This redirect is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Here it is people
Well ths is the best I can do. Anyone should feel free to edit this for themselves.--Smartgirl62 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listen here could we please at least discuss things before trying to co-opt this article into another article about autogynephillia. --Smartgirl62 18:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to the external links section more works by Bailey. I will read them and try to integrate what they say into the article. Not knowing the theory we are writing about but critisieing it would be ignorant. Like saying General Relativity is hard and mathemaical. I dont like math. Therefore it must be a crock. --Smartgirl62 18:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all convinced that we need this article. It sounds like the term is in very limited use, and in any case, homosexuality and transsexuality are different things, even if they do sometimes occur together. Exploding Boy 21:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I recommend a merge and redirect, since the term is almost exclusively used in apposition to "autogynephilia." We might also think about a larger page on transsexual taxonomy, since this concept is basically a variant of the primary/secondary transsexual and the Benjamin Scale. The published literature employing this term is almost all BBL-related. Jokestress 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but can we get the people most concerned with the autogynephillia article to agree on a version of that article which also includes reference to the so called homosexual transsexual. That's what I worry about. Further more what's to say an article on transsexual taxonomy (a even more raely used term) would be less controversial?
As for how much I referenced TMWWbQ I did that because it is one of very few plain language sources of information on this theory. Most of the rest of the informaiton on the internet is composed of either rants in favor of the theory or raves against the theory. This article was an attempt to explain this side of the coin in a neutral fasion. I am sure any real died in the wool supporters of this theory would look at this article and be just as upset by how I characterized it. --Smartgirl62 22:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article needs rewriting. The aim of the NPOV process is to generate articles which report other people's opinions and beliefs, without having any opinion of their own as to the "truth". The only exception to this is where there is no substantial controversy, which does not apply in this case. See the Scientology and Jesus articles for how this can work, even for very controversial subjects. -- Karada 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree tottally. I was trying to be as Npov as I could be. It is hard for one author to be Npov about this. Anyone can feel free to edit the heck out of this article. Just do not turn it into another article about autogynephillia and autogynephilles.
If any one is interested I have written up a few paragrahps on my talk page about why I have the POV I have on this. It's not because I am evil or whatever. Just personal experiences. Reading it may help us understand eachother and wor together better.--Smartgirl62 13:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some good investigation
Some good investigation jokestress. I actually learned something I did not have proof of before. That not all HSTS are the same. But you seem to have converted the whole article into a rail against the term. There are a good number of transsexuals who do not totally object to it. Why? Because they are tired of having to give a big long dissertation to explain just what the heck then are. Saying we are HSTS conveys to the listener. "I am an anatomical male who likes men and wants to live as a woman." I will not excise whatyou have written. I will try to soften it a little and express the fact that not all TS's are shocked and apauled at it. --Hfarmer 00:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be about the term itself, which is not in wide usage for reasons cited in the intro. The concept of two types based on sexuality can be addressed in transsexual sexuality. Jokestress 01:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But then so should the article on Autogynephilia. The reason that the term HSTS is so rare on the internet is that HSTS's are not nearly as active on the internet. I also want to point out an other interesting point of connection a study I cited was cowritten by Nuttawut Udomsak [1] who is referd to here[2] as a successful transsexual woman by Lynn Conway. A rather interesting connection in all this jumble of chaos. I mean a strident critic and a supporter of BBL theory able to be civil. Unfortunately too rare. Don't you think so?--Hfarmer 02:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "transkids" site is not a reliable source. It's little more than an anonymous LiveJournal. The Winter/Udomsak article is mentioned on the kathoey page and does not specificially use the term "homosexual transsexual." If you have a published source where she calls herself a "homosexual transsexual," please provide it. Jokestress 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on she's from Thailand for Christ sake. She would not use our exact terminology. I know she knows english very well but never the less for something so personal I think she would use her mother tounge. Hence the work Katoey which translates to "lady boy". That is as close as one can be. --Hfarmer 03:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reference absolutely belongs on kathoey. If she talks about sex, you can put it on transsexual sexuality. If you don't have a published citation where she calls herself a "homosexual transsexual" or uses that term to discuss something, it doesn't belong here. This is about that specific term used by a dozen or so researchers in published sources. Jokestress 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transkids site
Transkids is not reliable per guidelines. We can leave it as an external link for now, but it doesn't meet the criteria for sources. Jokestress 04:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Mas
Some other person will have to stand up for the HSTS arguement. I have shouldered this cart by myself for too long. I am worn out. No mas. --Hfarmer 01:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More Mas
Ok I have gotten a second wind. I have some time to work on this. I will let the editors at large consider the following for a while...
One thing missing from this article (and the one on autognyphilia btw) are examples hard examples of who was being referenced by those terms. But it is not probable that anyone would take either of those terms as a identity and casually reference themselves as such ever. To remedy this I propose adding to the see also links for this article the following. These reccomendations are based on these groups of people's simmilarity to people I have seen and known here in Chicago that were or would have been considered likely HSTS by Bailey.
Kathoey The Kathoey of Thailand seem to be one group of people that Blanchard had in mind when he orginated this theory.
Hijra (South Asia) is the wikipedia article. The article written by non hijira seems to define them as not being Ts but just being a very soft definition takeing in all male bodied people who are not staright. B.S. I have meet such persons here in Chicago. They are transsexual and I am pretty certain of how Bailey would classify them.
Two-Spirit Another group that has been at least on wikipedia redefined in wikipedia from being transsexual (and sometimes intersexed) to being every male bodied non straight person. B.S. These people would have been transgender if not strictly transsexual.
As for a western context the article on Transgender youth seems to come closeest. It covers transsexual females as well which BBl theory does not.
It seems to me that these are all groups of people who would fit the demographics of bening HSTS. I Imagine these links being added like follows.
Some examples of groups of people that would probably be homosexual transsexuals are, Kathoey, Hijra ,Two-Spirit, and transgender youths in the western world. The goal of this would be to give some concrete idea of who this theoretical construct was meant to describe.--Hfarmer 21:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (25, Sha-ban, 1427 AH).[reply]
All of the above is original research unless you have a published source that says "hijra are homosexual transsexuals, "kathoey are homosexual transsexuals," or "two-spirits are homosexual transsexuals." Your desire to link those demographic groups with this clinical term does not preclude the need for a citation calling them "homosexual transsexuals." Those people are generally described as transgender in published literature (hence the way the other articles are written), but if you have a citation, we can certainly include it. Jokestress 22:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish there were enough people to put this to a vote here. I know we have discussed it before but I really would like you to please give this matter one more good looonnngg think. Consider the following link. [3] Scroll down to this reference "Sinnott,M. (2002). Gay versus kathoey: homosexual identities in Thailand. International Institute for Asian Studies. Newsletter 29.". Click the associated link to [4]. In which a Thai person defines the word kathoey.
"Kathoey means an indeterminate gender or a combination of masculine and feminine gender, and is usually translate into English as either ‘hermaphrodite or ‘third sex’. In contemporary usage kathoey is commonly used to refer to man who appears to embody what are understood to be feminine characteristics. ‘Homosexuality’ (rak-ruam pheet) is a mid-twentieth-century addition to the Thai vocabulary but is largely understood as existing within this model of gender inversion represented by the kathoey (Jackson 1997) Therefore, homosexuals are commonly understood to be emotional kathoey, such as men who feel they are women, or women who feel they are men. (| Gay vs. ‘Kathoey’: Homosexual Identities in Thailand bottom of column3 and top of column4)"
I could put the word "homosexual transsexual" into that paragraph and it would still mostly make sense. Aside from the data on the origin of the words they have the same definition. Therefore they are the same word. Were "homosexual transsexual" a better known term they might use it and save some typing. The reference I used places the kathoey in the category of a homosexual male bodied person who additionally wants to be treated as a woman. How much more HSTS can one get?
Nowhere in that article does it use the term "transsexual." In fact, it states that kathoey means "hermaphrodite", "third sex," and "transgendered." It also states that homosexuality as a concept has only been part of their vocabulary for 50 years, where the much older term kathoey is about the "primacy of gender (visible markers of masculinity and femininity) rather than sexual behaviour per se." That's where this article makes the clearest point in terms of its title "gay vs. kathoey." The term "homosexual transsexual" is part of a typology based on sexual behavior, where kathoey is about gender identity and expression. Jokestress 08:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this highlites a point of fundamental disagreement between us. I read that passage above and see a description of a group that under BBL theory would be the very definition of homosexual transsexuals. Rather than argue this point I will point out the following. There are obvious references to individuals who have been ID'd by Bailey as being HSTS but I am reluctant to put them here like that. I would want to talk to, at least attempt to contact these people first and see if they would be comfortable with being refered to in that way in context of this article. I would say "These are some people that J. Michael Bailey Bailey has refered to as "homosexual transsexuals" "My Story by Victoria",and "Maria's Story" who were respectively called "Juanita and "Maria" in The Man Who Would Be Queen. Like most so called "homosexual transsexuals" they do not self identify as such and see themselves as being simply women". Seems neutral to me, stating an undisputable fact that Bailey refered to them as such. Also ironic due to where I found those links, eh. :-/ I suppose I could go to Pilsen and ask around without giving away why I would be looking for one of these people.... I imagine these people do not want to be reminded of this crap though. Let me think on this for a day or so. (I suppose likewise could be done with the autogynephilia article with a reference to Anjelica Kieltyka. I mean I have at least emailed every major player in this book,and the controversey and recieved responses from most so why not seek them out as well?--Hfarmer 06:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are obvious references to individuals who have been ID'd by Bailey as being "homosexual transsexual," then those can go in with citations. The kathoey article above never uses the term "homosexual transsexual," and Bailey never uses the term "kathoey" in his book. You are trying to conflate things that are not connected in published citations. The transgender youth article can discuss these more general issues, but the bottom line is that "transgender" does not mean the same thing as "transsexual," and either does "kathoey." Jokestress 07:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(outendenting)
Finding these people to see if this is ok by them would be a daunting task even knowing the general area of Chicago they are in. By design there is not enough information avaiable that I know of to find them. So I will blatantly rationalize and say that whatever damage could have been done to them by this was done years ago in TMWWBQ. What could mentioneing that it happened do? --Hfarmer 13:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But first I will try to be sure I match the right person to the correct reference in TMWWBQ. --Hfarmer 14:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am an idiot. For one of these people there is a known email address. I will try it. --Hfarmer 15:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're clear on original research yet. If there there are obvious references to individuals who have been ID'd by Bailey as being "homosexual transsexual," then those can go in with citations. These need to be verifiable references in reliable sources. You don't need to get permission from anyone for adding proper quotations and citations in Wikipedia, because you should not be doing that kind of original research. Email correspondence is not a reliable source and constitutes original research. I have met several of the women you linked to earlier and been to their homes, but anything they told me at that time constitutes original research unless I have published it somewhere. Anything you add to Wikipedia should already exist. Much of the stuff you have previously added to Wikipedia is basically your personal opinion and interpretation. That's not acceptable. You need to limit additions and contributions to citing the work of others. That's the fundamental premise behind the entire project. If you want to write something that makes a case for your belief that kathoey are "homosexual transsexuals" or whatever, set up a blog and go for it. If you want to write here, please stick with information and citations as described in the three key links above. Jokestress 16:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying but what I am talking about is not my original research. Like I have said I have been looking on, from a safe distance, as these events unfolded. So I personally remember many things that I do not try to write into this article as well. What was emerging from my memory was the following document that I read shortly after it was published on Dr. Conways' website. I barely recalled it but I found it. [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/SecondComplaint.html "A Second Woman Files
Research Misconduct Complaints Against Bailey:" Via Lynnconway.com]. The following is quoted from there.
"This woman has since contributed her story to the "TS Successes" pages, where she is known by the name "Victoria"......In appreciation for his help in obtaining the SRS approval, I agreed to participate in a lecture program for Dr. Bailey's Human Sexuality class. along with Anjelica. I thought I was representing myself as a healthy, well adjusted and proud Hispanic heterosexual Transexual woman. Not until I read Dr. Bailey's book did I realize that my experience as "guest lecturer" in front of his undergraduate class was nothing but a "Freak show", displaying me as research subject/"exhibit B" - "Homosexual" Transexual, which I am not. Anjelica Kieltyka was misrepresented as research subject/"exhibit A", "A" for "Autogynophilic", which she is not. What she is, what I am, are two proud transexual women, one Lesbian and the other Heterosexual. To have Dr. Bailey display us as examples of his recent research and have his students see us in that context is unconscionable, and for Anjelica and I, more then humiliating. We were unwittingly exploited by participating in Bailey's "Freak Show" as examples "A" and "B" of the science of "Gender-bending". The damage to our lives and the lives of all the other Hispanic Transexual women who were unwitting research subjects and "guest lecturers" is irretrievable."
(This makes me wonder where all the black TS's Bailey interviewed are. Much talk of hispanics here. Do they not care or do they not want to expose themselves? Probably the second one.) Is this enough of a link. Here I have one "Victoria" telling us that Bailey did refer to her as a "homosexual transsexual". Such seems to be a very firm link to me.
Allow me to clarify that my desire to get approval of what I would put here regarding them is because I do not want to get sued. Sued in Cook county circuit court for libel, slander, defamation or whatever. I do not want to get a knock on my door and have a irritated hispaic woman get in an altercation with my angry black mama. So before I execute any of this I intend to do due dilligence to get feedback. This may sound far fetched to you however consider the following. Where I write to you from now is only about 5 miles from where Anjelika Kieltkela went to highschool. What I am saying is I do not want to P.O. people I could potentially run into on the street.--Hfarmer 07:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, how do you propose we present this? Please write the sentence below, and I'll take a look. Something like "One of the women labeled "homosexual transsexual" by J. Michael Bailey in his book (book page ref) filed a formal complaint (conway ref) that led to a full investigation by his university (tribune ref)." How's that sound? Jokestress 07:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay I have been wresteling with getting my new pc to work with my setup. Ok I would take the very setence you gave above and do the follwoing. "One person identified by J. Michael Bailey, In The Man Who Would Be Queen as a "homosexual transsexual" was Maria". If you know of a link to the Chicago Tirbune and inventigating Beiley feel free to add that.--Hfarmer 03:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Need a better critic?
The only cited critic isn't actually using her real name. I have a lot of sympathy for her choice, but it makes her an unreliable, unverifiable source, no matter how True™ her view is. Can we find a professional in the field who is willing to criticize this idea on the record? I'd be much happier if we could find a professor of something or another who is willing to declare that it's all nonsense, but I'll settle for anyone with a real name. Surely we can do better than an anonymous person with a website. WhatamIdoing 04:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.[reply]
Automated peer review suggestions
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
In trying to comply with the sugestions of the peer review I have re written the lead in. I think it is an improvement. The previous lead in was simplistic, too simplistic. Now the term "homosexual transsexual"'s definition is more precise. What I am looking for now is a picture or image that can capture the topic. If that is even possible. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this part further. I see a few options. Pick a picture of a known transsexual and say something like "So and so would fir the definition of a homosexual transsexual". That approach would be rife with problems. (How can one know who is what) Another would be an image of an activity that would somehow exemplify this subject. Some smart ass could say I should use a picture of myself. Which would invite some people to argue that I was not such a person (and by extension that no one is a homosexual transsexual). --Hfarmer (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want this article and the rest of the articles on this topic to get "good article" status... Perhaps even featured status. That requires a picture. Who to use?--Hfarmer (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for Good Article status, an image is not technically required. I'm not convinced that a photo of a person is actually illustrative for HT: "Here's a picture of a person. This person looks like a woman. For all any average reader knows, this person has two X chromosomes and has always been/acted like/dressed like/was treated like any other female." Are there any prominent people who claim to be HT? For AG, perhaps a photo of Anne Lawrence could be found. For the Bailey article, it's possible that Northwestern's public relations office would be able to supply a picture. It's not that unusual for a PR office to keep mug shots of professors on hand for press releases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just rolled back a comment listing three notable people as "homosexual transsexual" per WP:BLP. Unless someone has said "I am a homosexual transsexual," this is libel. Jokestress (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hfarmer, I don't really feel like a picture of someone who might be classified as HT is really that illustrative. Can you describe any specific additional information that is provided by a photo of a person who passes for female? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That comment being rolled back reinforces one of my concerns about illustrating these articles. It may be impossible to really come up with a picture that one person or the other would not object to on one ground or the other? The one Jokestress gave would be one. Suppose whoever we use feels that they have been slandered? The ones I had listed about the pictures were just as valid. (That one was for one reason or the other not a 100% pure transsexual by some definitions i.e. having Klienfelters, not planning on SRS, or expressing some minor regrets or second thoughts.)
As for what is expressed by having a picture. Let me put it this way. I can write you long detailed description of a whale or a gorilla...but if you have never ever seen one it wouldn't help much. There is certain qualitative information that cannot be compressed into writing. That is the reason that other articles, news papers and magazines have photos. Some kind of a picture would be worth 1000 words. Very specifically part of this theory is that there is a qualitative difference between HT and non-HT. This is beyond passing. Because non-HT's can and do pass. This is beyond attractiveness because non-HT's can be attractive.
Like for example one can say that Dr. Lawrence now after FFS etc passes. In contrast to any one of the ladies who's pictures I pulled who have had no facial surgery and have been legit models. They all pass but there are many qualitative differences there. Things which cannot be quantified an put into writing. So I will stop trying.
I just had a brainstorm. You know what may be the answer to a problem like this? A "morph" of many pictures into one. You know where a computer averages many many pictures to generate a average picture. A picture which would be of someone who does not exist and therefore cannot have any rights violated or torts committed against them. Something like that could work for so many articles.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC) corrected spelling.[reply]
Unless she's had the facial feminization surgery within the last year and a half, it would be my opinion that she is not very passable at all. Sure still photos might make her passable, but any motion, and heaven forbid, she were to speak, it becomes immediately clear that she's a transsexual. --Puellanivis (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether Lawrence passes (in your opinion or anyone else's): Anne Lawrence publicly self-identifies as being autogynephilic. It would be hard to object to being identified in Wikipedia exactly like you identify yourself. The image problem that this article has is that we don't know of any public figure (or even semi-public figure) who self-identifies as HT.
Hfarmer, initially I thought that you might be on to something with the morph picture. But I still don't see what it communicates beyond "some people look like women." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Dr. Lawrence was just a convenient example. I am sure that there do exist autogynephilic transsexuals who pass just fine.
It's more than just passing. It's more than just looking like women. Puellanivis touches on it it with her comment about Dr Lawrence. Dr. Lawrence is that way even after I'll bet classes on voice and deportment and facial and perhaps even voice surgery. In context of BBL theory the contrast is that HT's usually don't need any of that. This comes across in their pictures. It just looks like they aren't trying hard at all. I'll do the morph thing we can look at it and then see if it is remotely acceptable. Like I said descriptive language can only take this so far. (Though there are people who can clock any one of the three ladies who I picked out, people with previous experiences of transsexuals such as them. That is why I say it is about more than just passing.)--Hfarmer (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The composited picture
Well here is a picture that I will call a proof of concept. I would want to do this much more carefully for the final finished product. For now let us discuss the very concept of using a picture such as this. It's advantages and drawbacks. If it is just totally unacceptable. As you can see any information in the source pictures is averaged over. There is no way to recover who's pictures were used in this image. Their were 7 pictures, from varying racial backgrounds and ages. A few dozen control points were used. For what I would call a final finished product I would want to take more time and find say 50 different pictures with better resolution.
The question was asked what would the image show other than that some transsexuals look like women. One quality that jumps out at me is the averaged faces features are like a living Barbie doll. Not just passing but feminine in the extreme. That can't imagine them as a male look. (The makeup would be due to the pictures I took all being posed and such. Ladies don't usually sit w/o makeup.)
As far as I can see a picture of this type has none of the issues that have been raised in the past.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For an Idea of just how good these can look when done properly here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfarmer (talk • contribs) 08:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be claiming that a "homosexual transsexual" has natural "femininity" of some sort, but you could just as easily pick seven or fifty photos of people who exclusively date men whom you do not find attractive, and the final result would be "masculine." Conversely, you could grab seven or fifty photos of trans women who exclusively date women and come up with basically the same composite as this one.
The reason many trans women look like Barbie is from anything but nature: makeup, injected silicone, wigs/extensions, and anything else that exaggerates secondary sex characteristics. It's an aesthetic driven by a collective idealized image of "femininity." Your choice of photos simply projects your fantasy of what this category embodies and does nothing to elucidate the article, which is about a taxonomic term used primarily in one sexology journal.
Hfarmer, I believe you personally claim to be a "homosexual transsexual." If you can get one of these sexologists to label you that in print, we can use your photo as the example. Let us know when someone diagnoses you as a "homosexual transsexual" in a reliable published source, and if you agree with their diagnosis, we can discuss using you and Anne Lawrence as examples of the two types promulgated under this taxonomy. Personally, I don't think that will show anything to readers, but at least that way we would have two people who epitomize what these two terms stand for. Jokestress (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The reason many trans women look like Barbie is from anything but nature: makeup, injected silicone,..." To be honest none of the input pictures by themselves looked at all Barbie like. That only emerged afterwards. I know that at least two of the pictures I used, one of which was mine the other was of an acquaintance, had no facial work what so ever. Only one other picture was of someone in their 20's. The other four were of ladies in their 30's 40's and 50's, and 60's when they were photographed. All had varying amounts of facial surgery and were wearing different makeup. The software averaged all of that together to create that image. Of all the ladies I used I have to admit not one could be said to be "ugly". is also the fact that when pictures are averaged together by this method any one pictures flaws are smoothed over. Hence relating in a more idealized image than any one of the inputs. This has been noted by others who have done this (Using the same software I did by the way.) There is also the fact that the pictures to be used have to have been taken under similar conditions, front facing, good resolution. Those requirements limit me to using pictures that have been posed and prepared for . Not really a candid look at the every day look of transwomen. Which like GG's is not glamorous.
"You seem to be claiming that a "homosexual transsexual" has natural "femininity" of some sort,..." Yes don't all transsexuals have natural femininity of a sort? I think so. I get the sense that you assume that for the AG article I would seek to construct a skewed, ugly image of lesbian transwomen. The picture at right is what I actually came up with. Using the same number of people, and age range (though only one was in her 20's) as before and the same method. I think this image looks feminine, passable, and all that. To be honest it reminds me of Ellen De De Generes. I would say it has natural feminity just not the Barbie doll kind of feminity. Do you understand what I am getting at? File:XW14.jpg
(This one also looks better because I had a better source of similar sized and posed images.)
As for using a picture of myself. I would want to take a picture specifically for this article. Ya know looking like a real northside of Chicago TS hooker. lol. You know, just sort of characturize the idea. Have a little fun with it. Seriously though even if I had Dr. Bailey on the front page of the Red Eye declaring me to be a "homosexual transsexual" there would still be ways to argue that was not true. I mean isn't it your position that HT's don't even exist? Perhaps that influences your stance on a picture in this article, afterall how can we have a photograph of something that is not real? I supposed that in your mind having a picture here is simply impossible.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is my belief that this taxonomy is not clinically useful or accurate. I'm not sure what you believe these (or any) photos would do to explain this article except legitimize a label that no one seems to want to embrace. I am not aware of anyone who has said "I am a homosexual transsexual" except you, and I don't think your own statement is backed up by anything but self-diagnosis. I don't believe anyone who promulgates this taxonomy would classify you as such. In fact, one characteristic of "nonhomosexual transsexuals" is an interest in morphing programs, imposing their image onto other images, and what-not. See my page on wannabes for more. I question the value of a photo here just as I would on pedophile or bisexual, etc. These are articles about sexual behavior. The article on transwoman has plenty of room for photos if you wish to have photos of transsexual people posted. Jokestress (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we really need a photo here, then perhaps a comparison might be more useful than any single photo. That is, pick a dozen "HT" faces for one morph, a dozen "AG" faces for the next, and a dozen non-TS faces to make the last one, and put the thumbnails up side-by-side in the article. I still expect that most non-TS readers are going to look at all three and say, "Looks like three women to me," but perhaps it would have some small chance of communicating some differences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of "science" is similar to attempts at classifying the "types" of other populations by physiology and then claiming their behavior can be predicted by these physiologic categories (think phrenology etc.). This entire morph debate is an exercise in original research, and I can assure you it will get deleted unless it's from a published source. Jokestress (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree whatamidoing That would be good for the overall article on BBL theory. According to TMWWBQ supposedly the difference between these types exist "on average". So pictures that have been averaged would be appropriate.
Jokestress you have already made your position that a picture should not be here in principle known. It seems you woull throw up anything at all to prevent that. First you say I should put up a picture of my self. I say sure then you attack your own suggestion. What gives?--Hfarmer (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot. This is not original reserach. It adding a picture to an article. I suppose if I went to my acquaintance and asked her permission to put up a specially taken photo of her just for wikipedia you could just as well say that was original research.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add a picture of someone who has said "I am a homosexual transsexual" and has been diagnosed as such, we can discuss the merits of that. The WP:NOR policy has been explained to you many times. Please review the part on synthesis regarding this morph of arbitrarily chosen photos. If I really need to explain to you why this is original research again, let me know and I will elaborate. I'd rather not do that again, though. Jokestress (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So suppose I did the research it would take to bring about such a scenario. Let us discuss the merit's of having a picture period. You have made clear that you object to having a picture and it sounds like you will use any tool you can to make sure that no picture is ever here. Suppose I got person X and Dr. Bailey together and got person X and him to both agree that she was a homosexual transsexual and put it in a newspaper. What would you do? Would person X be verbally attacked by you and the so called "transcommunity"? I think so, I know so. Practically no one would submit themselves to that. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a steamy pile of babble! Using composite photos to push some point is not credible. Use real people and show seveal examples to be less bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.4.169 (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have heard in other instances people say the same thing. Like in the article woman. Suppose, hypothetically someone who is known definitively to have been profiled by Bailey in his book were to come out in print and say that they had no problem with it. Would using this one persons picture really be sufficient? I personally don't think so. Other than being transsexuals who acted feminine and were attracted to men before transition HT's can be a very diverse group of people. One would really have to think carefully about what picture to use. Then there are the unusually rigorous requierments for an acceptable open source photograph of someone. A picture will surely make for a better article but only if it is choosen properly--Hfarmer (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote on the concept of having a picture i this article
At the heart of the extended discussion above really is a disagreement over weather or not their should ever be a picture in this article. Let us vote on this question.
The options are picture and no picture and perhaps a sentence or a few on why or why not.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
picture I feel that a picture would make clearer to the mostly non transsexual audience here just what kind of person the term "homosexual transsexual" was meant to characterize. w/o a picture that can only be made so clear via words. The only problem I have with a picture is just how can one picture of any one person represent a huge and diverse group .--Hfarmer (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind a picture but surely we can find one better than the 2 above? I'm not talking about the subject in the picture but the quality of the picture. They are just ugly. Again, the quality, not the person. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those composites were not carefully done that's why they look the way they do. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my considered opinion, a photo for this article should not be a manipulated composite. It should be of someone who self identifies as the title of the article. If no such person can be found, it should be left without an image. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
