Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 20:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gynandromorphophilia

AfDs for this article:
Gynandromorphophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renomination following the closure of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology, which was closed with a result of defer. The rationale for the last AfD still stands:

POV–FRINGE-fork of Attraction to transgender people, written in such a way that it appears benign. This article was brought up by me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/HebephiliaIncident into scrutiny of User:James Cantor's contributions, and I defer to SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)'s analysis:

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 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 Wikipedia is causing the spread of it, rather than merely (or also) reflecting that spread.

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.": autogynephilia is only really important for its inclusion as part of Ray Blanchard's controversial fringe theory of transgender typology.

I do also notice that the primary contributor, Cantor, is a colleague of Blanchard at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 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 conflict of interest outside his normal line of work on sexology. Sceptre (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. Rebecca (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sceptre and Rebecca. It would be better to discuss this term and the view it represents in Attraction to transgender people, rather than to host a separate article, which is arguably a POV fork. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Attraction to transgender people into Gynandromorphophilia.
1. WP:MEDMOS: "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)."
2. Scholar.google hits for gynandromorphophilia: 17. Scholar.google hits for "attraction to transgender people": 1.
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 perfectly legitimate for folks to want to "de-medicalize" what they perceive to be societal issues, but WP is not the place 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.
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 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.
— James Cantor (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. Rebecca (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP puts sexual interests under their technical names, regardless:
  • The community’s common term for itself is “gay,” but we put content under the technical term Homosexual. There is no Attraction to same sex people page.
  • The community’s common term for itself is “straight,” but we put content under the technical term Heterosexual. There is no Attraction to opposite sex people page.
  • The community’s common term for itself is “minor-attracted person,” we put content under the technical term Pedophilia. There is no Attraction to children page.
  • We have Androphilia and Gynephilia, not Attraction to men and women. We have Acrotomophilia, not Attraction to amputees.
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 other.
— James Cantor (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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, regardless of rarity, regardless of DSM status. Your suggestions for how to proceed would put the pages farther away from compliance rather than closer to it. Withdrawing this AfD and then merging Attraction to transgender people into Gynandromorphophilia, however, would bring us closer.— James Cantor (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. 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? Rebecca (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely true that it is a rarely used term. It is also entirely irrelevant:
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 here.
2. List of paraphilias 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 articles linked to List of paraphilias shows that WP actually does the opposite of what you are advocating when a term is rare.
3. The DSM is irrelevant. List of paraphilias 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 not.
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). Moreover, if you take your thought to its conclusion, you will realize that you are arguing for two pages: one for attraction and one for preference.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
James, you bring up a valid point. Wikipedia 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 them. And honestly, the actual conclusion of my thought is not what you suggest. The actual conclusion is that we should delete both the Wikipedia page on gynandromorphophilia AND the Wikipedia page on "attraction to transgender people". . .after all, there is no Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies support my argument? How about Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:NPOV, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You know, the big ones. Your ideas are extremely fringe (not notable), your articles are biased (not NPOV), and you are using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote your bullshit (and Wikipedia is not a soapbox). . .(I guess I'm using Wikipedia 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.) Rebecca (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Folks might want to be aware of a related discussion at FTN. — James Cantor (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to be a bit of a conundrum. I agree with Cantor's reasoning as to why Gynandromorphophilia is a more appropriate title than Attraction to transgender people, 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 don't have firm rules), that what ever content is worthy of including from Attraction to transgender people be integrated into Gynandromorphophilia 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 as it is a colloquialism. Sædontalk 06:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 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. Sceptre (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is correct. "Gynemimetophilia" would indeed meet the applicable WP rules. I created the Gynemimetophilia page (here) at the same time as the Gynandromorphilia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gynandromorphophilia&diff=506112481&oldid=324153639 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 here. — James Cantor (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 idea what it means)? Additionally, regardless of the answer to that question, don't you think that Attraction to transgender people is a colloquialism more than it is a proper title, as I mentioned in my above comment? Sædontalk 09:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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 wildcard, 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). Sceptre (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology, 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 gynandromorphophilia age, the consensus at FTN that this is not fringe, and the simultaneous AfD of autoandrophilia.)— James Cantor (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autoandrophilia, as Cantor has raised the same points there. Sceptre (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gynandromorphophilia_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1145840165"