Content deleted Content added
→Androphilia and gynephilia: listed |
James Cantor (talk | contribs) r |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
::*'''Comment'''. If there actually were a notable debate, we would have RS's saying so instead of Jokestress' just saying so (again). Also, Jokestress would not have to be fabricating information about me (or anyone else). I have actually used '''both''' the heterosexual/homosexual terminology '''and''' the androphilia/gynephilic terminology in my writings. (If there's a better indicator of neutral, no one has described what it might be.) Nonetheless, the issue is what the RS's say, not what [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/health/psychology/21gender.html?scp=1&sq=michael%20bailey&st=cse| Jokestress' well-documented harassment of scientists she dislikes] says, which includes, I repeat, BLP violations.[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 16:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
::*'''Comment'''. If there actually were a notable debate, we would have RS's saying so instead of Jokestress' just saying so (again). Also, Jokestress would not have to be fabricating information about me (or anyone else). I have actually used '''both''' the heterosexual/homosexual terminology '''and''' the androphilia/gynephilic terminology in my writings. (If there's a better indicator of neutral, no one has described what it might be.) Nonetheless, the issue is what the RS's say, not what [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/health/psychology/21gender.html?scp=1&sq=michael%20bailey&st=cse| Jokestress' well-documented harassment of scientists she dislikes] says, which includes, I repeat, BLP violations.[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 16:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::*'''Comment'''. This is a well-sourced debate in psychology. As [[Anil Aggrawal]] writes (cited in the article), the terminology ''androphilia'' and ''gynephilia'' "is needed to overcome immense difficulties in characterizing the sexual orientation of transmen and transwomen. For instance, it is difficult to decide whether a transman erotically attracted to males is a heterosexual female or a homosexual male; or a transwoman erotically attracted to females is a heterosexual male or a lesbian female. Any attempt to classify them may not only cause confusion but arouse offense among the affected subjects. In such cases, while defining sexual attraction, it is best to focus on the object of their attraction rather than on the sex or gender of the subject." See the article for several other psychologists saying the same thing. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
:::*'''Comment'''. This is a well-sourced debate in psychology. As [[Anil Aggrawal]] writes (cited in the article), the terminology ''androphilia'' and ''gynephilia'' "is needed to overcome immense difficulties in characterizing the sexual orientation of transmen and transwomen. For instance, it is difficult to decide whether a transman erotically attracted to males is a heterosexual female or a homosexual male; or a transwoman erotically attracted to females is a heterosexual male or a lesbian female. Any attempt to classify them may not only cause confusion but arouse offense among the affected subjects. In such cases, while defining sexual attraction, it is best to focus on the object of their attraction rather than on the sex or gender of the subject." See the article for several other psychologists saying the same thing. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::*'''Comment'''. Aggrawal (who is a big fan of Blanchard, by the way), and you, and I are all entitled to use whichever terms we want. (That Blanchard prefers one set, and Aggrawal prefers another set, where I employ both, is neither here nor there.) [[WP:SIGCOV|Mention does not notability make.]] This requires input from the otherwise uninvolved.[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender|list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small><small>—[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 17:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender|list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small><small>—[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 17:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)</small> |
Revision as of 17:09, 20 July 2011
Androphilia and gynephilia
- Androphilia and gynephilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and long unsourced, despite multiple searches; content belongs in Sexual orientation — James Cantor (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. I have just added sourcing. Jokestress (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Redirect to Sexual orientation (of course). "Androphilia" (the sexual attraction to men) and "gynephilia" (the sexual attraction to women) are both perfectly legitimate terms and are indeed used by RS's. The combination of the terms, however, is WP:OR, and the content is "sexual orientation." By analogy, Acid and Base are pages, but Acid and Base is a redirect to Ph. The cites Jokestress added are examples of uses of the individual words, which is not the issue. ("Acid" and "base" are used by experts, but do not establish "acid and base" as a topic independent of Ph.) Finally, Jokestress' edits also claim on that mainpage that I personally have been advocating for other terms, which is both demonstrably incorrect and a BLP violation, as I already indicated there.— James Cantor (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. This article is about a notable debate in psychology regarding terminology. For several decades, there has been a push to use androphilic and gynephilic as alternatives to homosexual and heterosexual, especially when discussing sex and gender minorities. As an example of the problem, some psychologists use the term "homosexual transsexual" to describe what others call a "heterosexual transsexual." To avoid this confusion, Ron Langevin proposed androphilia and gynephilia in the 1980s. Since then, many scholars have discontinued use of terms like "homosexual transsexual." One exception is the nominator of this AfD, User:James Cantor, who used the term in his most recent published work in Archives of Sexual Behavior (cited in the article). This article has been included in the transgender sidebar as a key topic for quite some time. The debate should certainly be covered at sexual orientation, but there is too much published on the debate to paste all this into that article. It should be mentioned in summary style with a pointer to the main article. Jokestress (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. If there actually were a notable debate, we would have RS's saying so instead of Jokestress' just saying so (again). Also, Jokestress would not have to be fabricating information about me (or anyone else). I have actually used both the heterosexual/homosexual terminology and the androphilia/gynephilic terminology in my writings. (If there's a better indicator of neutral, no one has described what it might be.) Nonetheless, the issue is what the RS's say, not what Jokestress' well-documented harassment of scientists she dislikes says, which includes, I repeat, BLP violations.— James Cantor (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a well-sourced debate in psychology. As Anil Aggrawal writes (cited in the article), the terminology androphilia and gynephilia "is needed to overcome immense difficulties in characterizing the sexual orientation of transmen and transwomen. For instance, it is difficult to decide whether a transman erotically attracted to males is a heterosexual female or a homosexual male; or a transwoman erotically attracted to females is a heterosexual male or a lesbian female. Any attempt to classify them may not only cause confusion but arouse offense among the affected subjects. In such cases, while defining sexual attraction, it is best to focus on the object of their attraction rather than on the sex or gender of the subject." See the article for several other psychologists saying the same thing. Jokestress (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Aggrawal (who is a big fan of Blanchard, by the way), and you, and I are all entitled to use whichever terms we want. (That Blanchard prefers one set, and Aggrawal prefers another set, where I employ both, is neither here nor there.) Mention does not notability make. This requires input from the otherwise uninvolved.— James Cantor (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)