This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago25 comments6 people in discussion
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
In trying to comply with the sugestions of the peer review I have re written the lead in. I think it is an improvement. The previous lead in was simplistic, too simplistic. Now the term "homosexual transsexual"'s definition is more precise. What I am looking for now is a picture or image that can capture the topic. If that is even possible. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about this part further. I see a few options. Pick a picture of a known transsexual and say something like "So and so would fir the definition of a homosexual transsexual". That approach would be rife with problems. (How can one know who is what) Another would be an image of an activity that would somehow exemplify this subject. Some smart ass could say I should use a picture of myself. Which would invite some people to argue that I was not such a person (and by extension that no one is a homosexual transsexual). --Hfarmer (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I want this article and the rest of the articles on this topic to get "good article" status... Perhaps even featured status. That requires a picture. Who to use?--Hfarmer (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, for Good Article status, an image is not technically required. I'm not convinced that a photo of a person is actually illustrative for HT: "Here's a picture of a person. This person looks like a woman. For all any average reader knows, this person has two X chromosomes and has always been/acted like/dressed like/was treated like any other female." Are there any prominent people who claim to be HT? For AG, perhaps a photo of Anne Lawrence could be found. For the Bailey article, it's possible that Northwestern's public relations office would be able to supply a picture. It's not that unusual for a PR office to keep mug shots of professors on hand for press releases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I just rolled back a comment listing three notable people as "homosexual transsexual" per WP:BLP. Unless someone has said "I am a homosexual transsexual," this is libel. Jokestress (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hfarmer, I don't really feel like a picture of someone who might be classified as HT is really that illustrative. Can you describe any specific additional information that is provided by a photo of a person who passes for female? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That comment being rolled back reinforces one of my concerns about illustrating these articles. It may be impossible to really come up with a picture that one person or the other would not object to on one ground or the other? The one Jokestress gave would be one. Suppose whoever we use feels that they have been slandered? The ones I had listed about the pictures were just as valid. (That one was for one reason or the other not a 100% pure transsexual by some definitions i.e. having Klienfelters, not planning on SRS, or expressing some minor regrets or second thoughts.)
As for what is expressed by having a picture. Let me put it this way. I can write you long detailed description of a whale or a gorilla...but if you have never ever seen one it wouldn't help much. There is certain qualitative information that cannot be compressed into writing. That is the reason that other articles, news papers and magazines have photos. Some kind of a picture would be worth 1000 words. Very specifically part of this theory is that there is a qualitative difference between HT and non-HT. This is beyond passing. Because non-HT's can and do pass. This is beyond attractiveness because non-HT's can be attractive.
Like for example one can say that Dr. Lawrence now after FFS etc passes. In contrast to any one of the ladies who's pictures I pulled who have had no facial surgery and have been legit models. They all pass but there are many qualitative differences there. Things which cannot be quantified an put into writing. So I will stop trying.
I just had a brainstorm. You know what may be the answer to a problem like this? A "morph" of many pictures into one. You know where a computer averages many many pictures to generate a average picture. A picture which would be of someone who does not exist and therefore cannot have any rights violated or torts committed against them. Something like that could work for so many articles.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC) corrected spelling.
Unless she's had the facial feminization surgery within the last year and a half, it would be my opinion that she is not very passable at all. Sure still photos might make her passable, but any motion, and heaven forbid, she were to speak, it becomes immediately clear that she's a transsexual. --Puellanivis (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether Lawrence passes (in your opinion or anyone else's): Anne Lawrence publicly self-identifies as being autogynephilic. It would be hard to object to being identified in Wikipedia exactly like you identify yourself. The image problem that this article has is that we don't know of any public figure (or even semi-public figure) who self-identifies as HT.
Hfarmer, initially I thought that you might be on to something with the morph picture. But I still don't see what it communicates beyond "some people look like women." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well Dr. Lawrence was just a convenient example. I am sure that there do exist autogynephilic transsexuals who pass just fine.
It's more than just passing. It's more than just looking like women. Puellanivis touches on it it with her comment about Dr Lawrence. Dr. Lawrence is that way even after I'll bet classes on voice and deportment and facial and perhaps even voice surgery. In context of BBL theory the contrast is that HT's usually don't need any of that. This comes across in their pictures. It just looks like they aren't trying hard at all. I'll do the morph thing we can look at it and then see if it is remotely acceptable. Like I said descriptive language can only take this so far. (Though there are people who can clock any one of the three ladies who I picked out, people with previous experiences of transsexuals such as them. That is why I say it is about more than just passing.)--Hfarmer (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The composited picture
Well here is a picture that I will call a proof of concept. I would want to do this much more carefully for the final finished product. For now let us discuss the very concept of using a picture such as this. It's advantages and drawbacks. If it is just totally unacceptable. As you can see any information in the source pictures is averaged over. There is no way to recover who's pictures were used in this image. Their were 7 pictures, from varying racial backgrounds and ages. A few dozen control points were used. For what I would call a final finished product I would want to take more time and find say 50 different pictures with better resolution.
The question was asked what would the image show other than that some transsexuals look like women. One quality that jumps out at me is the averaged faces features are like a living Barbie doll. Not just passing but feminine in the extreme. That can't imagine them as a male look. (The makeup would be due to the pictures I took all being posed and such. Ladies don't usually sit w/o makeup.)
As far as I can see a picture of this type has none of the issues that have been raised in the past.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
For an Idea of just how good these can look when done properly here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfarmer (talk • contribs) 08:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be claiming that a "homosexual transsexual" has natural "femininity" of some sort, but you could just as easily pick seven or fifty photos of people who exclusively date men whom you do not find attractive, and the final result would be "masculine." Conversely, you could grab seven or fifty photos of trans women who exclusively date women and come up with basically the same composite as this one.
The reason many trans women look like Barbie is from anything but nature: makeup, injected silicone, wigs/extensions, and anything else that exaggerates secondary sex characteristics. It's an aesthetic driven by a collective idealized image of "femininity." Your choice of photos simply projects your fantasy of what this category embodies and does nothing to elucidate the article, which is about a taxonomic term used primarily in one sexology journal.
Hfarmer, I believe you personally claim to be a "homosexual transsexual." If you can get one of these sexologists to label you that in print, we can use your photo as the example. Let us know when someone diagnoses you as a "homosexual transsexual" in a reliable published source, and if you agree with their diagnosis, we can discuss using you and Anne Lawrence as examples of the two types promulgated under this taxonomy. Personally, I don't think that will show anything to readers, but at least that way we would have two people who epitomize what these two terms stand for. Jokestress (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"The reason many trans women look like Barbie is from anything but nature: makeup, injected silicone,..." To be honest none of the input pictures by themselves looked at all Barbie like. That only emerged afterwards. I know that at least two of the pictures I used, one of which was mine the other was of an acquaintance, had no facial work what so ever. Only one other picture was of someone in their 20's. The other four were of ladies in their 30's 40's and 50's, and 60's when they were photographed. All had varying amounts of facial surgery and were wearing different makeup. The software averaged all of that together to create that image. Of all the ladies I used I have to admit not one could be said to be "ugly". is also the fact that when pictures are averaged together by this method any one pictures flaws are smoothed over. Hence relating in a more idealized image than any one of the inputs. This has been noted by others who have done this (Using the same software I did by the way.) There is also the fact that the pictures to be used have to have been taken under similar conditions, front facing, good resolution. Those requirements limit me to using pictures that have been posed and prepared for . Not really a candid look at the every day look of transwomen. Which like GG's is not glamorous.
"You seem to be claiming that a "homosexual transsexual" has natural "femininity" of some sort,..." Yes don't all transsexuals have natural femininity of a sort? I think so. I get the sense that you assume that for the AG article I would seek to construct a skewed, ugly image of lesbian transwomen. The picture at right is what I actually came up with. Using the same number of people, and age range (though only one was in her 20's) as before and the same method. I think this image looks feminine, passable, and all that. To be honest it reminds me of Ellen De De Generes. I would say it has natural feminity just not the Barbie doll kind of feminity. Do you understand what I am getting at? File:XW14.jpg
(This one also looks better because I had a better source of similar sized and posed images.)
As for using a picture of myself. I would want to take a picture specifically for this article. Ya know looking like a real northside of Chicago TS hooker. lol. You know, just sort of characturize the idea. Have a little fun with it. Seriously though even if I had Dr. Bailey on the front page of the Red Eye declaring me to be a "homosexual transsexual" there would still be ways to argue that was not true. I mean isn't it your position that HT's don't even exist? Perhaps that influences your stance on a picture in this article, afterall how can we have a photograph of something that is not real? I supposed that in your mind having a picture here is simply impossible.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is my belief that this taxonomy is not clinically useful or accurate. I'm not sure what you believe these (or any) photos would do to explain this article except legitimize a label that no one seems to want to embrace. I am not aware of anyone who has said "I am a homosexual transsexual" except you, and I don't think your own statement is backed up by anything but self-diagnosis. I don't believe anyone who promulgates this taxonomy would classify you as such. In fact, one characteristic of "nonhomosexual transsexuals" is an interest in morphing programs, imposing their image onto other images, and what-not. See my page on wannabes for more. I question the value of a photo here just as I would on pedophile or bisexual, etc. These are articles about sexual behavior. The article on transwoman has plenty of room for photos if you wish to have photos of transsexual people posted. Jokestress (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If we really need a photo here, then perhaps a comparison might be more useful than any single photo. That is, pick a dozen "HT" faces for one morph, a dozen "AG" faces for the next, and a dozen non-TS faces to make the last one, and put the thumbnails up side-by-side in the article. I still expect that most non-TS readers are going to look at all three and say, "Looks like three women to me," but perhaps it would have some small chance of communicating some differences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This kind of "science" is similar to attempts at classifying the "types" of other populations by physiology and then claiming their behavior can be predicted by these physiologic categories (think phrenology etc.). This entire morph debate is an exercise in original research, and I can assure you it will get deleted unless it's from a published source. Jokestress (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree whatamidoing That would be good for the overall article on BBL theory. According to TMWWBQ supposedly the difference between these types exist "on average". So pictures that have been averaged would be appropriate.
Jokestress you have already made your position that a picture should not be here in principle known. It seems you woull throw up anything at all to prevent that. First you say I should put up a picture of my self. I say sure then you attack your own suggestion. What gives?--Hfarmer (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I almost forgot. This is not original reserach. It adding a picture to an article. I suppose if I went to my acquaintance and asked her permission to put up a specially taken photo of her just for wikipedia you could just as well say that was original research.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to add a picture of someone who has said "I am a homosexual transsexual" and has been diagnosed as such, we can discuss the merits of that. The WP:NOR policy has been explained to you many times. Please review the part on synthesis regarding this morph of arbitrarily chosen photos. If I really need to explain to you why this is original research again, let me know and I will elaborate. I'd rather not do that again, though. Jokestress (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
So suppose I did the research it would take to bring about such a scenario. Let us discuss the merit's of having a picture period. You have made clear that you object to having a picture and it sounds like you will use any tool you can to make sure that no picture is ever here. Suppose I got person X and Dr. Bailey together and got person X and him to both agree that she was a homosexual transsexual and put it in a newspaper. What would you do? Would person X be verbally attacked by you and the so called "transcommunity"? I think so, I know so. Practically no one would submit themselves to that. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What a steamy pile of babble! Using composite photos to push some point is not credible. Use real people and show seveal examples to be less bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.4.169 (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I have heard in other instances people say the same thing. Like in the article woman. Suppose, hypothetically someone who is known definitively to have been profiled by Bailey in his book were to come out in print and say that they had no problem with it. Would using this one persons picture really be sufficient? I personally don't think so. Other than being transsexuals who acted feminine and were attracted to men before transition HT's can be a very diverse group of people. One would really have to think carefully about what picture to use. Then there are the unusually rigorous requierments for an acceptable open source photograph of someone. A picture will surely make for a better article but only if it is choosen properly--Hfarmer (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Find one of Baileys subjects and ask them to post a photo. Problem solved.71.139.4.169 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.13.8 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Vote on the concept of having a picture i this article
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Resolved.
At the heart of the extended discussion above really is a disagreement over weather or not their should ever be a picture in this article. Let us vote on this question.
The options are picture and no picture and perhaps a sentence or a few on why or why not.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
picture I feel that a picture would make clearer to the mostly non transsexual audience here just what kind of person the term "homosexual transsexual" was meant to characterize. w/o a picture that can only be made so clear via words. The only problem I have with a picture is just how can one picture of any one person represent a huge and diverse group .--Hfarmer (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind a picture but surely we can find one better than the 2 above? I'm not talking about the subject in the picture but the quality of the picture. They are just ugly. Again, the quality, not the person. -✰ALLSTAR✰echo 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Those composites were not carefully done that's why they look the way they do. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In my considered opinion, a photo for this article should not be a manipulated composite. It should be of someone who self identifies as the title of the article. If no such person can be found, it should be left without an image. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
So I take it you do not object in principle to their being a picture. That is the subject of this vote. Just which picture to use is a separate question. That give us three people for a picture and one who has not officially voted that we can assume is against.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Images are acceptable on any article. Benjiboi 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure a photo of a person is really necessary on this particular article, given that the focus is on a (disputed) theory, and the reader doesn't really gain any additional understanding of the concept being discussed from a picture of a random transwoman. If there were a notable transwoman who self-identifies with this label, it would be appropriate, but I'm not aware of such. krimpet✽ 03:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Picture
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
We have a consensus that the article needs a picture. In the process of preparing this article for good article nomination I discovered that this article has the readability which requires a 16th grade education. Many have said they would only give way to an image of "a picture of a transwoman who identifies as a homosexual transsexual". This image meets that requirement. Look at the full resolution version of this picture. The sicker says "God made me queer". Most dictionaries define it as a reference to homosexual males and it's overwhelming use in pop culture agree's with that (as in how it is used in the title of "queer eye for the straight guy", or in reference to Richard Hatch on the first survivor.) A minority of people use it as a umbrella term, I doubt that is how it is being used by this person because of the context of the picture. At a pride parade their is a sticker for every kind of sexual and gender combination under the sun. Why should a transwoman who is squeamish about the homosexual undertones of being a transsexual who is attracted to men choose such a sicker? Because she is not ashamed of them, or offended by the implication. Thus I have done what I am sure many of you think was impossible and found an Image of someone who ID's as a homosexual transsexual and would likely be so ID'd by Bailey or Blanchard. (unlike an Image of myself which some people suggested this unnamed person cannot be subjected to the ad homimem attacks, and possibly even death threats, that would befall whoever's image was put here. I have gotten death threats over my stance on this issue.)
Based on these rationales I think we ought to use this image here. I forgot to sign this. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I applaud your effort in trying to find a suitable image for this article about a derogatory term. However, in queer#As a contemporary antonym of heteronormative, it is clearly noted that the term queer may include transsexual, so a transsexual person may identify as queer without identifying as homosexual. Further, transgendered people including transsexuals are considered part of the LGBT community and are hence commonly involved in gay pride marches, whether they identify as homosexual or heterosexual. For these reasons, I don't believe that the person in that image can be safely assumed to identify as a homosexual transexual. I again suggest that you would need to find someone who actually identifies with the term. I don't agree with the idea of (mis)interpreting context as implying acceptance of a derogatory term. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. We can't make some random woman the poster child for a controversial term without her consent. If she has said "I am a homosexual transsexual," great. If not, it fails any number of policies. Jokestress (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not? As it so often is the case here some "random" person or the other is the poster child for a whole group. (As I have said myself I find it hard to believe that whole groups such as woman or transgender can ever be adequately represented by any one person).
As for your particular opposition Jokestress It has been noted already that you oppose a picture in principle. That a picture should be added was voted on and my side won. Now take a hint from Pervez Musharraf and accept that result.
AliceJMarkham, what you have said is true but you have missed a point that was made above... " User:WhatamIdoing asked what difference it would make having a picture because it would to most people just be a picture of a woman. This picture answers that problem because the woman literally has a sign on her person which says she is queer. Furthermore to interpret the word that way one has to ignore it's Wiktionary definition of queer , dictionary, and urban dictionary definitions. According to those the word has more than one contemporary use. Given the context it was being used in that picture , it was a clear reference to that persons homosexuality and female gender identity. Which it's use as such is not a contradiction in her particular subculture. As you may not know their are transwomen in NYC who are post op and still refer to themselves as femm queens in certain circumstances. Last but not least Alice I don't see why a man in your position (your user page ID's you as a het male cross dresser. does it not?) should be offended by this page. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't miss any point. I was pointing out that you were assuming that the word queer meant only one thing, when it has alternate meanings and that the assumption that one particular meaning was intended is an unsafe assumption. Given the context, and that I know heterosexual crossdressers who march in gay pride marches and who would wear labels such as that, I believe that your assumption about the meaning of the the label is unsafe. A label saying queer does not imply homosexuality specifically. Of course, once you consider the person to have a female gender identity, they can only be homosexual if they are a lesbian, which is one of the reasons why the term homosexual transsexual is so controversial in the first place. I consider your reference to me as a man to be a personal attack. The fact that I am using this account and name define that I am speaking as a transgender woman, not as a man. In regards to offense, anybody with a working knowledge and understanding of transgender issues will understand that the term Homosexual transsexual is on par with shemale in terms of its derogatory meaning. I know transsexuals who are very offended at the idea that they are being defined as homosexual men when they self-identify as heterosexual women. If you are unable to understand why this is offensive, then I would be concerned that you may be ill equipped to edit articles dealing with transgender issues in an NPOV manner. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Good Article nomination on hold
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am placing the good article nomination of this article on hold until the image dispute has been formally resolved. A article that can be so greatly changed cannot be a good article, as the article has to be reasonably stable for that to be the case. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Third opinions on the image above
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
The image and caption that is under discussion right now is the one at right. What do you all think of it? (I ask that this particular section be left to those who have not edited this page.)--Hfarmer (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. If you can't find a photo of someone who labels themself a "Homosexual transsexual" or a reliable source that does so then forget it. Blatant WP:BLP violation. Benjiboi 12:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You asked for an opinion and I gave one based on current policies which are formed from community consensus. In a word oppose. Instead of focusing energy on adding an image that seemingly only yourself is in support of using or what seems to me like being a stickler for an RfC comment protocol you would do well to find someone who actually identifies as a "Homosexual transsexual" then most concerns will seem to have been met. Benjiboi 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I feel that an appropriate caption would mitigate concerns with WP:BLP. The appearance of transgender individuals, homosexual or not, is impossible to distinguish. Thus, if the caption simply states that the person in the photo is transgender, and then goes on to explain that some identify as homesexual, while others do not, it would "do no harm", as per WP:BLP, and also give more information than otherwise. DJLayton4 (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. Being made the posterchild of "homosexual transsexuals" on the world's encyclopedia would certainly seem to problematic without someone identifying themselves as such. I'm not sure if you identify as such but if you went to a pride parade and someone used a picture on this article you might see that as inferring some form of sexuality that may be irrelevant and embarrassing. We can lean on WP:BLP to confirm this. Benjiboi 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Benjiboi. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with Benjiboi. There's no way to infer the sexuality of the person depicted. Furthermore, the fact that there's no way to distinguish between non-homosexual and homosexual transexuals means that an image wouldn't be particularly useful in this case. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This person could self-identify as a drag queen or crossdresser, both of these hypotheticals would be consistent with a sticker that says "God made me queer". Disregard the inability to infer the sexual orientation of the person, there is no way to infer the gender-identity of the individual (except as transgender, and that term is so widely covering as to be a non-comment anyways). The difficulty with the word "transsexual" here is also that there is not an agreed upon defining line of transsexual. The article on transsexuality itself claims various definitions from one who has had surgery, to one who is planning to have surgery, to one who simply wishes to live their full-time life as their identified gender. In particular, the proponents of this theory specifically only talk about transsexual women, who have obtained surgery. As much as it is impossible to infer anything above such has sexual-orientation or gender-identity, or other self-identifying manner, even the most objective criteria of a transsexual's status, pre-op or post-op cannot be inferred by the photo. No less, at least some of the visible and vocal proponents of the HS TS theory admit that they find little difference between an HS TS visually and a natal female. Given the theoretical nature of this article, and the admissions of the proponents of the theory itself, it does not make sense to include any picture at all in this article, unless there is a prominent public figure identifying themselves as HS TS, and such a self-identification is supported by proponents of this theory. Like it or not, this theory attempts to proscribe objective qualities about a trans woman that can qualitatively allow someone to identify the transsexual without the transsexual's self-identification. As such, the requirement is that they have to self-identify, so that we're not mislabeling anyone, they have to be relatively prominent, so that the person depicted is appropriate to use as a representative of the HS TS identifying community, and lastly that proponents of the theory (like Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence, aut ceteri) state that the person is an HS TS by the objective position of the theory. --Puellanivis (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion
We cannot infer someone is a "Homosexual transsexual", which seems like a definition is controversial and disputed, by placing their photo there no more than we could put Richard Gere's photo on the gay article. If multiple reliable sources discuss the person in question then maybe. Otherwise we do no harm. Benjiboi 12:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I have read the policy and I see it applies to articles about people who are named and allegations made against them. etc. etc. I have read do no harm, and WP:BLP in full. Taking the use of this picture as a "biography" is a real stretch. We do not and have no way of knowing this persons name from the picture. Comparing this to putting Richard Gere in the gay article is a bad straw man. Richard Gere is a public figure, known to not be gay. This person is not a public figure, who's picture was taken in public wearing a badge that reads "god made me queer". Now really be specific and underline just what clause of the policy is being violated. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact their is a portion of that policy which supports what has been done here. It regards categorizeation of people (as this article is about just that a whole category of people). If any part of this applies that policy applies then this does. Wikipedia:BLP#Categories
It says.
Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:
The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
The person in that picture is wearing a button which clearly says. "God made me queer". Going by the definitions of queer and it's usage and the context of the picture clearly this person is referring to their gender presentation and attraction to males. The features which along with their obvious youth, racial/ethnic background, etc define this category.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"Homosexual transsexual" is a controversial term and concept and BLP extends not just to a biography but to all mentions of living people including using their photos. WP:NPF comes to mind as this person is not well known and is certainly not known for being a "Homosexual transsexual". Taking someone's queer sticker and WP:SYNthesizing that they are a "Homosexual transsexual" would be original research. Benjiboi 12:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Also please keep your posts more brief and concise, your points should sway others by good policy rather than volume. Benjiboi 12:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I will write as much as it takes to illustrate my points.
It seems to me to be more common sense than sythesizing. In the section of BLP that deals with people who are relatively unknown it says "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." So I have used this persons image for that of a "homosexual transsexual". How does this adversely effect their reputation beyond what simply being known as transsexual, homosexual, or transgendered alone would? I don't think it does. Assuming because a vocal group of people is offended by this term that everyone must be now that to me sounds more like original research and what's more not a very neutral action to take. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Being made the posterchild of "homosexual transsexuals" on the world's encyclopedia would certainly seem to problematic without someone identifying themselves as such. I'm not sure if you identify as such but if you went to a pride parade and someone used a picture on this article you might see that as inferring some form of sexuality that may be irrelevant and embarrassing. Also the same section states "editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability". So is this person known for being a "homosexual transsexual"? Do we have her consent to label her as such to the entire world? Benjiboi 14:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Benjiboi on this one. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Taking in all that has been said it seems that an image here will be subjected to more stringent requirements than any picture on WP. That is if all of what has been said here was true. First of all this is much speculation about how people would react to a word, I wold go as far as to call it mind reading. Like Benjiboi did above she even goes as far as to mind read that I would have a problem with my own picture being used. (Far from it. Other people would have a problem with my or any other picture being used under any circumstances. I would have no problem with my picture being used.)
I have asked the person who submitted the image to WP for his opinion. He may have insight into these question as he has added literally thousands of images to WP. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't incorporate the unpublished opinions of submitters. Please review WP:NOR again. Jokestress (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I was actually just going to suggest getting in touch with the submitter/photographer. It may not be an adequate source for inclusion, but if the person who submitted the photo said, That person is me, or I know this person myself, and I know that inclusion in this article would be unquestionably offensive, then IMO that response would absolutely require removal of the photo. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A man who parades in public as a transsexual in one of the largest gay pride events in North America is highly unlikely to be offended by being described as gay and transsexual. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the obvious problems with this remark, I don't think it's so much a question of offence. It's easy to see why someone might object to having their photo used on Wikipedia without their permission, and the fact that this image is labelled as a "transgendered person" is problematic. "How do we know whether she's transgendered, in drag, or biologically female?" And "how do we know her sexual orientation?" are just some of the questions that immediately come to mind. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, inferring sexual behavior based on appearance and labeling someone with a controversial diagnosis are the real issues. We wouldn't add this image to the nymphomania article just because some editor thinks she epitomizes their idea of what a nymphomaniac looks like. If she said in a published source "I am a nymphomaniac" AND had been "diagnosed" as such in a published source (in quotations because nymphomania is also a controversial/discredited diagnosis), then fine. Otherwise, it's both a WP:NOR and a WP:BLP issue. Jokestress (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this proposed standard is too high. We don't require TS people to produce any documentation to include their photos in the transsexual article: we take their word for it (as we should). If we have a picture of a person who self-identifies as HT, and doesn't mind posting a photo in this article, then IMO we can include it. It might deserve a slightly weasel-ly caption, like "Jane Smith self-identifies as HT," but it's silly to insist on a formal, published diagnosis for "being HT" when Wikipedia doesn't require any documentation for anything comparable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I basically agree that if someone posts a photo of themself and identifies themself in that uploading description as a "Homosexual transsexual" then most of these concerns will have been met. It would be better to have a photo of someone notable for being a "Homosexual transsexual" and use a photo of them but until then the above solution seems acceptable. I certainly wouldn't support someone's photo being used without a clear proof that they identify as such. If "Homosexual transsexual" events and parades occur and we get a photo from one of those events then by all means post it with a clear label as such. Benjiboi 04:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. That was my point way back when I tentatively supported the inclusion of such a photo. The few TSes that I've spoken to about this recently have been so extremely affronted at the term homosexual transsexual that I'd be genuinely surprised if it was possible to find someone who self-identifies with the term. And no, I haven't been canvassing. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(comment redacted)If someone wished to put their own photo on the genius article simply because they self-identify as a genius, I imagine a self-diagnosis would not suffice. This taxonomy is controversial because of the conflict between diagnosis and identity. That's why both diagnosis and self-identification need to match -- in almost every instance they do not match. Jokestress (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This article says that the "diagnosis" can be made (entirely) according to self-report. Accepting a diagnosis based entirely on self-report, but not accepting the self-report itself, seems silly to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Added fact tag. At issue with an uncorroborated self-diagnosis is what proponents call "systematic distortion," (Blanchard 1985) where "transsexual males" who wish to be perceived as the "homosexual" type will resort to "common lies and deceptiveness" (Bailey 2003) in order to present themselves as such. That's why identity and diagnosis need to match. I am not aware of any case where someone who has been diagnosed as such used the term as a self-descriptor. Jokestress (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how diagnosis and self-description can ever match, given that the diagnosis pre-supposes the person to be male and homosexual, while the person has to self identify as female to be transsexual, and their attraction to males would, by definition, see them self identify as heterosexual female. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
<Indent Reset>(comment redacted) You have said many a time that this theory does not fit anyone. As it stands right now the article as a whole has a 16th grade reading level. The lead in alone has an 18th grade reading level. It might as well be written in Greek! However those big multisyllabic words are the only neutral and concise language we can use for this topic. I just think that a picture of some kind would aid in understanding the topic for most readers who are NOT versed in these matters. Which would include many TLGB people. That and that alone is the underlying issue.
To AliceJMarkham I am not surprised by what happens when you ask people about the term "homosexual transsexual" I would ask you to consider what has been written about "homosexual transsexual's" by supposed autogynephiles. I have read works by critics of BBL theory who call the ladies Bailey wrote about gay, latino, crossdresing, street hustlers, that Bailey met in a gay bar. Then say things about them that are 100 times worse than anything Bailey wrote in his book. (Andrea James and Lynn Conway who actually bothered to meet them are the only exceptions I have see to that.) --Hfarmer (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
So it is decided by consensus
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
(redacted comment) I see a consensus decision that if someone who ID's as HT is willing to post a picture they can and it will not be disputed. To that end I will choose and put up a picture of myself for use here on WP as an example of a homosexual transsexual. I want to take one especially for this. The only question is should I go to one of the last tranny bars in the city and take it in there (to sort of make fun of the whole thing). Or should I take it at UIC (to show my virtually effortless passing in straight society). I mean their are gonna be people who will HATE me for this so I might as well go ahead and really rub it in.
I have a webpage which is linked to my talk page where I have my whole life's story. I have pictures from when I was very young that show I was a feminine boy. I can get all kinds of documents to prove every part of what is said there. But why is that even necssary. I was a feminine boy I am at least a 5 on the Kinsey scale and I'm a transsexual. What the heck more should it take? --Hfarmer (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say there was any consensus, particularly. Personally, I don't think there's really any need for an image. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about using a photo of someone not known for this. I'm not sure if it matters that much but if it's a hassle to take one then I agree that an image would be nice but as Exploding Boy says there's not a huge need. If you want to though it may be empowering but alos remember that once you post it - it is there for the entire world. Benjiboi 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am having trouble with the concept of how someone could be known for being a homosexual transsexual. I mean I am just a transsexual woman who as a male was gay and now makes a pretty ,reasonable looking woman (If you believe hotornot.com in the pic I have on my user page I look hotter than 2/3rd's of the women on that site. Pretty good for someone w/o any surgeries to the face.) How can one be known for that? Like consider the article woman how can a woman be known for being a woman? What woman can really represent all women? How can I or any other individual really represent a whole group. (I think in my picture I will split the difference and wear something inappropriately and unprofessionally sexual to school and have one of my collegues take my picture at a function which will occur tomorrow. Perhaps that can capture what Dr. Bailey was driving at?)--Hfarmer (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Using hotornot as a measure of attractiveness is not valid. I have had a few photos on there over the years and the current one is sitting at 6.8 as I type this. I remember having had one photo make it to a score of about 8.8. Not only have I had no facial surgery but I haven't used female hormones to alter fat distribution, improve skin etc. Personally, I consider scoring less than about 8 on hotornot to indicate that the look that I've portrayed doesn't work. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, no offense but you don't seem fully to have understood the concept. By your own description you seem to be saying that you're a heterosexual (transsexual) woman. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hfarmer is extremely interested in identifying by the term used in this article. Because of that and the lack of a corroborating diagnosis, using a photo of this editor appears to be a WP:COI. Jokestress (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL LOL Jokestress,..Look who's talking. You have a vested interest in and long history of trashing this idea and anyone who dares to disagree with you about it. If anyone has a conflict of interest you do.
Exploding boy. Yeah yeah I see what you mean. The use of the term homosexual to refer to a MTF transsexual who likes men is confusing when you think of it from the perspective of a transitioned woman. However if you put yourself in the shoes of the psychologist when they first see a person they see them as they were and then that person changes before their eyes. As a psychologist trying to diagnose someone when they start treatment it may make a certain kind of sense that they would refer to such a person as homosexual. Because when a HT goes to see a psych. for the first time they are from all outward appearances a gay man.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (That is of course assuming that they haven't done anything illegal to get started before seeing a psychologist.)--Hfarmer (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Will this picture do?
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I have taken the picture like I said I would. Questions? Comments? Virulent personal attacks characteristic of discussions of this topic? --Hfarmer (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC) (edited to link to the same image by a slightly different name. The original was deleted because a admin took the original title as a personal attack. Who it was supposed to be attacking I don't know. Apparently discussions are out of style these days.)--Hfarmer (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure a picture of any Wikipedian is a good idea here. Unless reliable sources have connected the person in question with the identification of "homosexual transsexual" as defined in the article, and they're suitably iconic/notable enough, a picture should probably be omitted. (Perhaps an image of one of the proponents of the theory might be more apropos?) krimpet✽ 03:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)elf
Very true putting a picture of one's self in an article like this could look self serving. The problem is that people exist who have been ID'd as homosexual transsexuals in reliable sources but they do not self identify. Then their are people like me who have not been named but do self identify. A second problem is that to some people the most vocal "proponents" of this theory would not be reliable. Thanks for your thoungts. Anyone else?--Hfarmer (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Krimpet is spot on with their assessment. A picture of one the proponents maybe and soon enough a notable "Homosexual transsexual" will self-identify. Benjiboi 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Which proponent to use? Bailey? I hardly think he is an example of a homosexual transsexual. Who would be a notable homosexual transsexual? I cannot imagine how one becomes prominent for being congenitally and terminally attracted to men. Hmmm.
Perhaps we could harken back to an earlier solution to this very problem. For a long while a page written by one of the ladies Bailey profiled was linked to and noted that she does not agree with the identification. Thus providing at least a place where someone diagnosed as such can be seen, and heard from in her own words. (I think regardless of having a picture here in the future this link should be here it is very germaine and pertinent. ) This would provide the human element that this rather dry technical article lacks. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The historical context
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I understand the position that the term "transsexual" is needed but it is a wrong position to take. For one thing it could be argued based on that kind of logic that transsexual women in countries where English is not the langauge are not transsexuals because they do not use the exact same word for their condition. Obviously the reasoning for removing that content was a fallacy. So I will restore it. Using ironically the same source cited to justify removing it.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I do have to admit I liked most of what was done just not the removal of that content.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Done I also found a reference which says explicitly what I was able to infer from other sources. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I've slightly expanded the intro to the History section. Green's point is not about transsexuals not existing because there was no word, but that the absence of the word makes it hard to know when historical accounts are referring to transsexuality (i.e. because they might use "change of sex" to refer to other roles such as homosexuality, or cross-dressing without change of sexual orientation. 86.160.182.89 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Though I changed the title of that section from "history of transsexualism" to Across culture and history. I felt that would emphasize the cross cultural aspect better. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is about the controversial term "homosexual transsexual," not the historic phenomenon of androphilic male-to-female transgenderism. That's why we don't need to copy and paste materials from other articles. As examples, see Queer and Negro for how Wikipedia deals with articles on controversial terms like this. Jokestress (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the point I was trying to hilite was too subtle. Not that homosexual transsexualism has been around for a long time. The point is that it has been known and accepted in many societies. That people seem to instictively think of that mode of transsexuality. Which leads to the notion that it is somehow more classical, and something to lie about being, something to hold over other people... That history explains why what happend did happen. That is why I fought to include as much of it as I could. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Reintroduced errors
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I just rolled back an edit that reintroduced a bunch of errors I corrected. please do them one at a time to avoid this. Jokestress (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
HFarmer, please stop cutting and pasting an old version into this article. You are reintroducing typos and other errors when you do that. Other editors have asked you not to do this in the past as well. Please make any changes based on the current version. Jokestress (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop trying to decontextualize this subject. The history of this concept is much older than the western European thoughts on the matter. It's older than BBL theory which merely appropriated a very old observation. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have re introduced what Bailey said. It was on his personal webpage. The official wikipedia policy WP:SOURCE says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Bailey is just such a person so what he said on his personal webpage regarding this matter is acceptable under WP policy. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Citation for "self-report"
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I added a fact tag to this: "Psychologists and sexologists define this category based on testing [1][2] or self report." Please provide the quotation where self-report constitutes a legitimate or reliable diagnosis. Other published papers specifically note that self-report is unreliable, especially when someone self-reports to be a "homosexual transsexual." (cf. Blanchard 1985). Jokestress (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
reference 1 for Lawrence. "Participants completed a questionnaire concerning their age, ethnicity, medication use, and sexual orientation. They reported their feelings of sexual attraction and their sexual experience during adolescence and adulthood, including the year prior to participation, using a 7-point Kinsey scale (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948). Feelings of sexual attraction during adolescence were used to categorize transsexual participants as either homosexual (Kinsey 5 or 6) or nonhomosexual (Kinsey 0-4) relative to birth sex. This categorization was based on the observation that heterosexual and bisexual MtF transsexuals tend to have similar patterns of erotic interests, which differ significantly from those of homosexual MtF transsexuals (Blanchard, 1989)." "They reported" sounds like self report to me.
for number two"These subjects were classified for erotic attraction to males using the Androphilia Scale developed by Freund et al. (1982) and later modified by Blanchard (1985). A score of 7.49 or higher on the modified Androphilia scale was required for inclusion in the study. This score was set so as to exclude patients with scores more than 1 standard deviation below the mean of Blanchard's homosexual transsexual group (X 9.86; SD 2.37). On the basis of the cutoff score, 81 subjects were erotically attracted to males and defined the homosexual transsexual study pool. The 81 subjects were divided into three groups on the basis of their answers to questions concerning prior sexual contact with males. Sexual contact was operationalized along six dimensions articulated by Langevin et al. (1977). " That sounds like psychological testing.
Those are very voluminous quotes. I would not want to add this to the article. I think that one sentence says it all. They are curious in that they conventional wisdom is that "HSTS's have to have been exclusively attracted to men....", and "all gender paitients lie." Both things which were said by people who were not Blanchard or Bailey yet in the popular conception they became part of this theory. That they are false and unscientific is not really a surprise. As they were said by people who are not psychologist or who hadn't really thought to much about it. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Blanchard has published on his observations of "systematic distortion" which have to be taken into consideration with self-reports. He noted that some people who claim to be "homosexual transsexual" do so because they think it's more socially desirable than what they would be classified as under his taxonomy. They will exaggerate childhood femininity and claim attraction to males and other behaviors and characteristics associated with the desired type. That needs to be noted as a caveat with self-reports. Jokestress (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
True. True. But how? I mean where should we mention it? How deep should the mention of systematic distortion be in the lead? I will look and if a word on that is not in the lead I will add it. I also think their is a distinction to be made between the infamatory "all gender paitients lie" line and Blanchard's publications. It would hep if their were a link to at least a faithful transcription of the full text of one of the articles in the references which addresses this. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Taking Good article Consideration off Hold.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Now I think we have a much better article after this last round of activity that we ever had before. A picture would be nice but it seems none will be pleasing to all parties. The language of the introduction of the article has became as "simple" as it can be without being crude and offensive. Further more every single thing in this article has one or even two supporting references that are linked to both hard copy and online versions. We can all feel good about what we have done with this article. (Now next is to do this for Autogynephilia. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolved. 
Done I also found a reference which says explicitly what I was able to infer from other sources. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
