This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBT studies C‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Medicine C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Wiki Loves Pride
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2016.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles

(I think that's my favorite talk page edit headline I've ever done) What is the point of the whole yarn about Roosevelt, and the assignment of colors? I understand that the presenter shared that, but that doesn't mean it belongs in this article. I don't see how the idea that Roosevelt was clothed in dresses, or that pink and blue now represent opposite genders, have anything to do with the causes of transsexuality, whether the Dr. thought it did or not. Furthermore, even if it belonged in the article, it definitely doesn't belong under the "Parenting" heading. I hope I don't sound nasty. It's just that Dr. Sharer's supposed examples of gender expression are not only so dated but really don't show any trans leanings at all - my history's dusty, but I'm pretty sure young Franklin didn't grow up to be the first transgender American president..."Yes...It's Raining" 19:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not suggest FDR was trans in anyway, it says that parents can influence gender expression but not gender identity and that prior to the 1940's it was common to dress both young girls and boys under 6 years in white dresses in what was considered at the time to be gender neutral. So even though we see his parents dressing FDR in a white dress when he was 3years old, his parents actions had no effect on FDR's gender identity as an adult. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is embarrassingly stupid. A lil research or erudition would have revealed that it had been common in the West for all children under 5, especially those of the upper classes to be in dresses, dressed the same, i.e. in the female clothing, long hair, etc. This didn change till after the turn of the 20th century and FDR was born in in the 19th to a rich family. Lycurgus (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the upper-class. My Kansas farmer ancestors did the same, as I've seen in well-preserved photos ranging from shortly after the US Civil War to well into the 20th century. (The elder of my sisters still has one of these dresses, from around our great-grandmother's childhood, ca. WWI). Anyway, I agree that the material is basically useless. For the very reason that it was normal in that period to dress little boys in dresses, it tells us nothing at all about parenting effects on gender ID, because FDR's treatment was not loaded with gender-conformation pressure of any kind. It would make much more sense to cite something like evidence of a modern family forcing a boy to wear dresses until his school years and to continue wearing them at home long after his exposure to gendered-dressing norms among his peers, yet this not having any effect on the child's actual gender ID (though I bet it would have effects on self-esteem, trust of family members, etc.). I would be surprised if there were no material out there about cases like this, so we have no need to rely on bogus stuff about FDR that doesn't show what someone thinks it does. Just because it was published is no reason for us to use it if we know it's wrong.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 

What are other editors thoughts on the current opening paragraph of the psychological section:

"Psychiatrist and sexologist David Oliver Cauldwell argued that transsexuality was caused by multiple factors. He believed that small boys tend to admire their mothers to such a degree that they end up wanting to be like them. However, he believed that boys would lose this desire as long as his parents set limits when raising him, or he had the right genetic predispositions or a normal sexuality. Harry Benjamin considered the causes of transsexuality to be badly understood, and argued that researchers were biased towards considering psychological causes over biological causes."

Both of these are from the 1960's and seem like the typical wild speculations from psychologists (especially of that era) rather than anything meeting the standards for inclusion? I'm sure it can be adjusted to talk about 'early theories' but I don't know of it's value. At least Blanchard's taxonomy acknowledges that biology underlies the etiology of transsexuality, but that context specific and psychological factors sit on top of that. Sxologist (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: sorry I did not see that Benjamin was critical of that view. Perhaps it simply needs to clarify the decade of Cauldwells suggestions? Sxologist (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How researchers initially thought about the matter is important to cover. Early thoughts on subjects is one reason we have history sections in our Wikipedia articles. But I'd rather us not create a "History" section or an "Early theories" section just to cover that little bit of material. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it doesn't need its own section, but I did add years to clarify that these are old ideas. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I didn't suggest adding an entire section or heading about history or early theories, I said "I'm sure it can be adjusted to talk about 'early theories' ", meaning specifying the period of the hypothesis. I could have made that clearer. Edit: thanks Crossroads for the change, that looks good. Sxologist (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reviewed the top dozen or so relevant articles and there's an implicit expression of the movement away from psychological toward biological explanations for the cause of sexuality generally. The psychology § here, recounting the old style philosophical speculations clothed in scientific garb, shows why. Many very fundamental biological processes are not fully understood at a detail level (e.g. exactly how at a molecular level meiosis does the job of reverting to the organisms original ploidy) and this is one that isn't even really started other than extremely crude phenomenological and observational studies. Since this is an area of rapid advancement and there is no dearth of cheap animal models, in time there will be a complete picture from genes to behavior. Right now however we're in an interregnum where the old psychological approach hasn't been discarded and in many places is still operative and the biological approach isn't anywhere near connecting molecules to behavior. There are common sense kinds of things that can be reasonably concluded however they are generally outside of what is permissible generally due to the fraught nature of the subject. It is the case for the mentioned article space that there is little left of the psychological approach right now.Lycurgus (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current Psychological section also concerns biological underpinnings. Researchers generally do not think of a topic like this (or specifically sexual orientation) as just being due to one or the other, but rather a complex combination of both (or more than one). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The paragraph should just be deleted per WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:MEDDATE. This article isn't about the history of transsexuality research, it's about the causes of transsexuality. Our Sexual orientation#Causes content (which is probably the closest analog), only presents research from the late 1990s and later. Presenting theories from the 1940s here is ridiculous. Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:MEDDATE have nothing to do with this. The text is not about the state of current research. It's about historical beliefs about the cause(s) of transsexuality. And as seen at WP:MEDSECTIONS and in various medical articles, we include history material. It's most commonly included in a "History" section. But like I stated above, I'd rather us not create a "History" section or an "Early theories" section just to cover that little bit of material. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

  Yes. If Sexual orientation is completely lacking in any information on the history of research into this area, then it's that article that is lacking (or it needs to be in a side article which is cross-referenced and summarized at the main one per WP:SUMMARY). It does readers a disservice to pretend that post-1990s views are the only ones that have ever been dominant, since any given reader may be at such an article because they're trying to understand something they encountered in an older work (maybe even a novel or something). Remember that our readers are not medical/psych professionals, and we cannot predict why they are at any article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The title's word "transsexualism" is not the correct term for what is talked about in the article, but a term used to further an outdated belief that transgender people must medically transitiom. A more correct title would be "Causes of gender incongruence". SAMSMILE4 (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the sources are about and nothing of the sort is implied. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wiktionary:transsexual says:

"Although some authors distinguish transsexual (pertaining to physical sex) and transgender (pertaining to gender), transgender is generally taken to encompass transsexual and has largely displaced it; transsexual is now often considered outdated, although some people who have undergone SRS still prefer it; compare the usage notes at transgender.[3] Neither term should be confused with transvestite (which see for more).[1][2][4]"

And wiktionary:transgender says:

"The term transgender was coined in 1965[1] and popularized in the late 1970s,[3][4] and by the 1990s it had largely displaced the older, narrower term transsexual.[2][5] Transsexual is now often considered outdated[3] although some people still prefer it; see its entry for more. Neither term should be confused with transvestite (which see for more)."

(see the sources over there)

This article seems to conflate transgender with transsexual, freely switching between the two, even in the lead sentence. I understand that this can be a result of multiple Wikipedians editing it over time, but if we are going to insist that transsexual is the more accurate term of the two, then we should insist on that. Otherwise we should not use the outdated term in the title, even if academic language lags behind popular usage a bit.

And yes, transsexual is the narrower of the two, implying that someone has changed their physical sex, i.e. had SRS. Not all transgender people have had (or even desire to have) SRS. --Hirsutism (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The study of the causes of transsexuality investigates gender identity formation of transgender people is the lead of this article. If the article is about the causes of gender dysphoria or the formation of non-cis gender identities, then causes of gender incongruence or the causes of transgender identities are both titles that are much more appropriate for the article. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Gender incongruence is an acceptable term. I moved the page.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@14Jenna7Caesura: Please don't move this page again without a full discussion. The section you are responding to was started over a year ago, when the page title was Causes of transsexualism. (I won't be reverting the move but I hope someone else does) Funcrunch (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The points made above are cogent. I am ready to listen to input from others.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then start a new section for discussion. This is now the the second time you've moved this page in five months without first seeking input from others. Funcrunch (talk)

I have studied the term "transsexualism". I have come to understand that it stigmatizes trans people. I have arrived at the conclusion that the tyranny of the majority shouldn't be used to further stigmatize a suspect group. If there is overwhelming justification, I will be overriden--that is okay.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the time you moved this page today, the title was not Causes of transsexualism, it was Causes of transsexuality. In any case, another editor has reverted your move (@Tbhotch: thanks) and I have requested arbitration enforcement regarding your numerous page moves on gender and sexuality articles. Funcrunch (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your eagerness to de-humanize trans people and talk about their "status" (which should be "civil rights") as if they are cocaine. You want to impose your will. I don't see any true discussion on your part.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added Template:Unbalanced because the article emphasizes biological determinism without due weight to other causal explanations. Let's discuss. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What other causal explanations are you thinking about? If you have reliable sources for other explanations the article would probably benefit from their inclusion, possibly under the "Psychological" section? Srey Sros^talk 18:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is called WP:Drive-by tagging and is against Template:POV. There is no shortage of watchers at this article. You need to present evidence, in the form of WP:MEDRS sources, of a lack of balance. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: You are a smart person who undoubtedly knows there is plenty of evidence for social, cultural, psychological, and other non-biological causal factors. But I don't want to be tagged as a drive-by bad guy, so I'll work on writing some new content with reliable sources, although you could do the same if you were so inclined. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 16:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article is wrong or inadequate, the onus is on you to prove it, and improve it, and convince editorial consensus that you're actually making an improvement (which will be a challenge under WP:DUE). Be aware that patience is very thin in this entire category of topics and it is under discretionary sanctions for a reason. Please be mindful of the amount of detailed and tense consensus-building, and in-depth and frequent source research (all volunteer time) that it has required to get an article like this to the state that is in and to stay stable. It is not possible for an article of this sort to make everyone happy, because the issue is so socio-politicized. It has to stay as neutral and as glued to high-quality secondary source material as possible. It's something to keep in mind, especially with regard to not trying to rely on bunch of a primary-research papers, op-ed/advocacy work, "professional" opinion from people in the wrong fields, tertiary sources, or other low-quality material. There is some room in any such topic for some examination of differing but major and non-WP:FRINGE real-world medical and psych views that are well-covered in secondary source material, but the further one of them gets from what the preponderance of the reliable sources are telling us, the less weight it will get, if any mention at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valid and important points that I will take to heart. Thank you. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this page makes frequent use of the abbreviations FtM and MtF. Why is this? From what I understand these terms are more casual, slang terms that shouldn't be used in an article about science, or even really on an encyclopedia. They also seem to be falling out of use generally. Would anyone be against me editing to remove them and use better language?

Sudonymous (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply refer to the kind of people traditionally known as MtF's as "trans women". Also, please note that trans women contrast with cis women, not real women, biological females, or women-born-women. Georgia guy (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no grounds for a blanket change, although it's possible there are some where it isn't needed. However, we need to stick to the terminology of the sources. "Transsexual" (which "MtF" often appears next to) is a smaller set than "transgender", referring specifically in these sources to those who sought medical transition and surgery. And "MtF" does appear in many of the sources. How common it is in everyday discourse does not matter as this is a science article which uses more technical terms when the sources do. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The psychological section says autogynephilia is common in trans people (objectively false), and cites the DSM-V chapter on gender dysphoria. I looked at said chapter, and it doesn’t. So why was my edit removing what is clearly an editorialized and unsupported line, reverted? Snokalok (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the DSM-5 bit with text from another article that summarizes it more accurately. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Snokalok (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that any biology-related source has to be a review to be considered reliable, but the psychological section is full of individual papers and doctoral theses with impunity? Snokalok (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any doctoral theses now. I cut some primary sources. The ones that remain could be easily replaced with secondary sources, though I am not sure if they are being challenged. At this point it basically looks to be briefly discussing the typology and why it's debated, which we do have to cover. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: Actually I should’ve put this in here.

Right then, two things:

1. I think it’d be very relevant to include the Moser study.

2. I think it’s important to, when discussing the existence of neurological differences between andro and gynephilic trans people, note that neurological differences also exist between andro and gynephilic cis people, and that on those grounds this does not remotely validate Blanchard’s taxonomy.

Snokalok (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding point 1, I will address this in the section you started below on it. With point 2, you need a WP:MEDRS source - meaning, a review article - that makes that specific point. If one already in the article makes that point, that can be used as well. Do you have one? Crossroads ^-talk- 18:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did, the 2021 review stated several neurological differences, which I mentioned in my edit to approximately the same level of detail that the previous review had been described at.

The previous review was stated as “ A 2016 review found support for the predictions of Blanchard's typology that androphilic and gynephilic trans women have different brain phenotypes.” Followed by several lines about how the review said this meant Blanchard was right.

My summary of the 2021 review was “ A 2021 review, however, also found that cisgendered heterosexual men and women likewise had different brain phenotypes from their homosexual counterparts.”, which I would consider to be approximately the same level of detail.

@Crossroads: Snokalok (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot put WP:Synthesis in the article, and making this point about Guillamon et al and from there, Blanchard, having been wrong because maybe those differences were sexual orientation-related doesn't seem supported by the paper. They touch on that topic in the paragraph starting "Finally, as Guillamon et al. (2016) noted,..." A bit later, it says that "Due to conflicting results, it was, however, not possible to identify specific brain features which consistently differ...between heterosexual and homosexual groups." Crossroads ^-talk- 20:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And is it not synthesis to say “ A 2016 review found support for the predictions of Blanchard's typology that androphilic and gynephilic trans women have different brain phenotypes”? If you really want to work solely without regard to synthesis, the quote in the 2016 study that comes after this line should suffice. That is, would it not make more sense to delete the synthesizing summary and leave only the relevant quote to speak for itself? Snokalok (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't synthesis, it is based on text from the paper itself. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As was mine. The study did indeed find neurological differences between cis people of different sexual orientations. Is that not worth mentioning given that the same phenomenon in trans people is being used to support Blanchard?

Additionally, when mentioning the 2021 review, can we mention specific parts of the brain (such as the corpus callosum)? Snokalok (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: (decided it was less energy to do these one at a time) Snokalok (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does the paper mention that in a context of criticizing Blanchard? I didn't see it. Per WP:Synthesis, to "imply" a conclusion not in the source is still synthesis. As for mentioning specific parts of the brain, I don't see a way to do that without cherry-picking bits from the article. We should stick to what the general conclusions are. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No but it does draw a conclusion of neurological difference in sexual orientation in cis brains, which is relevant to the current topic at hand since to only mention it in regards to trans brains and then pose that as supporting Blanchard’s typology is intellectually dishonest.

As for cherry-picking concerns, I’ve found a better way.

“Among transgender individuals meet- ing criteria for GD, cortical thickness [80, 81], gray matter volume [80, 82], white matter microstructure [83, 84], structural con- nectivity [85], and corpus callosum shape [86] have been found to be more similar to cisgender control subjects of the same preferred gender compared with those of the same natal sex.”

2019 review in Neuropsychopharmacology.

Here’s the link.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30082887/

Is this satisfactory? Snokalok (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: Snokalok (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I should probably type this up as a proposal so:

A 2019 review in Neuropsychopharmacology found that “ Among transgender individuals meeting criteria for GD, cortical thickness, gray matter volume, white matter microstructure, structural connectivity, and corpus callosum shape have been found to be more similar to cisgender control subjects of the same preferred gender compared with those of the same natal sex.” (CITATION)

Snokalok (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. I added that and found a way to mention cisgender sexual orientation within a proper context here. With the 2016 Guillamon review, keep in mind that it also emphasizes the limitations of that research and states that future research would be needed to actually confirm that prediction. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the attempt, I feel your statement says something significantly different. Yours leads the reader to the conclusion of Blanchard/Bailey’s “trans people are confused gays” whereas what I meant needed to be included was that the existence of neurological differences between gay and straight trans people should be taken with the understanding that there are also neurological differences between gay and straight cis people, which is something the review also found Snokalok (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: Snokalok (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What conclusion a reader could be led to can be in the eye of the beholder, but I could remove that sentence. When you say "the review also found" that, can you clarify what text you are referring to? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences really I feel are critical:

“In homosexual individuals the majority resemble those of their same-sex heterosexual population rather than their opposite-sex heterosexual population.”

“Sexual orientation could be associated with brain structural specific features regardless and independently from gender identity as some recent studies suggest.”

With emphasis on the second one.

I feel it’s very important to specify that the report mentions a difference in neurology between trans people and gay people who are both attracted to the same sex, whereas simply saying “the study found similar results for gay people” to me downplays the fact that there are differences and neurological structures independent of each other. Snokalok (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: Snokalok (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think this should clarify the matter properly. I think. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is saying “ Lynn Conway, Andrea James, and Deidre McClosky attacked Bailey's reputation following the release of The Man Who Would Be Queen” out of nowhere, with no context, not an NPOV violation? Snokalok (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now cut it as off-topic for this specific article. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Snokalok (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like, in a discussion of Blanchard’s taxonomy, including mention of the Moser study that found that 93% of cis women respondents fit into Blanchard’s classification of AGP is fairly relevant. Snokalok (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moser's study was itself rebutted; e.g. [1]. We should keep the discussion of the typology brief in this particular article rather than getting into the back and forths here. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the typology is being presented in this article as a legitimate theory and not what it actually is, pseudoscientific pathologization of a vulnerable group, popularized by Bailey and given institutional backing by Raymond that both the fields of psychology and gender studies have since moved on from.

To keep it and present it as current fact would be like presenting hysteria or drapethomania as fact.

As for Lawrence’s reply, Moser only used Blanchard’s methodology and classification, and Lawrence’s reply can be effectively summarized as “It’s different when REAL women do it”.

Case and point, her comparison of the scales Moser and Blanchard used.

Moser: “I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself in the nude.”

Blanchard: “Have you ever become sexually aroused while picturing yourself having a nude female body or with certain features of the the nude female form?”

These questions are only asking different things if you’re working under the belief that trans women are men, and that visualizing yourself as a woman during these acts is only a valid and normal action if you’re a “real” woman.

Do you see the issue? Snokalok (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Forgot to tag) @Crossroads: Snokalok (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add, though I assume you’re aware of this already, that under WP:GENDERID, trans women are women and wikipedia considers them such. Snokalok (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, under WP:GENDERID, wikipedia’s own position is that a person’s gender identity has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, and so presenting Blanchard’s taxonomy as fact thus falls in direct conflict with wikipedia rules themseves. Snokalok (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not being presented as fact now - far from it - and the typology doesn't contradict trans women being women. It does not engage in the philosophical question of defining womanhood. It is a theory about the development of gender dysphoria or gender identity. It is quite controversial, yes, but you are overstating the degree to which scientists reject it. [2], [3], and pp. 47-48 A number of trans women, such as Anne Lawrence and the trans women she has interviewed in her research, give credence to the theory. Per WP:OR and WP:NPOV, Wikipedia can't take an editorial position as to whether Moser or Lawrence are right. This article here notes relatively briefly that the typology exists and why it's been criticized, which is enough. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Anne Lawrence (whose criticism, may I reiterate, is absolutely nonsensical and based on making an assumption and then coming up with circumstantial arguments post hoc to support it), there are always members of any marginalized group who hold views at odds and detrimental to the larger group. That doesn’t mean they speak for said group.

Secondly, I’m saying that it is a relevant part of that criticism to mention Moser’s findings. The way it’s currently phrased in the article makes it sound like “social activists vs scientific data”, when really there is significant scientific data out there against Blanchard’s typology, and that data is important to elaborate on, which I don’t think is unreasonable considering the amount of attention the psychological section already gives to sources in favor of Blanchard’s typology.

@Crossroads: Snokalok (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listen if you really still hold Lawrence’s criticisms in regard as valid, why don’t we simply include both? We put in Moser’s data, and then Lawrence’s criticisms. Snokalok (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to present a specific proposal that represents both, if you like. It isn't about what I hold as valid but representing the sources anyway. As it is, though, it seems to be presented as scientists vs. scientists anyway. As for "members of any marginalized group who hold views at odds and detrimental to the larger group", every group has a diversity of views as to what is detrimental and what is not. Anne Lawrence and those she studied surely wouldn't consider these views detrimental to themselves. We can't be saying editorially that one side is right, regardless of our own personal opinions. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something along the lines of:

A 2009 study by Charles Moser surveying a number of cis women in the healthcare field based on Blanchard’s methods for identifying autogynephilia found that 93% of respondents qualified as autogynephiles based on their own responses (CITATION)

This study was later criticized by Anne Lawrence, who argued that “ Many of the items in Moser’s scale bear little resem- blance to the items Blanchard used to assess autogynephilia, and even those items that do bear some resemblance to Blanchard’s do not adequately assess the essential element of autogynephilia—sexual arousal simply to the thought of being a female”. For example, she believed that there was a significant difference between Blanchard’s question of “ Have you ever become sexually aroused while picturing yourself having a nude female body or with certain features of the the nude female form?” Aimed at trans women, and Moser’s survey question of “I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself in the nude.” Aimed at cis women. (CITATION) Snokalok (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: Snokalok (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, perhaps it should be “she argued that there was a significant difference between blah blah blah” Snokalok (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think more than one sentence for Lawrence's response is too much; one sentence for each at the most seems best. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This study was later criticized by Anne Lawrence, who argued that there was a significant difference between Blanchard and Moser’s criteria, for example - Blanchard’s question of “ Have you ever become sexually aroused while picturing yourself having a nude female body or with certain features of the the nude female form?” Aimed at trans women, versus Moser’s survey question of “I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself in the nude.” Aimed at cis women.

Would that work? Snokalok (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a longer, run-on sentence. The cherry-picking should be removed and then just have the general argument. People can then read the papers or another Wikipedia article for the details. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This study was later criticized by Anne Lawrence, who argued that “ Many of the items in Moser’s scale bear little resem- blance to the items Blanchard used to assess autogynephilia, and even those items that do bear some resemblance to Blanchard’s do not adequately assess the essential element of autogynephilia—sexual arousal simply to the thought of being a female”. Snokalok (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be “who argued in a letter to the editor” (I think that’s what it was?) Snokalok (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to citations in text and all that Snokalok (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I summarized it a bit more and added this. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section on androphilic male-to-female transsexuals cites a DTI study and concludes that "androphilic transsexuals were halfway between the patterns exhibited by female and male controls". A very similar study examined androphilic, gynephilic and bisexual male-to-female transsexuals using DTI and found that regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved "The results of this study show that the white matter microstructure in FtM and MtF transsexuals falls halfway between that of FCs and MCs." MC=Male Control, FC=Female Control. While it is true that according to the sources cited in the section on gynephilic male-to-female transsexuals "no feminization of the brain's structure have been identified." it is not true according to the study above, and several others I could point to. As is the article favors one of two views. Presenting both, and noting the conflict, would rectify this.

2A10:8001:1B52:0:FCC3:E9A4:B931:FC85 (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really, WP:Secondary sources - review articles - are greatly preferred, especially per WP:MEDRS. So that existing primary source material should be replaced soon. If you know of one that covers this other study you point to - and one somewhere probably does since it's years old - then please point it out. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It took a bit of trawling but I found something.

The transsexual brain – A review of findings on the neural basis of transsexualism reads:

Kranz et al. (2014a,b) employed diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) in a sample of hormonally untreated MtF and FtM transsexuals with early-onset gender dysphoria and controls to determine the influence of biological sex, gender identity as well as sexual orientation on several diffusivity parameters. The mean diffusivity (MD, a measure of the total diffusivity within a voxel) was observed to be highest for female controls, followed by FtM transsexuals, then MtF transsexuals, and lowest for male controls. For MD values, the transsexuals seem to take up an intermediate position between the sexes. No group differences were found in FA maps. Sexual orientation had no significant effect on the diffusivity parameters. Their results are conflicting with those from Rametti et al. (2011a,b) who reported FA-values only and found FA-values to be greater in male vs. female controls, FA-values of FtM transsexuals to be closer to males, and those of MtF transsexuals to fall halfway between male and female controls. As the results from both research groups differ substantially, no reliable conclusion can be made so far. Still, both studies indicate a deviation of white matter microstructure patterns in transsexuals from the biological sex towards values of the desired sex.

Is this adequate?

2A10:8001:1B52:0:1D9C:1740:4D7E:41D6 (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is a good source. I made this edit. I may reorder the material in those subsections in the future. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following through where I could not. Someone should definitely rework the various sections so that the overall view they present is congruent in presenting the incongruence of the results at some point but that's a very helpful step in the right direction. Hopefully more people will step up so I don't feel like I'm assigning you, in specific, more work haha.

2A10:8001:1B52:0:5577:A13C:BFD:B393 (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To quickly elucidate what I mean by that.. as of now the article cites three different meta-analyses (among others!), Guillamon et al (2016) [2], Frigerio et al (2021) [20], and Smith et al (2015) [21], with each coming to somewhat different conclusions, yet the first is privileged over its brethren. Guillamon and Smith clash over Kranz while Frigerio concludes that it's difficult to draw a firm conclusion. Despite of that the article opens with Guillamon's perspective, which it presents as the field's, without noting that there's professional disagreement over it. The issue echoes downwards, with sections centered on androphilic and gynephilic transsexuals, but no mention of bisexuality, which conforms to the hypothesis that every transsexual falls into one of these groups but goes against the competing notion that true bisexuality can be found in transsexuals. This creates strange situations, like Kranz being cited in a section about transsexuals of a particular sexual orientation despite explicitly examining allosexual transsexuals of all orientations, with the alternative being citing Kranz twice or more. A significant rework is needed. Not being an established editor I can't edit a protected article but if that would help I could post my proposed edits here. Alternatively, some experienced Wikipedians could take up this task.

2A10:8001:1B52:0:F87B:DA7C:C7D2:9B6F (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has there never been a notable study on the brains of gay trans men?★Trekker (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

2A10:8001:1B52:0:A000:BEC:523A:6D6B (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

The first source provided on the page directs to an archived page without relevant information for the wiki publication. Is there a more recent source someone can find? MaiaWierer (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's so little information about the subject, should this section on brain structure be that big? Pipenswick (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is information, as per the "Conflicting sources and the prioritization thereof" discussion on this page, but it hasn't been incorporated into the article.

2A10:8001:1B52:0:A000:BEC:523A:6D6B (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

         Have you ever been wondering if you are Trans? Well...Today I will be telling you some signs if you are! 

Here are some starter signs:

-Not feeling like the gender you are right now(either boy, girl, or any other gender) is not right.

-Gender does not match the assigned gender you were put with at birth

-Experience discomfort or distress due to their gender not aligning to their sex

-Feel this way from a(very) young age(4 or 5-15 years old)

-May go through a questioning period before they know that they are Trans

-May express their gender in any way shape or form, that society may not see gender.

Now that we have some of the basics down, let's get into some questions that you can ask yourself.

Q:Am I feeling discomfort or distress due to your gender not aligning to your sex?

Q:Do you feel like the gender you are right now does not fit you?

Now, if you feel any of these signs and still don't feel like you are Trans, you can re-read yourself these signs and re-answer these questions to yourself to surely be positive that you are either Trans or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C6:4200:A54:5D7E:E861:61B6:EC4E (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very useful list, but also falls into Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual,_guidebook,_textbook,_or_scientific_journal if you have a website or something then this might be a good thing to post there MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the last paragraph of the psychological section, it is implied that Blanchard taxonomy predicts brain structure differences between androphilic and gynephilic trans women. However, the only way the taxonomy makes sense to me is if we interpret it as a primarily sociocultural theory. I would like to see some explanation in the article for why the taxonomy predicts greater brain structure changes than a competing biological theory. For example, there is no mention of controls for brain structure differences between cis androphiles and cis gynophiles. There is also no mention of why different reasons for transition would increase the likelihood of brain structure differences.

The second issue I see is a reference to Blanchard's use of terms like "homosexual transsexuals" to refer to androphilic trans women. As using the latter term would bring the section in line with the rest of the article, and we are not directly quoting Blanchard, the inclusion appears to be solely for the purpose of character assassination. If Blanchard really is as biased as the language suggests, then his perspectives are not science, and should not be treated as science. On the other hand, if the language is simply standard for the time, then we should update the article to reflect more modern terminology, and remove the wasted extra sentences discussing his word choice.

2001:56A:711D:4500:81A0:50F3:69A3:808D (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]