1066:
years of data going all the way back to data collected by Magnus
Hirschfeld that describe assigned males coming in to clinics and describing an erotic attraction to the notion of being a woman-- Hirschfeld, Kurt Freund, and others gave different names for this, but they all took down detailed histories (because back then, gender clinics gatekept rigorously) and there are in fact tons of documented autogynephiles; (2) clinicians have described fetishistic cross-dressing for decades (I should add, a totally different subject from transsexualism), and one of the causes of fetishistic cross-dressing is males who have an erotic attraction to being or becoming a woman; and (3) we have autogynephiles themselves, which includes not only AGP activists like Anne Lawrence but also even one of the person who led the attacks on Michael Bailey, who said herself that autogynephilia described her experience.
986:"Blanchard's transsexualism typology states that there are two types of transsexual androphillic, and non-androphillic. Androphillic transsexuals are attracted to men, and are a 5-6 or the Kinsey scale (link to that article cite the papers for what they say). According to this typology other transexuals are non-androphillic and instead have a paraphilic attraction to the idea or image of themselves as a woman. This idea is controversial because it reduces transsexual women to their sexualities, it does not account for transmen, and has been used to further political actions against transwomen.
606:
585:
616:
826:
501:
480:
333:
708:
690:
718:
904:
almost none of it. So much of the articles "Autogynephilia" and "Homosexual
Transsexual" were about the criticism of the subject. They were about a controversy over a book from that time. Mention those but the article needs to be about the subject for the most part. ( By the by,It refers to sex not gender and so does not misgender. It does reduce transwomen who are into men to their sex drive)
258:
290:
449:
419:
784:
1070:
want
Darwinian evolution to be true. And of course, coming from that position of denial of strongly evidenced reality, of course you don't want there to be a standalone Knowledge page, for EXACTLY the reason I said-- because you don't want an authoritative encyclopedia to document this thing that you wish didn't exist even though it does.
511:
1044:
alone article as it would either have to refer back here for the entire conceptual framework within which the term "autogynephilia" exists or else just duplicate more than half of this article. I don't even think that there is anything more to say about it than we already say here. It would be completely redundant.
939:" IMO this could be expanded to include 1) not only that he defines the first group by attraction (which the lead currently does mention), but that the second group is a collection of everyone else — those attracted to women, those attracted to "both", those attracted to "neither" (and hence alternately termed
1137:
Isn't it obvious? Trans activists hate this term. They have been out for blood against it ever since
Michael Bailey wrote his book about it. And Knowledge has allowed those activists to game the system here, to take a notable concept that absolutely deserves its own page and bury it, because it would
1133:
Here's the point. The CONCEPT is notable under the
Knowledge definition of that term. It's debated. It's discussed. Everyone talks about it. Indeed, even its use as a slur (which to be clear, I find deplorable) is itself evidence of notability. Everyone knows what AGP is. It has its own page in other
903:
Make sure the article is about the the subject not just the criticism and critique of the subject. This is what my mission here was, as I saw it, the comedian and the psychologist might not agree. The comedian wanted almost all of the article to be about the criticism. The psychologist would've had
895:
Make sure that the first paragraph contains a summary of what
Blanchard's typology is and the criticisms of it. The comedian made the point that most people won't read much beyond the first paragraph. Almost 20 years of Twitterfication of internet reading and I believe her. I wonder if people read
1043:
This is already that very page that you crave. It explains the term "autogynephilia" within its context of
Blanchard's typology in a fair and accurate way. It makes strenuous effort to take the idea as seriously as it is physically possible to without straining a muscle. There is no point in a stand
947:
the typology and terminology have been criticized: the terminology for being confusing and misgendering, for which reason 3) alternative terminology has been proposed / is used by others for referring to the types of attraction
Blanchard discusses; and the typology for reasons including e.g. that it
890:
Once upon a time a long time ago me and two other users, more or less, argued and fought and jousted to create these articles. I still correspond with them off WP from time to time. One was a comedian, the other a psychologist. Points they made that I recall will be attributed in that manner. You
1110:
sexual fantasies. To prove this, it would take a little more than simply finding such fantasies among a few groups of gynephilic trans women. Freud (who didn't focus on trans people and made such claims about humanity in general) also did not prove this kind of thing. This is
Blanchard's point, not
1080:
An encyclopedia that wants to be authoritative got played by a bunch of trans activists who really, truly, wish something isn't true and want to skew the discourse to misinform readers. That's the whole story here. (BTW the different IP address on my signature is because I am away from home while I
1021:
FWIW, I think it's obvious that "autogynephilia" should have its own page, and what really happened here is that
Knowledge got played by trans activists who couldn't stand the thought of someone googling "autogynephilia" and being directed to a Knowledge page with a fair and accurate description of
989:
I'd sum it up that way. I am sure the comedian, you'll see which user that was in the archive of the talk page would not think I said enough about why its controversial. The psychologist would not like using androphillic vs non-androphillic. (I can't believe this issue has been a controversy for
899:
Make sure that you keep tightly to the peer reviewed published papers of Blanchard when describing his work and also to the similarly published works that refute or support his work. The psychologist was understandably big on that. Knowledge may be stricter about that now. Back then a website by
1004:
Agreed with sche here that the lead should be expanded, and basically in the way outlined. I also think that just a list of critics and supporters doesn't have a lot of encyclopedic value on its own. The article already makes it pretty clear that Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence support the theory,
1069:
So when you say "I want to make it look like 'autogynephilia' is an accepted thing, existing in the real world", you are arguing from a position of unreality and proving my point. You obviously don't want this thing that exists to exist, in exactly the same way that a devout evangelical might not
1152:
I would add, that there seems to be an unfair standard implicitly being applied. To wit, that AGP must have some level of scholarly acceptance to merit its own article. It need not. It is possible that scholars of sexuality are minded to resist a standalone article because the concept is seen as
1129:
So what? There are many concepts out there where some scholars prefer some terms and some scholars prefer other terms. And it's not like Knowledge just lists it under a different term (like Julia Serano's "Female Emobdiment Fantasy"). It doesn't list it all, instead subsuming it under a bunch of
1065:
A few points in response. First, and most obviously, while you can say what you want about Ray Blanchard and his various claims. the CONCEPT of autogynephilia obviously describes a true phenomenon. Why do we know this? Well, in addition to Blanchard's and Bailey's observations, we have: (1) 100
1047:
The problem is that you want to make it look like "autogynephilia" is an accepted thing, existing in the real world, separate from Blanchard's non-mainstream typology. That simply isn't something that is widely accepted. The only people who think that "autogynephilia" is real and meaningful are
1303:
does not say "controversial" for example. Adherents to that theory, and this theory, are ideological in nature, as there's no empirical data to support their validity. Many modern nazis adhere to the theory of social degeneration. The article simply refers to the theory matter-of-factly as
907:
Last and most important keep this in mind. 'Everyone working on this is acting voluntarily and in good faith.' If I have learned anything by interacting with those people online in other forums and on other topics is that any argument over this does not matter. Just remember to
982:
Again I'm just sharing what I recall of our past perspectives and motivations. The page belongs to the present. Those all sound like reasonable things to add. I'd say given the current moment, and wanting to avoid an unending cycle of arguing about terminology.. the
164:
1167:
Just because something is notable doesn't mean it is best covered in a standalone article. No one is disputing the notability of this concept, but as DanielRigal mentions, the concept is better covered in this article.
433:
1182:
I respectfully disagree - the Anglophone right have made such a fetish of this concept that it likely merits its own article. Most lay sources do not refer to it as part of a sexological typology.
55:
158:
1293:
Nowhere in the article is the explanatory status of the typology according to modern medicine indicated. Shouldn't the lead or body indicate the fringe or historical nature of the theory?
1367:
672:
662:
201:
1115:. Neither scholars nor transgender rights activists argue with this. But autogynephilia is not a universally accepted term for this kink, there are scholars who prefer other terms.
1077:. German Knowledge runs under the exact same rules as Engish language Knowledge. And yet they have this page. That strongly suggests that your position is exactly what I said it is.
1048:
people who adhere to the typology. That's a very small group (dare I say fringe?) in the medical community even if the idea has caught, on to a limited extent, outside of academia.
1372:
245:
241:
1051:
It makes absolutely no sense to spin it out separately. It would be twice as much trouble for the editors and only make things more confusing and disjointed for the readers.
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
1337:
249:
927:
You make a good point about the need to ensure the lead is complete. The lead is currently pretty short and contains just one sentence explaining what the typology is: "
638:
1362:
403:
891:
can read the talk pages of those old articles to see for yourself. That said here are some observations I hope will help in condensing and re-writing this article.
629:
590:
1352:
567:
557:
310:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
1382:
1209:
and generally gets us nowhere. We are not required to jump to attention just because a succession of IP addresses think that we are not giving their pet
90:
1357:
179:
1332:
1227:
Claim all you want that wanting a separate article for AGP is just "conspiratorial ranting," but it's not and calling it that doesn't make it so.
746:
146:
297:
1253:
that assert it's a notable topic in isolation from the typology however. You should also review all of the prior discussions both here and on
1342:
1088:
870:
844:
533:
96:
1347:
1139:
1029:
965:
800:
35:
140:
1310:
1257:
for why the article was merged into this one 14 years, and why the multiple attempts at recreating a stand-alone article have failed.
836:
Becker, Judith V.; Perkins, Andrew (2014). "Gender Dysphoria". In Hales, Robert E.; Yudofsky, Stuart C.; Roberts, Laura Weiss (eds.).
742:
732:
695:
367:
136:
524:
485:
395:
381:
351:
313:
301:
110:
41:
1296:
If one looks at other articles on fringe theories that have long been disproven, their academic status is clearly indicated.
1377:
343:
186:
115:
31:
1138:
hurt their feelings and perhaps harm their political project if someone googled the term and found a Knowledge page for it.
85:
1022:
this subject matter. All the arguments about POV forks and everything else were just dishonest covers for this desire.
460:
76:
257:
196:
152:
268:
1092:
1143:
1033:
1314:
854:
Rider, G. Nic; Tebbe, Elliot A. (2021). "Anti-Trans Theories". In Goldberg, Abbie E.; Beemyn, Genny (eds.).
347:
319:
120:
17:
1262:
621:
361:
1218:
1056:
1010:
466:
428:
1130:
jargon ("Blanchard's Transsexualism Typology"), which is just obviously an attempt to bury the concept.
803:
on 11 September 2010. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see
1318:
1266:
1236:
1222:
1194:
1177:
1162:
1147:
1124:
1096:
1060:
1037:
1014:
999:
977:
921:
1084:
1025:
389:
615:
605:
584:
448:
1300:
1254:
1190:
1173:
1158:
1120:
810:
399:
375:
172:
66:
637:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
532:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1242:
1206:
273:
81:
272:
1258:
995:
917:
867:
841:
825:
796:
516:
357:
307:
62:
1232:
1214:
1052:
1006:
900:
the right kind of person could suffice and be presented here as a refutation of such a work.
859:
270:
964:, etc) has sometimes been applied to trans men, and 6) a sentence (or two) summarizing the
933:
who are attracted exclusively to men and are feminine in both behavior and appearance; and
973:
634:
385:
741:-related issues on Knowledge. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
1246:
1202:
1186:
1169:
1154:
1116:
371:
1326:
1250:
991:
937:
who experience sexual arousal at the idea of having a female body (autogynephilia).
913:
723:
943:). Other things the body devotes sections to which could be added to the lead: 2)
831:
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
1228:
912:
Those are my points. Feel free to ignore all of it. What do us dinosaurs know?
500:
479:
1102:
One do not have to be a trans activist to say that Blanchard didn't prove that
707:
689:
969:
863:
713:
611:
529:
506:
342:
to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
322:
when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
956:
is also found in cis women. Also 5) that the typology or its terminology (
398:) This user has contributed to the article. This user has been banned and
1245:
in a new section. I would strongly suggest that you include an array of
1185:
However, I can see consensus is against me, so I won't press the point.
418:
1213:
conjecture the walled garden of articles that they think it deserves.
1113:
some trans women have sexual fantasies related to having a female body
840:(6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Publishing. p. 688.
1153:
fringe in academic circles. However, it can nevertheless be notable.
990:
so long. A child born in 2007-2008 would be in high school now.)
738:
737:, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
1307:
What is the general rule on Knowledge for this sort of thing?
820:
778:
442:
413:
327:
284:
274:
26:
1005:
and that Serano, Moser, and others oppose it or parts of it.
1074:
437:. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
838:
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry
340:
contributor may be personally or professionally connected
858:. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. pp. 39–43.
805:
791:
171:
633:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
528:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
929:Blanchard categorized trans women into two groups:
1073:Finally, the German Knowledge page has a page for
1134:languages on Knowledge. So what is going on here?
896:beyond the title of an article a lot of the time.
856:The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies, Volume 1
404:Knowledge:Sockpuppet_investigations/James_Cantor
44:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1368:Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
185:
8:
647:Knowledge:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
1373:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
809:; for the discussion at that location, see
650:Template:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
18:Talk:Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory
1082:
1023:
684:
579:
474:
1338:Articles edited by connected contributors
1363:C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
686:
581:
476:
446:
1241:If you think that, feel free to start
928:
7:
627:This article is within the scope of
522:This article is within the scope of
801:Blanchard's transsexualism typology
465:It is of interest to the following
431:by Knowledge editors, which is now
425:Blanchard's transsexualism typology
36:Blanchard's transsexualism typology
34:for discussing improvements to the
1353:Mid-importance psychology articles
755:Knowledge:WikiProject LGBT studies
630:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
400:may therefore be reverted on sight
25:
1383:WikiProject LGBT studies articles
758:Template:WikiProject LGBT studies
824:
782:
716:
706:
688:
614:
604:
583:
542:Knowledge:WikiProject Psychology
509:
499:
478:
447:
417:
331:
288:
256:
56:Click here to start a new topic.
1358:WikiProject Psychology articles
1304:historical, not controversial.
729:This article is of interest to
667:This article has been rated as
653:Sexology and sexuality articles
562:This article has been rated as
545:Template:WikiProject Psychology
312:Content must be written from a
296:The subject of this article is
1333:Knowledge controversial topics
1:
1223:12:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
1195:23:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
1178:04:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
1163:04:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
1148:00:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
1125:09:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
1097:02:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
641:and see a list of open tasks.
536:and see a list of open tasks.
53:Put new text under old text.
1343:Old requests for peer review
1267:01:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
1237:01:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
1205:? Conspiratorial ranting is
1061:18:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1038:16:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1348:C-Class psychology articles
1319:01:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
941:non-homosexual transsexuals
935:autogynephilic transsexuals
306:When updating the article,
61:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1399:
978:17:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
922:16:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
673:project's importance scale
568:project's importance scale
864:10.4135/9781544393858.n12
701:
666:
599:
561:
494:
473:
308:be bold, but not reckless
91:Be welcoming to newcomers
886:Notes From The Stone Age
733:WikiProject LGBT studies
338:The following Knowledge
1106:gynephilic trans women
1015:02:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
1000:16:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
931:homosexual transsexuals
644:Sexology and sexuality
622:Human sexuality portal
591:Sexology and sexuality
525:WikiProject Psychology
455:This article is rated
300:and content may be in
86:avoid personal attacks
1378:C-Class LGBT articles
1108:transition because of
952:as trans-only but 4)
789:The contents of the
745:or contribute to the
352:neutral point of view
314:neutral point of view
250:Auto-archiving period
111:Neutral point of view
344:conflict of interest
116:No original research
1301:social degeneration
1255:Talk:Autogynephilia
1203:not feed the trolls
548:psychology articles
461:content assessment
97:dispute resolution
58:
1099:
1087:comment added by
1040:
1028:comment added by
966:§ Societal impact
883:
882:
872:978-1-5443-9382-7
846:978-1-5856-2444-7
817:
816:
777:
776:
773:
772:
769:
768:
683:
682:
679:
678:
578:
577:
574:
573:
517:Psychology portal
441:
440:
412:
411:
326:
325:
281:
280:
77:Assume good faith
54:
16:(Redirected from
1390:
1251:reliable sources
876:
850:
828:
821:
808:
786:
785:
779:
763:
762:
759:
756:
753:
726:
721:
720:
719:
710:
703:
702:
692:
685:
655:
654:
651:
648:
645:
624:
619:
618:
608:
601:
600:
595:
587:
580:
550:
549:
546:
543:
540:
519:
514:
513:
512:
503:
496:
495:
490:
482:
475:
458:
452:
451:
443:
421:
414:
335:
334:
328:
292:
291:
285:
275:
261:
260:
251:
190:
189:
175:
106:Article policies
27:
21:
1398:
1397:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1323:
1322:
1291:
1243:a split request
1089:217.110.117.250
888:
873:
853:
847:
835:
804:
783:
760:
757:
754:
751:
750:
722:
717:
715:
652:
649:
646:
643:
642:
635:human sexuality
620:
613:
593:
547:
544:
541:
538:
537:
515:
510:
508:
488:
459:on Knowledge's
456:
332:
289:
277:
276:
271:
248:
132:
127:
126:
125:
102:
72:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1396:
1394:
1386:
1385:
1380:
1375:
1370:
1365:
1360:
1355:
1350:
1345:
1340:
1335:
1325:
1324:
1290:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1201:Please can we
1199:
1198:
1197:
1183:
1140:47.145.135.156
1135:
1131:
1078:
1075:autogynephilia
1071:
1067:
1049:
1045:
1030:74.113.130.250
1019:
1018:
1017:
1002:
987:
984:
954:autogynephilia
950:autogynephilia
910:
909:
905:
901:
897:
887:
884:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
871:
851:
845:
832:
829:
815:
814:
792:Autogynephilia
787:
775:
774:
771:
770:
767:
766:
764:
728:
727:
711:
699:
698:
693:
681:
680:
677:
676:
669:Mid-importance
665:
659:
658:
656:
639:the discussion
626:
625:
609:
597:
596:
594:Mid‑importance
588:
576:
575:
572:
571:
564:Mid-importance
560:
554:
553:
551:
534:the discussion
521:
520:
504:
492:
491:
489:Mid‑importance
483:
471:
470:
464:
453:
439:
438:
422:
410:
409:
408:
407:
336:
324:
323:
293:
283:
279:
278:
269:
267:
266:
263:
262:
192:
191:
129:
128:
124:
123:
118:
113:
104:
103:
101:
100:
93:
88:
79:
73:
71:
70:
59:
50:
49:
46:
45:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1395:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1376:
1374:
1371:
1369:
1366:
1364:
1361:
1359:
1356:
1354:
1351:
1349:
1346:
1344:
1341:
1339:
1336:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1328:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1305:
1302:
1299:The page for
1297:
1294:
1288:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1081:type this.)
1079:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1003:
1001:
997:
993:
988:
985:
981:
980:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
946:
942:
938:
936:
932:
926:
925:
924:
923:
919:
915:
906:
902:
898:
894:
893:
892:
885:
874:
869:
865:
861:
857:
852:
848:
843:
839:
834:
833:
830:
827:
823:
822:
819:
812:
811:its talk page
807:
802:
798:
794:
793:
788:
781:
780:
765:
761:LGBT articles
748:
744:
740:
736:
735:
734:
725:
714:
712:
709:
705:
704:
700:
697:
694:
691:
687:
674:
670:
664:
661:
660:
657:
640:
636:
632:
631:
623:
617:
612:
610:
607:
603:
602:
598:
592:
589:
586:
582:
569:
565:
559:
556:
555:
552:
535:
531:
527:
526:
518:
507:
505:
502:
498:
497:
493:
487:
484:
481:
477:
472:
468:
462:
454:
450:
445:
444:
436:
435:
430:
426:
423:
420:
416:
415:
405:
401:
397:
394:
391:
387:
383:
380:
377:
373:
369:
366:
363:
359:
356:
355:
353:
349:
348:autobiography
345:
341:
337:
330:
329:
321:
317:
315:
309:
305:
303:
299:
298:controversial
294:
287:
286:
282:
265:
264:
259:
255:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
198:
194:
193:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
131:
130:
122:
121:Verifiability
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
108:
107:
98:
94:
92:
89:
87:
83:
80:
78:
75:
74:
68:
64:
63:Learn to edit
60:
57:
52:
51:
48:
47:
43:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1311:96.60.79.128
1309:
1306:
1298:
1295:
1292:
1259:Sideswipe9th
1210:
1112:
1107:
1103:
1083:— Preceding
1024:— Preceding
961:
957:
953:
949:
944:
940:
934:
930:
911:
889:
855:
837:
818:
790:
752:LGBT studies
743:project page
731:
730:
724:LGBTQ portal
696:LGBT studies
668:
628:
563:
523:
467:WikiProjects
432:
424:
392:
378:
364:
358:James Cantor
339:
311:
295:
253:
195:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
105:
30:This is the
1289:Controversy
1247:independent
1215:DanielRigal
1207:WP:NOTFORUM
1053:DanielRigal
962:androphilic
806:its history
429:peer review
427:received a
159:free images
42:not a forum
1327:Categories
983:following.
958:homosexual
795:page were
747:discussion
539:Psychology
530:Psychology
486:Psychology
386:Starburst9
1187:Riposte97
1170:Galobtter
1155:Riposte97
1117:Reprarina
968:section.
372:Banglange
320:citations
99:if needed
82:Be polite
32:talk page
1085:unsigned
1026:unsigned
434:archived
396:contribs
382:contribs
368:contribs
318:Include
197:Archives
67:get help
40:This is
38:article.
992:Hfarmer
948:posits
914:Hfarmer
671:on the
566:on the
457:C-class
302:dispute
254:90Â days
165:WPÂ refs
153:scholar
1229:Hooky6
1211:theory
908:relax.
797:merged
463:scale.
350:, and
137:Google
1111:that
970:-sche
799:into
739:LGBTQ
202:Index
180:JSTOR
141:books
95:Seek
1315:talk
1263:talk
1249:and
1233:talk
1219:talk
1191:talk
1174:talk
1159:talk
1144:talk
1121:talk
1093:talk
1057:talk
1034:talk
1011:talk
1007:Loki
996:talk
974:talk
918:talk
868:ISBN
842:ISBN
390:talk
384:) /
376:talk
370:) /
362:talk
173:FENS
147:news
84:and
1104:all
945:why
860:doi
663:Mid
558:Mid
402:. (
354:.
187:TWL
1329::
1317:)
1265:)
1235:)
1221:)
1193:)
1176:)
1161:)
1146:)
1123:)
1095:)
1059:)
1036:)
1013:)
998:)
976:)
960:,
920:)
866:.
346:,
252::
246:11
244:,
242:10
240:,
236:,
232:,
228:,
224:,
220:,
216:,
212:,
208:,
204:,
167:)
65:;
1313:(
1261:(
1231:(
1217:(
1189:(
1172:(
1157:(
1142:(
1119:(
1091:(
1055:(
1032:(
1009:(
994:(
972:(
916:(
875:.
862::
849:.
813:.
749:.
675:.
570:.
469::
406:)
393:·
388:(
379:·
374:(
365:·
360:(
316:.
304:.
238:9
234:8
230:7
226:6
222:5
218:4
214:3
210:2
206:1
199::
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
69:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.