts" do sometimes matter. Let's also not forget that that entire page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines...It may reflect varying levels of vetting.

As for the meat of the matter, I don't see why "most readers" would come away with that at all. It is quite clear that while they "found support", the next two sentences each say that more work is needed to "confirm" it. I would say that most readers, not having read the study, would say that "seem to" makes it sound like it only seemed to find support, but it was not actually the case. Note that the conclusions also forthrightly say, Untreated MtFs and FtMs who have an early onset of their gender dysphoria and are sexually oriented to persons of their natal sex show a distinctive brain morphology, reflecting a brain phenotype. It is only after this that they say the available data seems to support two existing hypotheses: (1) a brain-restricted intersexuality in homosexual MtFs and FtMs and (2) Blanchard’s insight on the existence of two brain phenotypes that differentiate “homosexual” and “nonhomosexual” MtFs. As for Cantor, it states, Following this line of thought, Cantor (2011, 2012, but also see Italiano, 2012) has recently suggested that Blanchard’s predictions have been fulfilled in two independent structural neuroimaging studies. Specifically, Savic and Arver (2011) using VBM on the cortex of untreated nonhomosexual MtFs and another study using DTI in homosexual MtFs (Rametti et al., 2011b) illustrate the predictions. Cantor seems to be right. Nonhomosexual MtFs present differences with heterosexual males in structures that are not sexually dimorphic (Savic & Arver, 2011), while homosexual MtFs (as well as homosexual FtMs) show differences with respect to male and female controls in a series of brain fascicles (Rametti et al., 2011a, 2011b). I guess we don't necessarily need James Cantor seems to be right that, thus leaving It stated that although Blanchard's predictions have been validated by two independent structural neuroimaging studies..., but I'm unsure on that matter. Still, there was no reason to remove "independent structural neuroimaging studies". Also, a big part of my reversion was because of the error introduced that this had to do with results of cross-sex hormone treatment. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose to merge analloeroticism into Blanchard's transsexualism typology, would probably make a good redirect. As far as I am aware, analloeroticism is not a term widely used outside of this typology, or even at all. Autogynephilia theory has gained a lot of traction on 4chan and among TERFs and I have never seen either group use the term. Luiysia (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. Welcome to Wikipedia. What 4channers and TERFs use is irrelevant, but I agree that this obscure Blanchardian term doesn't need its own article, and that the various aspects of Blanchard's typology are best covered here. The word "analloeroticism" only gets 61 hits on Google Scholar vs. 963 for "autogynephilia" and 245,000 for "asexual". (And note that "autogynephilia" does not have its own article by firm consensus.) WanderingWanda (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. Very poor evidence of notabiliy outside of the typology, should be merged into the main article. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, because I'm thinking that we might do better to move all the more general concepts out of this article. Although I'm a dyed-in-the-wool mergeist, I'm inclined to leave it alone because there are so many places where it could be merged to. It could be merged to Asexuality, in a compare-and-contrast way; it could be merged to Object sexuality, because "having no sexual interests in other persons" leaves room for having an interest in objects; it could be merged to Autosexuality, because it's often meant to imply sexual interest only in the self; etc. On a related point, autogynephilia is being researched in connection with Furry fandom, and Charles Moser has claimed that some ciswomen experience it (or at least that they self-report certain experiences that would be considered indicative of autogynephilia in transwomen; not all screening questions work equally well in all populations). Although the concept originated in the context of transwomen, if it applies more generally, then it might be better handled as a separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose basically per WhatamIdoing's comment; it seems to me it doesn't really fit anywhere else. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't see how this topic could be validly merged with the Object sexuality article, which is specifically about sexual attraction to inanimate objects. And I don't see how it could be validly merged with the Autosexuality article unless the sources touch on that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikivoice

Crossroads reverted an edit by Loki (diff). Loki's edit note was: "Claim is sourced to Anne Lawrence and Alice Dreger, two supporters of the theory, in pieces arguing for the theory, and so should not be stated in Wikivoice." Crossroads' edit note was: "In-text attribution is not needed because no RS are disputing the historical point. And it makes no sense to attribute, rather than state as fact, that transsexuals of either 'type' benefit from transition. Simply being by a supporter does not warrant attribution, but making a claim that other sources dispute does."

I am interested in others' perspectives because point-of-view disagreements are often more complex and nuanced than they appear at first glance. I therefore start with the assumption that there are aspects of this debate I do not fully understand (yet). My impression at present is that portions of the article suffer from "wikivoice", i.e., opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. I suggest that we gradually and cooperatively work to achieve the following, from Explanation of the neutral point of view:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.

• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

• Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.

I should make it clear that I do not regard Blanchard's work as being "bad", "unscientific", or "inhumane". He conducted research and provided clinical care to people many other clinicians and researchers avoided. Some of his hypotheses have generated empirical support and some haven't, a conclusion true of most prominent scientists. I guess my main point is that I'm not an anti-Blanchard crusader; I respect the man's substantial contributions to psychology and related disciplines. I simply desire a more concise, neutral, encyclopedic article about his transsexualism typology theory.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

We cleaned up most of the wikivoice issues a while back. If any were missed, feel free to fix or point them out. I know you already did that for a couple sentences. I don't think we need attribution for things that are not controversial in reliable sources, however. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. I see no WP:WIKIVOICE issues. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I (obviously, as the one who removed it) do see a WP:WIKIVOICE issue. The clear intent of the statements is to support an implicit assertion that Blanchard's theory is not transphobic. That implicit assertion is something we wouldn't take without attribution from any of the sources even if they did say it, since it is obviously "seriously contested". Since the claims above are there to create and support that implicit assertion, they also are "seriously contested".

Also: we have a WP:SYNTH issue, since as currently written, we don't state the implicit assertion. We instead make the reader themselves infer it from these innocent-looking facts we've put here. If the assertion is explicitly stated in the original sources, we ought to phrase this as something like Lawrence argues that allegations that Blanchard's typology is transphobic are false because it broke from earlier ones in that neither group was considered falsely transsexual.

If not, it's even more WP:SYNTH and we really shouldn't have these statements in the lede at all: putting them in the neutral paragraph would be WP:SYNTH since they imply a statement in support, and even putting them in the supporters paragraph with attribution would still be WP:SYNTH since we wouldn't know if the sources meant to imply that statement in support. Loki (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Nah, I don't see it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but that's not an argument.

Also, I managed to find the original source, and it doesn't appear to source the claim at all! Our cite says it's on page 37. Here is the entire text of page 37 of Men Trapped In Men's Bodies by Anne Lawrence:

The decision to solicit and publish narratives by autogynephilic transsexuals arose from my observation that personal accounts by transsexuals who acknowledged autogynephilic arousal were scarce and my conviction that they needed to be collected and made available to clinicians and other autogynephilic transsexuals. I had searched almost in vain for personal narratives written by MtF transsexuals who acknowledged that autogynephilia had played an important role in their lives. I believed that such narratives needed to be available to professionals, to provide concrete illustrations of the phenomena Blanchard described, and to autogynephilic men who were struggling with gender dysphoria, to reassure them that they were not alone, not crazy, and not ineligible for sex reassignment.

My decision to collect and publish these narratives was also informed by my own history of gender dysphoria and autogynephilic erotic arousal. Beginning in early childhood, I experienced both the wish to be female and erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing and cross-gender fantasy. These feelings intensified in adolescence and continued throughout my adult life. For many years, I imagined I might be unique in both wanting to be female and being erotically aroused by the fantasy of being female. Although my experience of erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing was suggestive of fetishistic transvestism, I didn’t believe that I was simply a transvestite, because I also felt an intense desire to have SRS. That desire led me to suspect that I might be some type of transsexual. But the consensus in the medical literature was that erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing or cross-gender fantasy excluded the diagnosis of transsexualism (see Blanchard & Clemmensen, 1988 ) and was a contraindication to SRS (e.g., Dolan, 1987 ; Lundström, Pauly, & Wålinder, 1984 ; Person & Ovesey, 1974b ) .

I don't see anything in that that could plausibly source Blanchard's typology broke from earlier ones in that neither group was considered falsely transsexual or Before Blanchard, the idea that some types were not transsexual at all was a recurring theme in scholarly literature. I think the very end is what's supposed to, but that's an incredibly tortured, question begging, SYNTHy reading. I could see a cite for Blanchard's typology broke from earlier ones that asserted arousal in response to crossdressing "excluded the diagnosis of transsexualism", but the current claims really strongly presume the actual existence of autogynephiliacs as a type of person accepted by both Blanchard and the previous writers, when the source did not say anything like that. The source talked about specific behaviors. On the basis of this, I'm going to change the claims in the lede to fit the source more closely. Loki (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"Nah, I don't see it." is an argument when it comes to your interpretations of the rules. Because your interpretations of the rules are usually skewed (or very skewed), with the way the #"Controversial" in lede discussion has gone thus far being one example, I see no need to debate you on this. I know from experience that it will waste a lot of my time. And unnecessarily so. That is why asking for outside opinions is typically best (especially for me) when interacting with you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur that "Nah, I don't see it" is not an argument, particularly from someone who keeps insisting that we *prove* the article suffers from a biased point of view. // For what it's worth, I also agree with the rest of Loki's post.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you are very familiar with this topic. You had it right the first time. You state "insisting that we *prove* the article suffers from a biased point of view." Um, that is exactly what Template:POV is about. It's not for you to add because "Oh, it's personally POV to me." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the "controversial" discussion effectively ended up with us compromising on "proposed". Which seems to me like a good example of the reasons we're theoretically supposed to discuss these things before subjecting them to a vote. Loki (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Right now it reads, According to Anne Lawrence, Blanchard's typology broke from earlier ones which "excluded the diagnosis of transsexualism" for arousal in response to cross-dressing.[2]:37 Lawrence stated that, before Blanchard, the idea that arousal in response to cross-dressing or cross-gender fantasy meant that one was not transsexual was a recurring theme in scholarly literature.[2]:37 Alice Dreger stated that Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence all agree that any trans woman who would benefit from sex reassignment surgery should receive it.[3]:415 I am fine with this. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen - Your caviling appraisal of my knowledge on this topic has been noted.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)