452:
intervention for this perfectly natural attraction, and the "technical term" for the supposedly related condition that you and Ray
Blanchard have come up with is not in the DSM or in any other reputable classification of psychiatric and/or medical conditions. Furthermore, even taking your bogus, fringe concept of "gyandromorphophilia" at face value, it supposedly describes a "preference" for transgender people, not merely "attraction" to them. Or you are saying it impossible for anyone to find transgender people sexually attractive IN ANY WAY unless they have a specific medical condition (a medical condition that coincidentally enjoys very limited recognition in the medical community.) Give me a break.
792:
them. And honestly, the actual conclusion of my thought is not what you suggest. The actual conclusion is that we should delete both the
Knowledge page on gynandromorphophilia AND the Knowledge page on "attraction to transgender people". . .after all, there is no Knowledge articles called "attraction to cisgender people," "attraction to white people," "attraction to supermodels" and so on (because these things are considered normal and therefore doesn't get analyzed in depth by exoticizing voyeurs like you, James). Since this Article of Deletion discussion is only about gynandromorphophilia, however, I've been focusing on that. You want to know what Knowledge policies support my argument? How about
273:
commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." I searched for this term on PubMed, and at that time found only two examples: a paper by the inventor of the term, Ray
Blanchard, a close colleague of James at CAMH, and one other from Hungary. I asked James at the AfD for other examples of its use, but there was no response. The article was kept, but it seems to be a clear example of editing to promote a little-used term (and the perspective associated with it), with the result that Knowledge is causing the spread of it, rather than merely (or also) reflecting that spread.
679:
In other words, it is NOT the technical term for attraction to transgender people, although you seem to desperately want it to be. Also, you have failed to respond to the distinction I'm making between "attraction to transgender people" and "preference for transgender people" (which is what "gyandromorphophilia" is supposedly about). Do you fail to see this distinction?
804:. You know, the big ones. Your ideas are extremely fringe (not notable), your articles are biased (not NPOV), and you are using Knowledge as a soapbox to promote your bullshit (and Knowledge is not a soapbox). . .(I guess I'm using Knowledge a little like a soapbox right here, but I only do that in Talk pages. . .I never do it in my articles or article edits.)
917:: while "gyandromorpohilia" has seventeen results on Google Scholar, a quick-and-dirty search for two redirects, "gynemimetophilia" (attraction to femme men and trans women) has 41, and "andromimetophilia" (attraction to butch women and trans men) has 17. Any merge should be towards the descriptive title, if there's any worthwhile content worth merging.
900:
and that their histories be merged. Additionally, I don't find
Rebecca's counterarguments to be convincing as, while it is true that gynandromorphophilia is not a widely used term, it is the term used in the highest quality sources, and "attraction to transgender people" is not really a term so much
791:
James, you bring up a valid point. Knowledge has MANY articles about bogus paraphilias that have been cooked up by fringe sexual busybodies such as yourself. You are right it's inconsistent to delete the article on gyandromorphophilia without deleting all the other ones. I say we should delete all of
746:
Finally, I am not addressing the incorrect beliefs you have about how sex researchers use the terms "attraction" and "preference" (and, I will add, "interest") because your misconceptions are irrelevant to what WP policies are (none of which have you cited and none of which support your conclusion).
678:
The difference, James, is that "homosexual," "heterosexual," and "pedophilia" are widely accepted technical terms for the sexual interests they describe. "Gyandromorphophilia" is a little known term invented by you and your friends that, as I've said, has not been endorsed by the DSM or anybody else.
962:
Sceptre, please excuse my ignorance of trans* topics if I'm missing something obvious, but aren't gyandromorpohilia, gynemimetophilia, and andromimetophilia three distinct concepts (btw, would someone mind explaining to me what the * means after trans? I know it's respectful to use it but I have no
272:
James created
Gynandromorphophilia in August 2012. We already had an article on that subject at, first, Transfan, then Attraction to transgender people, so Gynandromorphophilia is arguably a POV fork. According to MOSMED, we are supposed to use "the scientific or recognised medical name that is most
728:
provides many dozens of examples of other paraphilic interests, including multiple terms much rarer than gynandromorphophilia, but which still get treated exactly as I say this topic should be: Content under the technical term. There is no policy saying to make an exception for rare terms, and the
418:
3. The sources using gynandromorphophilia are peer-reviewed articles in high-end relevant medical journals and texts by major medical publishing houses. The sources using alternative terms do not use any term universally, with each employing descriptions rather than any specific term at all. It is
353:
I agree this article should be deleted. Some of the content is interesting and has scholarly sources to back it up, but I think it could better be addressed as a subsection of the "Attraction to transgender people" article. I agree that the concept of "gyandromorphophilia" is simply a POV term for
451:
James Cantor, are you kidding me? Rename the "attraction to transgender people" article "gyandromorphophilia"? For your information, we are not seeking to "de-medicalize" anything. Attraction to transgender people is not currently "medicalized," at all. Very few people seek any sort of medical
426:
4. The sources using alternative terms are very low quality. For example, although it is perfectly fine to indicate that "In 'Diary of a Drag Queen' Daniel Harris describes four types of men interested in him while he was cross-dressed" and that porn star Buck Angel has a following, but such
625:
I certainly would not argue with you what the usual approach would be, either now or 8 months ago. However, WP policy and precedent are very clear that sexual interests have their content listed under their technical/medical/Greek-derived names, regardless of stigma or political correctness,
535:
No one has made any argument for why this sexual attraction should be treated differently from every other one. Indeed, none of the arguments appears to acknowledge that an exception is what is being asked for. I'm just arguing for treating this sexual attraction like any
980:
From my perception, they're circles on a venn diagram with a considerable amount of overlap. I personally think that a descriptive title for all three terms is more wise, especially when one term is linked so much with a fringe theory. As regards to the asterisk, it's a
716:
1. The lay-term is used 1/17th as much by RS's than is "gynandromorphophilia." It makes no sense to make an exception to WP's rules arguing rarity, only to replace the term with one that's even more rare. For reference I have already posted the scholar.google results
277:
From looking at the article, this analysis seems to check out. The giveaway sentence to me is in the lead section, "Gynandromorphophilia and autogynephilia have been noted to be important considerations in the assessment of Gender
Identity Disorder.":
1003:
Sceptre is entitled to her perceptions, of course, but the WP content policy is very clear. I am purposefully not engaging the personal attacks above, but I would direct the closing admin to the findings of the recently closed ArbCom case,
888:, but I also agree with SV's reasoning regarding the article being a content fork. Because I'm conflicted between policy and efficiency, I can't !vote keep or delete. Instead, I propose for the sake of expediency (remember, we
740:
and multiple RS's provide lists of several hundred paraphilias. Fewer than a dozen are named in the DSM. On WP, however, each one has its content listed on the page with its technical name, whether it's in the DSM or
192:
90:
85:
404:: "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)."
354:
what a some researchers believe about sexual attraction to transgender people, but as this current article is written, the impression is given that these researchers' view is the sole view on this topic.
322:
857:
582:). Then a separate discussion can be held about what to call it. But to ask for that now in the middle of an AfD is to mix up the issues yet again. Alternatively, we could simply redirect
247:
578:. Instead, you created the latter as a POV fork. What is needed now is to merge the content so that we have one article (and it should be merged into the one that existed for years,
80:
186:
1008:, indicating exactly the opposite of Sceptre's allegations about me and putting this whole topic under discretionary sanctions. (Also relevant are the edit warring at the
152:
1041:
145:
427:
references to personal experiences from individual non-experts cannot serve as RS's to establish the terminology used by relevant experts and the body of RS's.
423:
for conducting a campaign to do so. If there is a POV fork here, it is to break the lay mentions away from the expert use in order to de-medicalize the topic.
1005:
297:, and a noted advocate of Blanchard's typology. On the balance of this, I would assume that it was a FRINGE article created by someone with a similar FRINGE
224:
985:, and implies a greater degree of inclusivity within the term as without (which, in some circles, can be taken to mean only people undergoing transition).
944:
here]). Although I dislike the term gynemimetophilia (no reason to refer to trans women as merely mimicking natal women). The AfD of that article is
118:
113:
412:
122:
294:
408:
105:
287:
1110:
1081:
1050:
1033:
991:
975:
957:
923:
909:
869:
848:
813:
762:
688:
651:
596:
547:
461:
438:
383:
363:
345:
315:
63:
1098:
207:
1094:
964:
893:
885:
809:
684:
631:
587:
579:
571:
457:
374:
359:
265:
243:
174:
801:
17:
497:
805:
680:
453:
355:
168:
515:
486:
339:
1129:
519:
164:
109:
40:
945:
1021:
527:
508:
503:
The community’s common term for itself is “minor-attracted person,” we put content under the technical term
214:
1029:
953:
844:
758:
647:
543:
434:
420:
626:
regardless of rarity, regardless of DSM status. Your suggestions for how to proceed would put the pages
1125:
419:
perfectly legitimate for folks to want to "de-medicalize" what they perceive to be societal issues, but
36:
937:
1009:
897:
881:
793:
635:
583:
575:
259:
101:
69:
963:
idea what it means)? Additionally, regardless of the answer to that question, don't you think that
737:
730:
725:
200:
492:
The community’s common term for itself is “straight,” but we put content under the technical term
180:
1075:
982:
942:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gynandromorphophilia&diff=506112481&oldid=324153639
747:
Moreover, if you take your thought to its conclusion, you will realize that you are arguing for
1013:
928:
That is correct. "Gynemimetophilia" would indeed meet the applicable WP rules. I created the
836:
373:
per
Sceptre and Rebecca. It would be better to discuss this term and the view it represents in
1106:
1025:
949:
865:
840:
754:
643:
539:
430:
251:
235:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1124:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
481:
The community’s common term for itself is “gay,” but we put content under the technical term
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1060:
973:
929:
907:
401:
239:
570:
James, the usual approach would have been to start a requested move discussion asking that
591:
378:
293:
I do also notice that the primary contributor, Cantor, is a colleague of
Blanchard at the
255:
967:
is a colloquialism more than it is a proper title, as I mentioned in my above comment?
733:
shows that WP actually does the opposite of what you are advocating when a term is rare.
797:
523:
334:
279:
58:
1072:
889:
298:
283:
246:, written in such a way that it appears benign. This article was brought up by me at
713:
It is entirely true that it is a rarely used term. It is also entirely irrelevant:
1102:
1046:
987:
919:
861:
493:
311:
303:
880:
This seems to be a bit of a conundrum. I agree with Cantor's reasoning as to why
139:
630:
from compliance rather than closer to it. Withdrawing this AfD and then merging
968:
902:
504:
482:
1063:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
478:
Actually, WP puts sexual interests under their technical names, regardless:
327:
54:
377:, rather than to host a separate article, which is arguably a POV fork.
1118:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
391:
Merge
Attraction to transgender people into Gynandromorphophilia
91:
Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia (3rd nomination)
86:
Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia (2nd nomination)
323:
list of
Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
858:
list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions
248:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/HebephiliaIncident
941:
933:
718:
135:
131:
127:
892:), that what ever content is worthy of including from
282:
is only really important for its inclusion as part of
199:
1070:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
288:
controversial fringe theory of transgender typology
751:pages: one for attraction and one for preference.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1132:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1042:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Autoandrophilia
270:
233:
231:. The rationale for the last AfD still stands:
1044:, as Cantor has raised the same points there.
301:outside his normal line of work on sexology.
213:
8:
1006:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology
856:Note: This debate has been included in the
321:Note: This debate has been included in the
225:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology
855:
415:for "attraction to transgender people": 1.
320:
81:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia
1099:WP:WE'REALLSICKOFTHISSHITLET'SMOVEALONG
78:
295:Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
223:Renomination following the closure of
7:
227:, which was closed with a result of
76:
835:Folks might want to be aware of a
24:
884:is a more appropriate title than
498:Attraction to opposite sex people
254:'s contributions, and I defer to
1095:Attraction to transgender people
965:Attraction to transgender people
894:Attraction to transgender people
886:Attraction to transgender people
632:Attraction to transgender people
588:Attraction to transgender people
580:Attraction to transgender people
572:Attraction to transgender people
375:Attraction to transgender people
244:Attraction to transgender people
802:Knowledge:What Knowledge is not
411:for gynandromorphophilia: 17.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1020:fringe, and the simultaneous
487:Attraction to same sex people
736:3. The DSM is irrelevant.
307:15:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
520:Attraction to men and women
1149:
992:14:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
976:09:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
958:21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
936:) at the same time as the
924:20:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
910:06:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
901:as it is a colloquialism.
870:00:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
849:15:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
763:13:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
689:23:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
652:13:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
638:, however, would bring us
597:21:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
548:19:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
516:Androphilia and Gynephilia
462:18:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
439:12:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
384:03:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
364:03:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
346:20:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
316:19:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
837:related discussion at FTN
1121:Please do not modify it.
1040:I've replied to this at
64:20:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1111:15:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
1097:and in accordance with
1082:02:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
1051:03:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
1034:11:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
814:18:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
1022:AfD of autoandrophilia
528:Attraction to amputees
509:Attraction to children
309:
275:
75:AfDs for this article:
890:don't have firm rules
1010:gynandromorphophilia
898:Gynandromorphophilia
882:Gynandromorphophilia
794:Knowledge:Notability
636:Gynandromorphophilia
584:Gynandromorphophilia
576:Gynandromorphophilia
299:conflict of interest
102:Gynandromorphophilia
70:Gynandromorphophilia
896:be integrated into
738:List of paraphilias
731:List of paraphilias
729:articles linked to
726:List of paraphilias
421:WP is not the place
413:Scholar.google hits
409:Scholar.google hits
48:The result was
1084:
938:Gynandromorphilia
872:
595:
382:
348:
252:User:James Cantor
250:into scrutiny of
1140:
1123:
1078:
1069:
1065:
1014:consensus at FTN
971:
930:Gynemimetophilia
905:
594:
590:without an AfD.
381:
344:
342:
337:
332:
218:
217:
203:
155:
143:
125:
62:
34:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1130:deletion review
1119:
1076:
1058:
969:
903:
507:. There is no
496:. There is no
485:. There is no
340:
335:
328:
326:
160:
151:
116:
100:
97:
95:
73:
53:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1146:
1144:
1135:
1134:
1114:
1113:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1067:
1066:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1037:
1036:
1026:— James Cantor
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
960:
950:— James Cantor
912:
874:
873:
852:
851:
841:— James Cantor
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
798:Knowledge:NPOV
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
755:— James Cantor
752:
744:
743:
742:
734:
722:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
644:— James Cantor
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
540:— James Cantor
537:
533:
532:
531:
524:Acrotomophilia
512:
501:
490:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
444:
443:
442:
441:
431:— James Cantor
428:
424:
416:
405:
395:
394:
387:
386:
367:
366:
350:
349:
280:autogynephilia
268:)'s analysis:
221:
220:
157:
96:
94:
93:
88:
83:
77:
74:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1145:
1133:
1131:
1127:
1122:
1116:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1093:as a fork of
1092:
1089:
1088:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1074:
1068:
1064:
1062:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1048:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1016:that this is
1015:
1011:
1007:
1002:
999:
993:
990:
989:
984:
979:
978:
977:
974:
972:
966:
961:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
926:
925:
922:
921:
916:
913:
911:
908:
906:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
876:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
854:
853:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
831:
830:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
764:
760:
756:
753:
750:
745:
739:
735:
732:
727:
723:
720:
715:
714:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
690:
686:
682:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
598:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
549:
545:
541:
538:
534:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:
506:
502:
499:
495:
491:
488:
484:
480:
479:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
463:
459:
455:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
440:
436:
432:
429:
425:
422:
417:
414:
410:
406:
403:
399:
398:
397:
396:
392:
389:
388:
385:
380:
376:
372:
369:
368:
365:
361:
357:
352:
351:
347:
343:
338:
333:
331:
324:
319:
318:
317:
314:
313:
308:
306:
305:
300:
296:
291:
289:
285:
284:Ray Blanchard
281:
274:
269:
267:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
232:
230:
226:
216:
212:
209:
206:
202:
198:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
166:
163:
162:Find sources:
158:
154:
150:
147:
141:
137:
133:
129:
124:
120:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
71:
68:
66:
65:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1120:
1117:
1090:
1071:
1059:
1045:
1017:
1000:
986:
918:
914:
877:
832:
748:
639:
628:farther away
627:
574:be moved to
494:Heterosexual
390:
370:
329:
310:
302:
292:
276:
271:
262:
234:
228:
222:
210:
204:
196:
189:
183:
177:
171:
161:
148:
49:
47:
31:
28:
522:. We have
187:free images
1012:age, the
592:SlimVirgin
505:Pedophilia
483:Homosexual
379:SlimVirgin
256:SlimVirgin
1126:talk page
862:• Gene93k
402:WP:MEDMOS
242:-fork of
59:talk page
37:talk page
1128:or in a
1061:Relisted
1001:Comment.
983:wildcard
833:Comment.
586:back to
514:We have
266:contribs
146:View log
39:or in a
1103:Carrite
1077:Faraone
1047:Sceptre
988:Sceptre
920:Sceptre
915:Comment
878:Comment
806:Rebecca
681:Rebecca
454:Rebecca
356:Rebecca
312:Sceptre
304:Sceptre
193:WPÂ refs
181:scholar
119:protect
114:history
1091:Delete
940:page (
932:page (
800:, and
640:closer
536:other.
526:, not
518:, not
371:Delete
240:FRINGE
165:Google
123:delete
50:delete
970:Sædon
904:Sædon
634:into
511:page.
500:page.
489:page.
229:defer
208:JSTOR
169:books
153:Stats
140:views
132:watch
128:links
16:<
1107:talk
1030:talk
954:talk
946:here
934:here
866:talk
845:talk
810:talk
759:talk
741:not.
724:2.
719:here
685:talk
648:talk
544:talk
458:talk
435:talk
360:talk
330:czar
260:talk
201:FENS
175:news
136:logs
110:talk
106:edit
55:J04n
1018:not
749:two
407:2.
400:1.
286:'s
236:POV
215:TWL
144:– (
1109:)
1101:.
1032:)
1024:.)
956:)
948:.
868:)
860:.
847:)
839:.
812:)
796:,
761:)
687:)
650:)
546:)
460:)
437:)
362:)
325:.
290:.
195:)
138:|
134:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
52:.
1105:(
1073:L
1028:(
952:(
864:(
843:(
808:(
757:(
721:.
683:(
646:(
642:.
542:(
530:.
456:(
433:(
393:.
358:(
341:·
336:·
263:·
258:(
238:–
219:)
211:·
205:·
197:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
172:·
167:(
159:(
156:)
149:·
142:)
104:(
61:)
57:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.