Talk:Autogynephilia

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sex.svg

This sexuality related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png
Editorial notes
Warning icon orange.svg This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved.

Autogynephilia could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

Topic[edit]

If this is, indeed, pseudoscience, could we then get rid of the term "theory" in the context in which it is used in this article in exchange for something else. Quotataion marks around the word "theory" would suffice, IMO. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 21:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Homeopathy article uses the word "theory" without putting it in quotes. Lots of pseudoscience is theory. The point however is that it is not a falsifiable theory. But being a purposed model that accounts for real evidence, and makes predictions, it is a real theory. Just its predictions are always able to be dismissed when found to be wrong. "Oh, I didn't have all the evidence". It's just like the theory of divine intervention through prayer. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 22:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
"Facts without theory is trivia, theory without facts is bullshit" - I keep forgetting who said that, but it's the working definition I use. I'm in two minds because in one sense I do want to keep the strict definition of theory, but on the other hand the casual definition works very well and is an established term. I'd certainly be against putting it in "quote marks", that "sort of thing" is getting "overused". Scarlet A.pngsshole 08:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree... there unfortunately is an unresolvable equivocation in the word "theory". :( Nevertheless, the theory presented in this article has facts to support it... they're just simply viewed through a very strict worldview that made the observed fact conform to their already established position. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 02:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My case[edit]

I think I have autogynephilic tendencies... Am I normal ? --Antee286 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Describe what exactly you mean. If you mean sexual fantasies casting yourself as a woman, then I'm sure many men have these from time to time. - LucidFox (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You're asking the wrong question. Statistically, no. Pathologically, who cares; it's normal for you and mostly harmless. (You may want to see a trans-friendly shrink, though, if you think your hormones and your brain are at odds. The mismatch can cause havoc with your mental state if you're really trans.) EVDebs (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks buddies. --Antee286 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What does this make slashfic writing females (see fanfic)? And Freud's theory of women's #### envy (though why not men's #### envy as well)? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Considering it's a discredited theory? Nothing. People, seriously, you're overthinking this. - LucidFox (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Trying to think of knot-tying arguments to throw at such mind-knotted persons as promote such twaddle. (I'm aFreud I'm too Jung to understand Watson). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Major Rewrite[edit]

In the vein of "be bold", I did a major rewrite, since the previous version attempted to take a personally motivated POV to mischaracterize a valid branch of sexology as "pseudoscience" as they found its conclusions to be uncomfortable. Scientific discoveries should NEVER be tweaked to fit one's personal preferences. Cloudy (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Been reading too much Bailey, have you? Blue Talk
I've read every single paper by Bailey, Freund, Blanchard, Lawrence, Fisk, Stoller, Person&Oversey, etc. They are dead right. I've also read Moser, Alison, Conway, etc. They are dead wrong. Cloudy (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Bailey is an exploitative crank whose work is highly defamatory and has been tirelessly refuted—he is now in disgrace in the psychological community. Blanchard and Freund are hopelessly biased and out of date by 20-30 years if they were ever doing relevant research. Lawrence is full of cognitive dissonance and generalizes from her own experience. Person & Oversey and Stoller outright disagree over classifications, and I'm not familiar enough with Fisk to say much.
I'm also put off by your insistence that these are "scientific discoveries," when most if not all of this research faces terminal methodological errors. Blue Talk 01:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about this area, so I went googling and I didn't find much evidence that this is generally considered "a valid branch of sexology". The minimum needed to consider any field as "a valid branch of a scientific discipline" would be scientific/academic discussion on the topic, (excluding people arguing whether the topic even exists). Could you provide some please? VOXHUMANA 01:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Methodological errors? By Blanchard's definition, I'm autogynophilic! Scarlet A.pngbomination 02:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Not that sexology itself is anything more than an institutionalized pseudoscience. Its methodology is heavily reliant on questionnaires and case studies, already putting it in rather squishy territory. When you add on top of that the long-standing obsession with proving that gender/sexual "deviants" are just mentally ill lunatics, kiss any pretense at scientific objectivity goodbye. It's the sort of "research" that tells you more about the person conducting it than anything else. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I know at least one sexologist who not only took part in de-pathologizing homosexuality, but even argues that, although it's extremely criminal and fine that way, even pedophilia is not a mental disorder per se. It's Richard Green. Look him up. Just one example of course, and seems like he was a dick too in some ways, but still, I see no reason to villify all sexologists. For the record, with all due respect to real transgender people, I'm an autogynephile and content with being a male in daily life, making sweet love to sweet women, but occasionally delving into my fetish of dressing and behaving sexy. So don't villify autogynephiles either please. (I've seen many autogynephiles who were transphobic though, so some could actually be closeted transgender people, like how some homosexuals raised in anti-homo cultures end up extremely homophobic.) 84.161.221.88 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
You know, I know there hasn't been a whole lot of research on the subject, but there's some definite indications that transsexuality has biochemical origins, and that hormone replacement often acts as a mood elevator for severe gender dysphoria. At least that's what a lot of transsexuals say about their own experience. I'm not willing to say autogynephilia doesn't exist, because hey, everyone's got a fetish for something, but at the same time, if someone wants to make a gender transition and is aware of the processes and risks involved, ytf does it matter why they want to do it? EVDebs (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
It matters to whoever is going to be paying for the hormones and surgery. Sophiebecause liberals 08:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, yeah, there's that, although to the extent I was assuming anything I figured that the transitioner would be responsible for that. EVDebs (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The double-standard behind autogynephilia[edit]

Stereotype aside, this concept is bullshit even if it applied to every transwoman ever. How come I, a bisexual cisgendered male, can crow and obsess over my PENIS with only a mild reproachful look from society? Like, think of how often media depictions tend make men feel proud of and baby their PENIS in dozens of subtle ways -- bigger = more manly, masturbation is awesome, erectile dysfunction is the great Satan, etc. -- and moreover this phallic worship is supposed to be healthy and normal. Why aren't transwomen allowed to enjoy their sexual organs even to the point of fetish? Cisgendered males are certainly allowed to. Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact, Julia Serano makes exactly this argument in Whipping Girl; she asks why nobody acknowledges the existence of "autophallophilia" in men, when cisgender men appear so obsessed with their penises. --91.7.8.143 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Autogynephiles exist[edit]

I already ranted about this on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephiles_certainly_exist.2C_even_if_as_a_separate_group_from_transgender.2Ftranssexual_women

TL;DR: Autogynephiles do certainly exist as a SEPARATE group of people from transgender women. When viewed as a disorder, the concept has relations to transphobia, but when viewed merely as a healthy fetish, there's nothing wrong with it, and spending time on certain web forums will make you meet many many autogynephiles who are purely interested in the sexual arousal attained from feeling like a sexy woman or girl, despite not being interested in actually becoming a woman in daily life and all.

84.161.221.88 (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Reason for recent reversion[edit]

Someone with no previous edits made two edits. Neither edit was prefaced with talk page discussion. The second edit didn't use {{fact}}, and instead asked for a citation in the body. In this request, they erroneously stated that males always have XY chromosomes. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 11:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Better still, the edit said they 'always have the XY chromosome', which is entering Not even wrong territory. And think that brains are physically gendered in a way directly linked to chromosomes, rather than development, and imply that brains do not demonstrate plasticity. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I had completely missed the "XY chromosome" part. Wow. I wonder if that was a typo. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 11:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Terrible article[edit]

Autogynephilia is the term used to describe people who had transvestic fetishism which later evolved into gender dysphoria. Just like with other people with transvestic fetishism disorder they are almost all men and are bisexual or heterosexual. — Unsigned, by: 24.207.135.183 / talk / contribs

[citation needed] Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.ifge.org/?q=DSM-5/302.3_Transvestic_Fetishism This is an offshoot of transvestic fetishism. They are simply those who have decided to make the change permanent and became gender dysphoric at some point.



Transvestism and Transsexualism are not the same thing....



Like I said...this is a terrible article. You guys are basically spending most of it disputing whether transvestic fetishism exists. It does. These people are examples of it. After living with a desire to wear women's clothes some are going to come to the conclusion that they are really women deep down or were meant to be women and go the transsexual route. This is very basic. There is a lot of activism on the subject and when you are talking about psychiatric patients themselves engaging in activism on their own condition you should know to be skeptical. — Unsigned, by: 24.207.135.183 / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 17:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

So...where are we at on this? I sourced conclusively that this is an offshoot of tranvestic fetishism. The rest of the article falls away once this point is made.— Unsigned, by: bonbon / talk / contribs

Looks from like you cited that they can be comorbid, but okay. WalkerWalkerWalker 07:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The Moser and Serano papers both completely slaughter the idea that this is a legitimate medical condition. Blanchard tested his own patients (with the implication that their transition would be halted if they didn't comply), there was no control group, Blanchard and Bailey's statements regarding criticism basically make the theory non-falsifiable… Also, Blanchard tried to get "autoandrophilia" in the DSM solely because he was afraid of being called sexist. That's not how you do science. Sceptre (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You guys are really pitiful... autogynephlia is a form of transvestic fetishism. It definitely does exist and some do get the surgery and become transsexual. It is an official diagnosis in the current DSM5. Here is a guide to the condition written by an autogynephilic transsexual who is also a psychiatrist. http://www.annelawrence.com/autogynephilia,_a_paraphilic_model_of_GID.pdf

Yeah, we get it already, no need to repeat and repeat it endlessly. Autogynephilia proponents believe that (usually late-transitioning) trans women who are not strictly attracted to men are really nothing but fetishistic dudes going too far; according to this "theory", their fetish causes the gender dysphoria, and their dysphoria is therefore somehow not "real", but pathological and a "choice" (bottom line: "don't crossdress and get off to it too much, boys, or you'll end up as fugly, crazy tranny freaks with surgically created fuckholes and we'll laugh and point at you"). Trouble is that this idea has simply never been conclusively proven and the methodology involved is specious and reeks of confirmation bias: a bigoted psychologist trained in the psychoanalytical tradition simply took his (widely shared) prejudices against women, gay men, trans women, POC, kinksters, the mentally ill, etc., cooked up a pseudoscientific "theory" on this basis and fudged the data to support it. Only those who equally despise trans women (including a few self-hating trans women like Lawrence, and "true transes" with a superiority complex like Kay Brown who feel the urge to distance themselves from trans women who don't live up to their sexist standards) are impressed and try to browbeat everyone else into submission with their endless ad hominems, constant (and hilariously hypocritical) accusations of misogyny, and arguments from authority. Basically, if you're not hot enough, you're not a "real woman". It's 4chan-level "science". --91.7.8.143 (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, even if some trans women are really only dudes with an out-of-control fetish, so fucking what?
"Why disturbing? Its an illness with an easy cure. Anti-androgen therapy is the gold standard for nearly all paraphilias. Its darn near 100% effective. You know what you need to take in order to survive long term with an anti-androgen? Estrogen. Lots of it.
TADA: HRT" --91.7.8.143 (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Article still Terrible[edit]

I'm going to go ahead and re-write this article to conform with science in a week if nobody else does — Unsigned, by: 24.207.135.183 / talk

So, which parts do you propose to rewrite, and would you care to present any sources you are planning to use? Hertzy (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Garbage[edit]

This article not only misrepresents the taxonomy, it casts its supporters in an unfair negative light without mentioning any of the horrible abuse they received by rabid radical activists. "Rational" wiki my ass.

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!--JorisEnter (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Citations?[edit]

Why is there only one citation? We mention those who contributed to this theory but we don't have any info on their work. In the same way, the criticism of this teory seem to be editorialized with no info besides the one link proposing a different defintion. Why is this?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Unscientific edits by GrammarCommie[edit]

GrammarCommie makes the claim that "tits" make a woman. As a man with gynecomastia, I find this offensive and scientifically incorrect. He also insists on providing no evidence for the claim that "trans women are genuine women," and the "study" originally linked to as evidence for this claim, which I edited out/removed, to the point in which GrammarCommie locked the article to leave it there, uses the No True Scotsman logical fallacy to make its assertion.

In light of GrammarCommie having no actual evidence that "trans women are genuine women," and his specious assertion that "as a general rule, tits make a woman" (tell that to my flat-chested friends and see how happy they are with you), I suggest that RationalWiki actually, y'know, be rational, and leave the edits I made. This is not an attempt to "hate on trans people" as GrammarCommie suggests; it is an attempt to put logical, rational, scientifically-backed data on RationalWiki - something which GrammarCommie is apparently abusing his privileges as a sysop to prevent based on his own personal agenda. — Unsigned, by: 38.140.61.50 / talk

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I made an account and signed it just for you. Care to back up your illogical assertions with scientific data and facts that actually stand up to scrutiny, and aren't based on logical fallacies?
--LogicalNerd (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The burden of proof rests on your shoulders, given that you are the challenger in this debate, please cite evidence proving Transwomen aren't "real women". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
In addition, if you believe I'm abusing my Sysop powers take it here ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely incorrect that the burden of proof lies on me. This is not the way burden of proof works, and I really hope you are not going to be this disingenuous.
The burden of proof ALWAYS lies on the person making an assertion. You are the one making an assertion here - that transwomen are genuine women - when the more obvious observation to be made by anyone with two eyes is that transwomen are men who think they are women. But even if you put our clearly-at-odds personal opinions on the matter aside: I am merely editing an article to remove illogical, unscientific data that is based on logical fallacy. The article without that data is nearly unsourced, as others here in the Talk section have mentioned, and none of the other source data in the article challenges the edits I made that you removed. The onus here is on YOU to provide proof that transwomen are genuine women. If you cannot do so, logic and rationality dictate that you must leave my edits in place.
I've not yet determined for certain that you're abusing your powers - that remains to be seen in how you respond to this civil chat. :)
--LogicalNerd (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
If it acts like woman, looks like a woman, and has tits like a woman, it's a woman. Now, if you would like to go beyond laymen's terms, cite your sources, otherwise this discussion is a pointless back and forth. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
No, because you are incorrect with this line of reasoning, and you're refusing to acknowledge it. Look, it is very simple: if a man puts on a duck costume, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, is he a duck? Of course not. If a man dresses like a woman, stuffs a bra and wears it, or gets breast surgery, and talks like a woman, does that make him a woman? Not any more than the man in a duck suit is a duck.
If a schizophrenic thinks he is Alice in Wonderland, and the horizontal crosswalk is actually a vertical descent down a rabbit hole, and he stands in the middle of the road blocking traffic, is the schizophrenic Alice in Wonderland? Or is he deluded in his mind into thinking he is something that he is not?
--LogicalNerd (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
It occurs to me that arguments on "RationalWiki" ought to be backed with science and logic, no? Where is your supporting evidence that "transwomen are genuine women?" In the absence of such evidence, my edits to this article are absolutely rational, and logic dictates you must leave them or you are clearly abusing your powers out of your personal opinion/agenda.
--LogicalNerd (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Also worth mentioning - I could apply your fallacious line of reasoning here to insinuate that a transman is not a man because he has tits (assuming he has not had surgery to remove them). Your argument is inconsistent and does not stand up to logic on its face. Further evidence is not necessary based on this alone.
--LogicalNerd (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The very simple fact here is that your assertion is utterly extraordinary, and neither you nor the article have provided any data to support it whatsoever beyond "if it quacks like a duck..."
If we are to listen to Carl Sagan's sage advice that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," then the claim that "certain men are actually genuinely women" requires as much extraordinary evidence as the claims that "up is actually down," "children are actually adults," or "fruits are actually vegetables" would require. I do not say this out of hatred or even dislike for trans individuals. I have absolutely nothing against them. However, I do think that a man cannot be a woman any more than a man in a duck suit can be a duck. You are born what you are born. If you'd like to be a very effeminate man or a very masculine woman, I say: good for you, have at it! If you'd like to pretend you're the opposite sex, by all means, go ahead and do your thing. But you are not what you are not. And this article does not have the evidence necessary to support its claims, hence by virtue of your sysop title, you MUST either allow appropriate edits accordingly, or provide evidence to support the claim that trans women are genuine women to refute those edits. Anything other than one of those two options is abusing your privileges out of your own personal opinions, without evidence, in clear violation of all rationality and logic.
--LogicalNerd (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Moreover, "genuine women" have the capacity to give live birth, as well as breastfeed their babies. Yes, I am aware that some women are barren, and others are unable to produce milk. But much as you claim the vast majority of people with tits are women, barring exceptions for gynecomastia and the like, the vast majority of natural-born women are able to give birth and breastfeed - both things that natural-born men, including "transwomen," cannot ever do, no matter how hard they try or how much they might like to. Thus it simply stands to reason that they are not "genuine women."
Have I punched enough holes in your argument yet for you to see reason? I am trying to be civil, polite, and sincere here, and I don't want to accuse you of abusing your position without evidence, but I have to say that in light of the lack of evidence provided by you for your assertion that transwomen are genuine women, and the poor argument given for removing my edits, which has been thoroughly thrashed here, if you continue to disallow these edits I guess I will have to take this to the "chicken coop."
LogicalNerd (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to give you one more, this time based on the study itself that you want to leave in the article as my evidence. The study examined 46 female-assigned XY patients (I should note here, in the interest of full scientific disclosure, that the small sample size diminishes the value of the study for either of our purposes), and found that years later, 78% of these individuals were living as the gender they were assigned at birth, which was female. The 46 subjects in the study had congenital abnormalities such as penile agenesis, cloacal exstrophy, and penile ablation - which, in laymen's terms, are basically congenital deformities that result in the XY individual being born without a penis, or requiring their penis to be surgically removed. At the time in which the patients were born, female gender assignment along with surgical feminization was the dominant approach for handling these types of cases.
And yet, in a whopping 78% of the cases, there was no gender dysphoria reported. That means that in nearly 4/5ths of XY patients studied, these biological men were satisfied living as women - or, at least, they were not so dissatisfied that they sought to identify as the gender that they were biologically, but had not been living as socially. This suggests a strong correlation between culture and gender - that gender is reinforced by culture. A person can be so strongly culturally conditioned that they will actually believe they are something they are not, solely because society has demanded it of them - that is the case with these XY individuals who identify as female because they were raised as female and have no male genitalia. The same reasoning explains why a feminine man begins to develop feelings that he is a woman trapped in a man's body, when he is simply a very feminine man. Vice versa for a very masculine woman. And then they start having hormone therapies, surgeries, and the like, all in the vain attempt to become something they are not - which usually creates an individual who can't pass for the opposite sex, which will cause them to be further ostracized by society, often resulting in severe depression or even suicide.
The solution to this isn't to try to alter reality so that people are convinced that some men are women and that some women are men. This is a foolish and, frankly, asinine approach that is generating so much negative response that it is creating a more dangerous climate than there was to begin with for individuals who don't personally identify with the cultural mores expected of their sex; a climate in which people are so irritated by "SJWism" that they are becoming literal Nazis in response to the absurdity. An absurd reaction for an absurd notion - how does this help anyone?
No. We need to return to science and rationality. Isn't that the entire point of this Wiki - to spread these ideals as paramount virtues to be adhered to religiously, precisely because of their infallibility? To put aside partisanship, personal opinion, and dogma, and look at the bare facts of the situation to make a decision or come to a conclusion?
Well, if good science is the right path forward, then the situation demands recognition of two things: 1) that men are not women, and women are not men, and 2) that there is nothing wrong with being a very feminine man, or a very masculine woman. If our cultures didn't place such strong emphasis on men and women behaving in certain ways, then individuals who are today transgender would most likely simply be satisfied being their birth sex, but acting how they please. And if the science supports it, which it sure seems to, we cannot make the claim that "transwomen are genuine women." But, please, do try to prove me wrong - with science and data, if you please.
LogicalNerd (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
So, do you have any interest in having a good faith discussion about this, GrammarCommie, given that I have provided plenty of reasonable, measured arguments to refute what you've said, along with evidence from the very study you think should remain on the page? Or should I simply take my grievances over your anti-science rhetoric to the chicken coop page now? I see that you have been plenty active on the site since I posted my arguments, but if you are not interested in responding in a rational, science-minded manner, I will be forced to take additional steps here.
LogicalNerd (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
To begin with, your claptrap about there being nothing wrong with feminine men or very masculine women blah blah blah. Those TERF talking points have been so completely DISCREDITED (Blanchard isn't exactly seen as an authority on Trans issues, you know), that talking to you is pointless. Hey, kid. I'm a trans woman who also happens to be a tomboy. *gasp*. If you want anybody to take you seriously, drop that shit about how it is gender roles blah blah blah that causes people's transitioning. Unless you take Dysphoria seriously, like... You know psychiatrists and psychologists do, you're just a waste of time. Yeah, I have debated this crap with too many TERFs before to have much patience for rookie arguments. Dendlai (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
LogicalNerd, do you really expect everyone to read all this? Condense your posts instead of Gish Galloping.—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 18:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, studies about transgenderism have been done and it's quite clear that transgender people have the brain wiring similar to the gender they identify with even after controlling for hormonal changes. The "tits" make a woman thing is painfully reductive though as well as GrammarCommie's "looks like a duck" analogy. It's not just looking the part; it's thinking the part too. While it's difficult for cisgenders to understand, the "man in a woman's body" is probably a fairly accurate way of describing it though it's not necessarily that a transgender (person) dislikes the body. I also think what makes a woman a woman goes much farther than appearance (especially when gender expression is complex and varies across culture). So, yeah, I don't know where GrammarCommie is going on when he says cute little birdWikipedia's W.svg makes a woman. But anyhow, the "genuine woman" thing sounds like a transphobic TERF talking point. Not that it's correct. It's as reductionist as "tits make a woman". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@LeftyGreenMario My apologies, as Trans issues are not my strong point. I just saw an anti-trans PRATT (technically just an old homophobic stereotype recycled for use against Trans individuals) and got annoyed. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@CheeseburgerFaceYes, I do expect anyone who actually wishes to have a serious discuss about this to read all of it. It's not Gish Galloping, it's not a book, it's what, 10-15 paragraphs? If we're going to have a serious discussion about this complex topic as it relates to the article in question, you'll also need to read the study in question, which EVEN THE ARTICLE ITSELF warns that it uses the No True Scotsman logical fallacy to make its claims! If you can't even read a few paragraphs of argumentation, how can you make a fair judgment about this? You would need to first read an entire scientific study to determine if my point about the data the study discovered is relevant. And frankly, if you check the timestamps, you'll see that the only reason I made so many posts to begin with was because GC refused to refute my initial arguments, and requested additional ones with data/evidence. So that's exactly what I gave him, along with more rational arguments, all of which he's refused to engage on. And as for closing the coop case, blame your sysop GC for sending me there in the first place. I'm new to your Wiki and haven't exactly gotten the warmest welcome, particularly from @Dendlai here whose opening salvo of "argument" includes a personal attack (I am not a TERF, and as I mentioned on the coop page, I resent the implication and the insult). I also don't think it's reasonable to have this case decided by a person who identifies as trans, given the inherent and clear bias/conflict of interest. @Dendlai - I do take gender dysphoria seriously, and I believe it is a mental disorder as it was classified in DSM-IV when it was "gender identity disorder," before pressure from trans activists caused it to be unscientifically removed from DSM-V without scientific basis, which is clear to any honest researcher who hasn't been dissuaded from pursuing the truth through pseudoscientific bullying on behalf of trans activists. I contend this is exactly what you are doing here by starting off your so-called "argument" with ad hominem attacks against me - calling me a "TERF" - not to mention the fact that your "argument" contains no substance, nor any direct refutation of a single one of my points in any way whatsoever. I will not stand for personal attacks, I have not insulted you personally and will not do so here because, as I've mentioned repeatedly, I have nothing against you or any other people who identify as trans, but what I am interested in is approaching this from a purely scientific perspective - one in which, I am sad to say for your sake, men cannot be women and women cannot be men. Again, I am not a TERF, and I am not interested in pseudoscience, "intersectional feminism," or other social sciences as they may pertain to this argument. I am interested in HARD SCIENCE and RAW DATA - such as I posted above in my arguments, particularly the argument that references the study in question on the Autogynephilia page. If you wish to make the claim that "trans women are women," then provide hard evidence - genetics/biology evidence, not social pseudoscience or personal perspective. Sorry, but the mere anecdotal perspective of a person with the mental disorder in question is not qualified in and of itself to refute hard scientific data.--LogicalNerd (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Yup, it's all neurological. Also, we're not "transgenders", we're "transgender people". Using the word as a noun can offend some trans people.—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 20:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I get confused a lot. I said "transgendered person" and one transgender person corrected me to "transgender", so there was confusion by me. Does "transgendered" also register as an insult to these people too? I hate to offend. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, transgendered can be offensive too. For me, I just use the word "trans" so I don't slip up. Use the word like this: "I am transgender" or "She is a transgender woman".—HamburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 20:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Agreed it's neurological, but as mental disorder, not "woman trapped in man's body," and that's precisely what my argument addresses in regards to the study on the page in question. To sum up again for the people too lazy to read a handful of paragraphs: the study in question determined that over 4 out of 5 XY people who were born with genital disorders that caused them to essentially not have a penis/male genitalia despite being biologically male at birth were still living as women in adulthood, and that very few of them ever expressed any distress or dysphoria with their assigned-female-at-birth gender. If it were neurological in the way others here are suggesting, then it stands to reason that people who are presumably majority "normal males," i.e. they were born biologically male and would otherwise identify as biologically male if they weren't born with disorders that made them have no penis, and assigned female sex as was the standard medical practice at the time, would OVERWHELMINGLY feel dysphoria living as females. Yet the study proves this is not the case. Refute with actual science, if you care to, please :) --LogicalNerd (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
"I do take gender dysphoria seriously, and I believe it is a mental disorder as it was classified in DSM-IV when it was "gender identity disorder," before pressure from trans activists caused it to be unscientifically removed from DSM-V without scientific basis, which is clear to any honest researcher who hasn't been dissuaded from pursuing the truth through pseudoscientific bullying on behalf of trans activists."
That's where you're wrong. Sure, we have an individual Dr. Paul R. McHugh offering his view in nice WSJ op-ed (which is not a bastion for scientific quality), but there is WHO reconsidering its classification and just an overall shift away from it as they increasingly understand that the distress isn't coming directly from the dysphoria but from the stress of social rejection and stigmatizing, just as how gays experienced it. To claim that it's just "trans activism bullies" is not a smart thing to say when you offer exactly zero evidence and the implication that since the psychologists and psychiatrists disagree with you, it's not because maybe you're wrong, but because they buckled behind bullies. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the bulk of their distress is most likely caused by social/cultural rejection, but that's kind of my point here. Look at what I said above about how cultural attitudes are the issue, not people being "born that way" in a biological/neurological way, which there is little scientific evidence to support, and lots of scientific evidence to refute, some of which I've shown above, which no one has refuted. Let's not be disingenuous to suggest that trans activist bullying isn't a thing. Let's be honest and admit that if any researcher put his name to anti-trans science, he would be derided and publicly admonished by the culture at large, just as Dr. McHugh has been. This is not some fool off the street who has no idea what he's talking about; he was the psychiatrist-in-chief for arguably the most prestigious and advanced neurology/psychology center in the world, Johns Hopkins Hospital. This hospital was the top hospital in the US for over 20 years. He has hundreds of peer-reviewed studies to his name. Maybe we should consider that he might know a thing or two about what he's talking about, and actually examine what he has to say on the matter? I agree the WSJ is a lousy source, but they're just hosting his article. --LogicalNerd (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I also contend that the public and widespread shift away from treating it as a mental disorder is purely due to political pressure and not at all due to legitimate studies in biology/genetics/neurology/psychiatry. I'm not interested in debating what's become accepted - I'm interested in debating the actual science, the data gathered from studies, and what it means, and it seems no one here is prepared to do that, apparently since it would require too much reading. Lots of these studies even take the data they gathered and warp it to suit their preferred conclusion, even if the data itself shows the exact opposite to be true. This even happens in the study I'm referring to in the article in question. This is common enough in the scientific world in general, but that's why we need to read and debate individual studies and the science and methodology involved in them, not overall accepted views/attitudes. --LogicalNerd (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, but right in the links I posted, they offer reasons for the reclassification. And what do you have to say about the gay rights movement? You have to apply your analogy to those people too as they suffered from social stigmatism. Only the moment they get accepted, it stops becoming a disorder. Contrast this with those with ADHD; even if society doesn't demean them, they still have to deal with organizational skills and keeping priorities straight.
There are also other reasons.

In some places, the study’s authors note, viewing transgender people as having a mental illness might force them to get psychiatric care rather than the physical care they seek, or be used by governments to deny “decision-making authority to transgender people in matters ranging from changing legal documents to child custody and reproduction.”

The study, which involved interviews with 250 transgender people, found that the majority of them reported social rejection related to their gender identity, as well as being the victim of violence. And the researchers conclude that “distress and dysfunction were more strongly predicted by” going through those experiences compared to “gender incongruence itself.”

This study cited from TIME uses a far bigger sample size and also directly relates to transgenderism (as opposed to people who were raised just by the condition of their genitals, but I do know of anecdotes where people did experience gender dysphoria because their genitals were altered at an earlier stage and were really unhappy when they were in high school, but they were lucky to have supportive parents)
I do understand Paul R. McHugh's need to help transgender people, but I think his reasoning is wrong (his comparison to people with anorexia also isn't good). I think part (but only part) his concern (despite the faulty reasoning) is legit, though, as researchers in Washington Post notes how valuable protections the classification offers benefits.

“The risk would be if we took conditions related to gender identity out of the classification altogether, it would undermine the access to health services that transgender people have,” Reed said. “They wouldn’t have a diagnostic code that conveyed eligibility.”

Jack Drescher, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst at New York Medical College who serves on the WHO working group, told the New York Times that inmates, such as Chelsea Manning, are able to receive hormone treatments in part because transgender identity belongs to a medical category.

Transgender activist groups have been working toward this for years, said Mauro Cabral, one of the program directors of the Global Action for Trans Equality.

I don't like his language of "striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor" which sounds exactly like gay conversion therapy". And his apparent objection to "everything is normal" sex education is really off to me. I wouldn't consider him to be a good authority on sex psychology.
I don't think you've read the Time magazine OR the Washington Post, which both have larger studies and contradict your claim that "public and widespread shift away from treating it as a mental disorder is purely due to political pressure and not at all due to legitimate studies in biology/genetics/neurology/psychiatry". Your evidence right now is just a study with a small sample size (which you say "diminishes the value of the study for either of our purposes") that talks about people who were raised a different way because their genitals were altered early on and they seem fine and no gender dysphoria here. Yet you draw sweeping conclusions that "The same reasoning explains why a feminine man begins to develop feelings that he is a woman trapped in a man's body, when he is simply a very feminine man. Vice versa for a very masculine woman. And then they start having hormone therapies, surgeries, and the like, all in the vain attempt to become something they are not - which usually creates an individual who can't pass for the opposite sex[...]" which people can and will interpret as transphobic. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I will need to read the studies in question and get back to you, which I promise I will actually do when I have a little more time. Appreciate you being willing to engage reasonably and politely despite disagreeing. Seems like a rare thing these days! I will say that I agree it needs to be classified in some manner so as to allow access to appropriate medical treatment for trans individuals. However, what exactly that treatment entails seems to be largely lacking scientific consensus. I don't think that "striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor" sounds exactly like gay conversion therapy, but I do appreciate that you see a similarity there and I wouldn't entirely deny it - that being said, let's be realistic and honest about the fact that most people who go through hormone therapy and surgery do not "pass" for what they perceive to be their actual gender/sex, because most of these changes occur during puberty and if you don't start taking hormone treatments before puberty, you will forever be physiologically more masculine or more feminine, as determined by your actual biological birth sex. The results of being "non-passing" as pertains to how the person is treated by society are, to put it lightly, not good, surely contributing to the psychological distress of these individuals. That's why I concur with Dr. McHugh and disagree with surgery as a wise option in the majority of cases. And allowing or forcing children to take hormone therapy is a whole 'nother can of worms - how old is appropriate for a child to make that decision? What is to be done if the parents disagree with the decision and the child is a minor? Is it worth considering that many children go through a phase in which they wish to dress or act like the opposite sex, but may grow out of it? All of these are important questions that muddy the issue.
It's worth mentioning that no one has addressed the point I made above that so-called "trans women" can never give birth or breastfeed, two biological imperatives of actual/genuine women. This is some of the greatest evidence available that trans women are not women, and you don't need a study to prove it - it's just simple observable fact.
As for whether or not homosexuals are neurologically wired that way or not, and whether or not their distress is caused by how society treats them, I am not sure. I am more well-versed in trans issues as it pertains to science/medicine than gay issues, and wouldn't deign to weigh in on that given my relative ignorance on the subject. --LogicalNerd (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, so trans women can't be used as broodmares continue the species, ergo they are not real women? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
GC, you really seem to want to be under the impression that I'm some kind of right-wing Christian zealot or something. Go read my profile and tell me if you still think I'm likely to be a right-winger. It has nothing to do with them being "broodmares" and everything to do with natural biological imperative and what makes a woman a woman, physiologically.
Physiology, genetics, biology, neuroscience. If you don't want to discuss those and why they matter more than your feelings or beliefs in what makes a male a male and a female a female, or a banana a banana and not an orange, or a monkey a monkey and not a rat, seriously, just go. You aren't arguing in good faith and you aren't arguing using science, rationality, or data of any kind. You haven't actually refuted a thing I've said here. Your feelings and personal opinions don't mean a damn thing to science, and unless you want to back them with science and data, I don't see why they should mean a damn thing to anyone here, either - nor do I see why you ought to be a sysop if you can't put them aside in the name of impartiality and objectively looking at an issue for the sake of an encyclopedic entry on a Wiki meant to educate based on science instead of misinform based on opinion. --LogicalNerd (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please refrain from putting words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. I think it technically needs a reclassification. There are benefits and downsides to it, but the researchers want to maximize the benefits. According to them (and as I quote), the trans activists are working to let transgender people be covered for hormone therapy while also being declassified as having a mental disorder so transgender people can have the best of both worlds. I'm not a transgender person. I can't say for sure what they really want from therapy and surgery. I know one trans woman said that she doesn't "dislike" her body (she says the "woman in a man body" is not entirely accurate because it assumes there is something wrong with the body, but it's a simple concept for cisgenders to grasp) but she says hormone therapy is more like tweaks to make herself feel more comfortable and have strangers call her by her preferred gender.
I think that's a difficult moral question to talk about since we do talk about age of consent, age of when to drive, and other things. It's difficult to ascertain about a child's motives. I do think there is a case for therapy if the symptoms go for years though, just as how kids with Aspergers and ADHD get diagnosed (patterns get spotted and it happens in multiple environment and for years) and immediately get interventions, though ADHD meds are not in the same caliber as hormone therapy and surgery. This is where input from a transgender person is highly valuable even if they're just individuals. But I think most are supportive of those procedures. If you don't go through the procedure, there is the risk of social stigmatism and inner negative feelings which have proven to be highly destructive too and emotional damage is very difficult to recover from.
I think biological capabilities aren't the only thing that makes a woman a woman. It's really complicated and you can express being a woman through your thoughts (which can be controlled by your hormones; e.g. periods and mood swings >.>), through your clothing, through the way you talk, through your interests, through your experiences, through the toys you play with, and more so pinning it to if someone can reproduce is reductionist, I fear. What makes a woman a woman, to me, isn't all about biology. I think there's a distinction of being female by sex and the more, well, "wholesome"(?) concept of being a woman that involves social constructs. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Or to put it a bit differently - I don't care a lick if any woman wants to have or not have children for whatever reason she chooses. That is her individual choice as a human being. What I care about here is her capacity to give birth to children, and how that capacity is an indicator of her sex as a woman, and how someone who does not have that capacity - again, barring the exceptions of barren women - simply cannot be a woman by the nature of physiology itself. --LogicalNerd (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
"Please refrain from putting words in my mouth, it is intellectually dishonest. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)"
Sorry, what were you suggesting by your "broodmare" comment, then, if not that I was some kind of right-wing Christian zealot who thinks the purpose/role of women is to have children? Please elaborate on your snarky comment and continued lack of any scientific evidence whatsoever to support your conclusions so that I don't accidentally put words in your mouth.--LogicalNerd (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think there is far more stuff going on beyond "capacity to give birth" that goes into what makes a woman a woman. As I said, it's reductionist to claim otherwise. And even if it's that's true, transgender women would certainly love to have technology that allows them to give birth or have periods, right? They don't have that capacity because they can't have that capacity, not with the current technology anyway. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
My point was that reducing women down to their ability to give birth is at best faulty logic, and at worst pure ignorance. What about those who are unable to give birth due to age or medical constraints? Are they too unable to become "real women"? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree it would be reductionist to suggest that biological aspects are the only things that make a woman a woman. That being said, a person who does not display these clear biological indicators/aspects simply cannot be a woman, precisely because they do not display these indicators, which are a biological requirement of all women. Everything else is just an attempt to be as close to a woman as possible - but they can never be women, because to be a woman requires certain biological aspects that they do not and can not hold. I am sure they would love to have technology that allowed them to do those things, but even if it existed, it would be artificial, and as a result, an individual who used such technology to become a woman would also be an artificial woman by extension. Hence, "not a genuine woman."
As I've repeatedly stated, my intent here isn't to take away anyone's personhood, sense of identity, etc. but to simply state the obvious scientific fact that "trans women are not genuine women." I think I have provided sufficient evidence for a strong case to be made that this is the reality of our world. If contrary evidence exists, I would like to see it (although again I will need to read the studies you've referenced, LeftyGreenMario, a bit later - hopefully tonight or within the next couple of days.
GC, as I mentioned, barren women or women unable to give birth due to medical constraints are naturally-occurring exceptions, much like gynecomastia is an exception to only women having breasts. A woman too old or young to have children still had the capacity to do so at one point, or will later in her life. Left to their own devices, without the aid of artificial technology that does not even exist in our world, a trans woman never will and never could - hence, not a woman. --LogicalNerd (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
My studies were just about the relationship between transgender identity and mental illness, not really about what defines a woman.
I think it boils down to what you think a woman is. I think reproductive capability is a defining trait for the female biological sex. Biological female and woman, however, are not the same, hence the distinction between sex and gender, which transgender people are trying hard to emphasize that.
Why not extend those naturally-occurring exceptions to transgender people too? Transgender women are essentially women unable to give birth; why wouldn't this be accurate?
That "genuine" categorization is highly problematic as it certainly demeans transgender people, even if you try to pin it down to sex capabilities and even if being a woman is about reproduction. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Here's an interesting parallel example: the case of Rachel Dolezal, the woman who believes to this day that she is a black woman despite being born to two white parents. This woman lived the life of a black person as best she could - she attempted to make herself look more black, she learned African-American cultural attitudes, manners of speech, and cultural mores, and even ran the Seattle NAACP branch, despite not actually being biologically black. When she was found out, she was heaped with ridicule for trying to be something she wasn't; she was exiled by the black community, made a pariah in her local community of Spokane, WA, and her entire life and the lives of her family members were essentially ruined as a result. This happened because, no matter how much she wanted to be a black woman, no matter how much she tried to act like one, to live their experiences, to live as one, to ask other people to treat her like one (is this sounding familiar?), she was not ethnically black and never could be. This is because, as black people explained to her, despite her overwhelming desire to be black, she had not lived their experience of being a black person since birth, and all the trials and tribulations they've gone through and continue to go through as a result. She could never understand what it would be like to be racially profiled by the police, for example - hence she couldn't be black, because despite trying her best to partake in the "black experience," it was all artificial. She was not a genuine black person.
Well, where is the difference between her and any trans woman who has not lived as a woman since birth, bled from her vagina, been likely to have been abused or harassed by men, been discriminated against for her sex, etc.? That trans woman might want with all their heart to be a woman, they might fully believe they are one, but they simply cannot be, because they have not gone through what essentially amounts to "the initiation process" of being a woman, and all the biological and cultural aspects of that. So why do we have a double standard for Rachel Dolezal and trans people? --LogicalNerd (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Transgender is quite established in psychology. I just said ago (through a link to Wikipedia) that the brain wiring of transgender people match the brain of the gender they identify with. This isn't a matter of self-delusion as you imply, this has a psychological basis. Race is also a whole another issue with its own set of nature-nurture as well as the overall shakiness of race to begin with. Hence, the "double standard". This isn't quite a double standard as you make it out to be. But if there is a psychological basis for trans-race identity (which I haven't heard of), then there is a double standard. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
To quote: "Here's an interesting parallel example: the case of Rachel Dolezal". The TERF-ing continues. Sorry, I was asleep for a lot of it,but until you can find a raft of psychiatrists vouching that trans-racialism or whatever you call it is true... But TERFs like you continue to use this *one* example, who has no medical data to back the claims up, as true. I mean, it is obviously a troll, but so much more obvious now. Are we done with this troll now? It is so basic level trolling citing MRA/Right-Alt/RadFem thinking it is pretty much a joke. Oh, feel free to note how one of those think they are different from the others in a significant way. Note how it said the DSM-IV was ok to use for discussing dysphoria, but the DSM-V was not. Like any other TERF, it hates the DSM-V and progress in general. Dendlai (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
"It," huh? I'm going to politely say this once - and it's more than you deserve for me to even do that much - don't engage on this page with me any more, Dendlai - you are obviously incapable of separating your personal experience and opinions from any semblance of scientific objectivity, and this is reaching the point of harassment. If I called you "it," or even "he," I can just about 100% guarantee that I'd be banned from this page instantly for "using hate speech against a trans person" or some such. Don't call me "it," and frankly, don't speak to me or post on this page unless you actually have an argument based in science, and not just sound-byte talking points - not to mention presenting that argument without personal invective. I honestly don't give a fuck what you have to say at this point, though, because you are clearly incapable of objectivity and intellectual honesty. Your condition as a trans person obviously and blatantly precludes you from being impartial here. I'm not interested in hearing about how you slept through my well-measured and perfectly reasonable arguments, then spewed out some blather onto your keyboard and posted it. I gave your "arguments" reasonable consideration and addressed every point within them with logic and science. You haven't done the same. Now go away and let the adults have a scientific conversation, since that's obviously beyond your ken - thanks.
LeftyGreenMario - Clearly, a person who thinks they are a female is going to have changes in their brain that make their brain more like a female brain. There are clear and measurable brain differences between the two sexes, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the mere notion of a person genuinely *thinking/believing* they are the opposite sex from what they are biologically is enough to cause these brain changes. This is evidenced, yet again, in the study in question in the article, with the instances of individuals born biologically male but assigned female at birth due to congenital disorders who are happily living as females. They were told they were women, they were raised as women, and their brains present as female brains. If what you are suggesting is true, and that these male/female brain differences are inherent/present at birth and unchangeable through either willpower, belief, or mental disorder, then their brains should present as male. And if these changes are not present at birth, and are instead the result of learned behaviors, personal decision, or mental illness, then it does not stand to reason that the person displaying them is "a genuine woman" if he was born a male.
Are there clear and measurable brain differences between the different races? If there are, has anyone studied them? Is such a topic free enough from cultural taboo to even be considered worthy of study? I'd posit that it isn't free from such a taboo, no such studies have been done in recent history, and if they have, any findings to suggest that there might be physiological differences in brains of different races have been shouted down by the anti-intellectual liberal types as racist, and stricken from the records of legitimate science not on grounds of scientific feasibility or likelihood of truth, but on grounds of cultural warfare and bullying pressure from interest groups, much as DSM-V removed gender dysphoria as a mental disorder due to similar pressures, when it rightfully should have remained classified as such purely based on the science.
Changes in the brain don't equal reality, and thinking you're a woman doesn't make you a woman. Period, end of case. I'm sure if there are racial differences in brains, Rachel Dolezal's more closely resembles a black brain than a white one, because *she thinks she is black* and that has tremendous power to shape what her brain does - obviously - as evidenced by men who think they are women, such as Dendlai here, or the men in the studies who convinced themselves they were women and their brains changed accordingly - including those with the congenital disorders, mind you. --LogicalNerd (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
For the sake of this argument, I'd ask either or any of you to please explain from a biological/genetic perspective how mere changes in brain scans based on self-perception determine gender/sex to the rest of the world. (Hint: they don't, and a person thinking they are the opposite sex is simply always incorrect in actuality and is merely subjective personal perspective which is clearly and objectively not based in reality, so good luck!) --LogicalNerd (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, Dendlai, you continue to call me a TERF after I've insisted I'm not (first off, I'm not even a feminist). I insist that you desist your childish ad hominem attacks or I will complain to the administration about your endless harassment. As I've stated repeatedly, I have no dog in this fight, I have no ill will towards trans individuals, and my only goal here is scientific objectivity and rationality. We can observe in the world that a man is a man and a woman is a woman, and it really is as simple as that. If you want to pretend to be something else, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't change objective reality. --LogicalNerd (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
You make a post asking me not to engage with you again... And then make another where... you engage with me. Logical, eh? And you've kinda gone off the deep end bringing up race, since as a person of impeccable science, you know that biologically there's no such thing as different human races, right? But well, since you started with the now thoroughly discredited claims from Blanchard (a man who admitted he lied in his "research"), why did you expect anybody to take you seriously? And not being a feminist doesn't preclude you from being a TERF. And feel free to complain to the "administration". I'll note you're the one ignoring the psychiatrist consensus, not I. Have a nice life, but, please, try to be less long-winded and write less like a parody of a Vulcan. Dendlai (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
"And not being a feminist doesn't preclude you from being a TERF." Lol...It's right there in the name. What does the "F" stand for, genius? Yeah, I've had enough of your idiocy. What a joke you are. --LogicalNerd (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
And North Korea is a democratic republic, and... *rolls eyes* I was expressing my opinion that TERFs aren't feminists, eventhough they claim otherwise. Which isn't an uncommon one, but there ya go.Dendlai (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You're an utter imbecile, and it's astonishing that you've managed to learn how to read, in all honesty. Seriously, why are you here and not on SJWiki? --LogicalNerd (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
"You don't actually have to be a feminist to be a feminist, and you don't actually have to be a woman to be a woman!" - @Dendlai. What brave and astonishing sentiments from a truly erudite scholar. Wowe. Much rationality. So logical. --LogicalNerd (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────:@LogicalNerd Refrain from using Ad hominem attacks and remain civil. @Dendlai The same applies to you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg
Yes. Continue this nonsense and I will have no other choice. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
People should stay off talk-pages and add content to main-articles. These pages mostly serve no purpose other than people pointlessly bickering.M87 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk pages can be used for constructive edits or commentary. I've done this and talk pages in Wikipedia have helped me decipher some anti-fluoridation studies. This is just inappropriate use of a talk page, though, but to be fair, this is over the content people are trying to put in main-articles to begin with. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
ok, but the topic is so weird and silly. "Autogynephilia", who cares about this stuff aside from wierdos? I've never heard of this term before and I'm sure 99.9% of people don't care about it.M87 (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
99% of people don't care about most of the kooks documented here anyway but here we are. If you don't care about it, stop commenting about it. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 23:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)