This article was nominated for deletion on 2009-05-20. The result of the discussion was Redirect to Transsexualism. |
This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Forgive my lack of eloquence, I am not good at saying things eloquently. Instead, please look at the meaning of my words only.
This article should not be a redirect, as HBS is not transsexuality. Transsexuality is an unrelated term and separate from HBS. The European nation as a whole recognizes HBS as the official medical birth defect it is, and the US is leaning that way as well, the biggest thing stopping it from being ratified is the insurance companies, and we all know that their only motivation is profit.
All the information I have put forth is available on many sites, a quick google will show my words to be true: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=harry+benjamin+syndrome Jaqie Fox 09:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Other than to make an as yet unaccepted claim for transsexuality as a physically sourced intersex condition, one of the main psychosocial uses of the term seems to be to a desire of HBS advocates to distinguish themselves (primarily straight gender normative middle class transwomen) from other transgendered people and the greater GLBT community, hence the distress over redirects to transsexuality or inclusion under the GLBT listing.
However, it's still just another term for transsexuality, the wikipedia entry on transsexuality includes a mention of HBS as an alternative term, and there is no acceptance of the term in medical or psychological circles and only marginal acceptance of the term within the transgendered community. It should redirect. -- Kathygnome ( talk) 20:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a medical condition which has nothing to do with homosexuality nor transgenderism. Placing HBS under LGBT is just a way to harass and abuse persons suffering this medical condition. HBS has never been a part of the LGBT, and it never will be. This is a lie designed to harm the HBS persons and steal their place in mainstream society.-- 74.124.187.76 ( talk) 21:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Problem: The explanation of why Sex affirmation surgery (SAS) is preferred over genital reconstruction surgery (GRS) has been edited out. SAS is not a term understood my most readers and there is no paragraph explaining what SAS means and why it is preferred. If SAS is going to be used it requires such an explanation. I propose inserting one if there are no objections. JoanneProctor 19 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneProctor ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to be written by people believing in HBS and is not a neutral description of the topic. -- 84.153.114.24 ( talk) 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to be written by people believing in HBS and is not a neutral description of the topic. --
84.153.114.24 (
talk) 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what both your problems are. At least two of the authors have HBS. Take a look at the feminine Essence pages. They have been written by people who believe in autogenephilia and homosexual transsexuals.
1. Autogynephilia is a legitimate theory and information on it deserves to be placed on Wikipedia, even though most people reject it.
2. If UTC and Vatofirme believes the page is imbalanced they are able to edit it. Just as I, for example, am free to go and edit discussions on the transgender pages. I don't because I believe that is a legitimate presentation of transgender theory.
UTC and Votafirme may not like the emergence of HBS. But not liking is hardly evidence of other people's imbalance. Nor is it good reason why other people should be denied information on it.
JoanneProctor - 28 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneProctor ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Before you start I hope you read the current page properly. When you do you will find that HBS is not another term for transsexualism per se. Nor is it a sexuality issue. It is quite specific to one particular condition. If you do read it you will find two examples of situations were individuals have feminizing genital reconstruction for reasons totally unrelated to HBS. Both these cases are sexuality issues. Hopefully you will recognize the difference.
I can't believe you actually wrote this, Vatofirme: "if most people reject a theory then it can hardly be presented as scientifically valid."
Are you actually arguing that if theory A has more adherents than theory B, then theory A must be more correct? Actually a theory can be scientifically valid and still be rejected because it can never be fully proven. I give you evolution as an example. Just because a lot of people believe a theory is correct, doesn't make it so. I give you the flat earth as an example. I give you 2,500 years of humoral medicine as another.
I give you 60 years of the identity paradigm being used to vindicate the infliction of surgical modifications of intersex babies genitalia, without a shred of evidence that it is beneficial, as a third. A practice adopted by doctors, it should be noted.
Remember them? The reputable professionals, represented by the APA and the AMA, that were so very right when it came to 'fixing' gay males. Who took years of convincing before they stopped sticking electrodes on men's willies, and giving them electric shocks to try and stop them from being sexually attracted to other men.
What I am reading here is a GLBT true believer threatening a police action to make sure that everybody goes into their proper boxes according to his lights, whether they like it or not. I also challenge you to show one single example on the public page, where LGBT has been disparaged.
I look forward to editing your edits. joanneProctor 28 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneProctor ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
In the interests of ensuring that visitors to this page can access all the examples mentioned on this page I have restored and clarified the 'mangina' link. I can see no legitimate reason why this link was removed. It is a valid illustration of this phenomenon, and it should be available so visitors can see these different motivations and make up their minds for themselves.
If there are problems with this action I suggest that Wikipedia editors examine the appropriateness of the link. JoanneProctor 28 April 2009
A search on googlescholar, which searches academic databases, most of them private journal databases, turns up zero hits for "Harry Benjamin Syndrome." We could comment or speculate on the supporters of the terminology and their reasons for wishing to distinguish themselves from other transsexual people, but this isn't the place. This is an encyclopedia of facts based on research. "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is not an accepted term in medical or psych circles. It does not appear in scientific literature. It is not an accepted diagnosis under medical or psych standards. The article should redirect to transsexuality.-- Kathygnome ( talk) 11:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The article should not be redirected to transsexuality because it keeps not relationship with it. Harry Benjamin's Syndrome is an intersexual medical condition recognized as such by prominent doctors who uses this terminology as Dr. Maldonado or Dr. Lutzky in Argentina, or Dr. Galante and others in Europe. These doctors had published medical articles using this terminology, see the HBS International site. International mass media, including BBC News, uses or used at some moment this terminology when referring to cases of primary transsexualism - modern Harry Benjamin's Syndrome. However it should not be confused transgenderism and transsexuality with Primary Transsexualism, which is a form of Intersexualism, a biological inborn condition (Gooren, Diamond, Kruijver, Playdon, Reiner, Swaab, Walker, Cohen-Kettenis, Connolly, Sutter, Jones et al. 2002-08).
CharlotteGoiar (
talk) 21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)CharlotteGoiar
Yes, those authors have done work that implies that transsexuality has a biological component, but I'm unaware of them using the term HBS. Could anyone provide a citation for a single actual peer reviewed journal article that references the term and differentiates it from transsexuality? A full citation? -- Kathygnome ( talk) 19:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
From the boogey woman. :-) All of the above scuttlebutt boils down to one thing. Notability, and wikipedia's agreed upon standards for inclusion in wikipedia. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources The first one says...
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
WP:RS says....
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Look at this article, it's a hot mess. There is not one reliable source, not a peer reviewed paper, not a new article, nothing but blogs and personal websites to back it up. What sources that are here which are presented as backing up HBS are in fact unrelated and deal with the idea that transsexuals have a brain sex which is not compatible with their physical sex. Wikipedia already has a great article dealing with that idea... Brain Sex. That article cites secondary sources which directly support what is there. Whereas what is engaed in here is non neutral violates WP:NPOV and is a synthesis of other data which is both Original research and synthesis which are NOT allowed on Wikipedia WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH. These all add up to reasons to propose this article for deletion. Instead I am going to refrain from that and give an unspecified amount of time for those who want this article to be here to find acceptable reliable secondary sources which can back up the claims made in the article. ( Even though I am really confident that they don't exist. As far as I know this idea is the property of a few vocal netizens with no scientific backing not even by some small group of researchers...Surprise me.)-- Hfarmer ( talk) 22:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with this page being deleted. I think that the person who created the original entry was ill advised. HBS is a grassroots movement that will be best left to develop organically. Furthermore I can see better uses for this page, which the public need not be prevented from reading merely because it is not on Wikipedia. joanneproctor 14 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneProctor ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please protect this page. The medical birth defect of HBS is not a type of transsexualism, but a type of intersex condition and therefore a subset of the Intersex condition. Please protect this article and block anyone who keeps vandalizing this page and redirecting it to the chosen lifestyle of transsexualism. In my practice, I can easily tell a TS/TG case from an HBS case. People with HBS have the right to not be lumped in with TSs, TGs, nor homosexuals. People with HBS have their own community and do not acknowledge the LGBT community nor TGs and deny they are a part of such. People with HBS should know more than the arrogant liars who slander them, call them TGs, call them TSs, and say they are a part of the LGBT. They lie on people with HBS to deprive them of their rights. They hate people with HBS and *WANT* them discriminated against and killed. Do not use Wikipedia to further this conspiracy.-- 74.124.187.76 ( talk) 07:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
It is slander to redirect to TSism. That was evil and mean spirited. Instead, you need to just delete the article. If you delete it as if it was never created, with no redirects, I can promise not to recreate the article. That is all, just DELETE it. The whole purpose of the name was to get away from TSism, and why are you destroying our reputations, and putting our carreers on the line to destroy us? So please, delete it.
By the way, the Hispanic Wikipedia article remains, and EVERY other Wiki makes it clear that HBS is not TSism.
Even transsexualism isn't a valid medical diagnosis. A bunch of self-serving people formed the HBIGDA and self-appointed themselves to it.
I have HBS and am not a transsexual. If you do not permanently delete the article and the redirect, I will SUE wikipedia and boycott it.-- 74.124.187.76 ( talk) 20:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
{{
RFD}}
I am the main author of the content that started this article, and it was arguably promotional. I respectfully ask that you speedily delete the article and not have any redirects. The decision to redirect was not based on wikipedia policy. HBS is not TSism and a redirect is inappropriate and could lead to harm against others by persons reading it. The redirect goes against the whole spirit and reason I wrote the article, and is now being hijacked. So, there is sufficient ground that the entire article, talk pages, and redirects be deleted. How can I appeal to the Foundation Office?--
74.124.187.76 (
talk) 20:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) User:Marta314 has started Harry Benjamin's Syndrome while the redirect on this article is under discussion. Jokestress ( talk) 08:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change this page so that it redirects to Transsexual#Alternative terminology rather than Transsexualism#Alternative terminology to avoid the double redirect. Thank you. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 14:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 2009-05-20. The result of the discussion was Redirect to Transsexualism. |
This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Forgive my lack of eloquence, I am not good at saying things eloquently. Instead, please look at the meaning of my words only.
This article should not be a redirect, as HBS is not transsexuality. Transsexuality is an unrelated term and separate from HBS. The European nation as a whole recognizes HBS as the official medical birth defect it is, and the US is leaning that way as well, the biggest thing stopping it from being ratified is the insurance companies, and we all know that their only motivation is profit.
All the information I have put forth is available on many sites, a quick google will show my words to be true: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=harry+benjamin+syndrome Jaqie Fox 09:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Other than to make an as yet unaccepted claim for transsexuality as a physically sourced intersex condition, one of the main psychosocial uses of the term seems to be to a desire of HBS advocates to distinguish themselves (primarily straight gender normative middle class transwomen) from other transgendered people and the greater GLBT community, hence the distress over redirects to transsexuality or inclusion under the GLBT listing.
However, it's still just another term for transsexuality, the wikipedia entry on transsexuality includes a mention of HBS as an alternative term, and there is no acceptance of the term in medical or psychological circles and only marginal acceptance of the term within the transgendered community. It should redirect. -- Kathygnome ( talk) 20:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a medical condition which has nothing to do with homosexuality nor transgenderism. Placing HBS under LGBT is just a way to harass and abuse persons suffering this medical condition. HBS has never been a part of the LGBT, and it never will be. This is a lie designed to harm the HBS persons and steal their place in mainstream society.-- 74.124.187.76 ( talk) 21:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Problem: The explanation of why Sex affirmation surgery (SAS) is preferred over genital reconstruction surgery (GRS) has been edited out. SAS is not a term understood my most readers and there is no paragraph explaining what SAS means and why it is preferred. If SAS is going to be used it requires such an explanation. I propose inserting one if there are no objections. JoanneProctor 19 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneProctor ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to be written by people believing in HBS and is not a neutral description of the topic. -- 84.153.114.24 ( talk) 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to be written by people believing in HBS and is not a neutral description of the topic. --
84.153.114.24 (
talk) 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what both your problems are. At least two of the authors have HBS. Take a look at the feminine Essence pages. They have been written by people who believe in autogenephilia and homosexual transsexuals.
1. Autogynephilia is a legitimate theory and information on it deserves to be placed on Wikipedia, even though most people reject it.
2. If UTC and Vatofirme believes the page is imbalanced they are able to edit it. Just as I, for example, am free to go and edit discussions on the transgender pages. I don't because I believe that is a legitimate presentation of transgender theory.
UTC and Votafirme may not like the emergence of HBS. But not liking is hardly evidence of other people's imbalance. Nor is it good reason why other people should be denied information on it.
JoanneProctor - 28 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneProctor ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Before you start I hope you read the current page properly. When you do you will find that HBS is not another term for transsexualism per se. Nor is it a sexuality issue. It is quite specific to one particular condition. If you do read it you will find two examples of situations were individuals have feminizing genital reconstruction for reasons totally unrelated to HBS. Both these cases are sexuality issues. Hopefully you will recognize the difference.
I can't believe you actually wrote this, Vatofirme: "if most people reject a theory then it can hardly be presented as scientifically valid."
Are you actually arguing that if theory A has more adherents than theory B, then theory A must be more correct? Actually a theory can be scientifically valid and still be rejected because it can never be fully proven. I give you evolution as an example. Just because a lot of people believe a theory is correct, doesn't make it so. I give you the flat earth as an example. I give you 2,500 years of humoral medicine as another.
I give you 60 years of the identity paradigm being used to vindicate the infliction of surgical modifications of intersex babies genitalia, without a shred of evidence that it is beneficial, as a third. A practice adopted by doctors, it should be noted.
Remember them? The reputable professionals, represented by the APA and the AMA, that were so very right when it came to 'fixing' gay males. Who took years of convincing before they stopped sticking electrodes on men's willies, and giving them electric shocks to try and stop them from being sexually attracted to other men.
What I am reading here is a GLBT true believer threatening a police action to make sure that everybody goes into their proper boxes according to his lights, whether they like it or not. I also challenge you to show one single example on the public page, where LGBT has been disparaged.
I look forward to editing your edits. joanneProctor 28 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneProctor ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
In the interests of ensuring that visitors to this page can access all the examples mentioned on this page I have restored and clarified the 'mangina' link. I can see no legitimate reason why this link was removed. It is a valid illustration of this phenomenon, and it should be available so visitors can see these different motivations and make up their minds for themselves.
If there are problems with this action I suggest that Wikipedia editors examine the appropriateness of the link. JoanneProctor 28 April 2009
A search on googlescholar, which searches academic databases, most of them private journal databases, turns up zero hits for "Harry Benjamin Syndrome." We could comment or speculate on the supporters of the terminology and their reasons for wishing to distinguish themselves from other transsexual people, but this isn't the place. This is an encyclopedia of facts based on research. "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is not an accepted term in medical or psych circles. It does not appear in scientific literature. It is not an accepted diagnosis under medical or psych standards. The article should redirect to transsexuality.-- Kathygnome ( talk) 11:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The article should not be redirected to transsexuality because it keeps not relationship with it. Harry Benjamin's Syndrome is an intersexual medical condition recognized as such by prominent doctors who uses this terminology as Dr. Maldonado or Dr. Lutzky in Argentina, or Dr. Galante and others in Europe. These doctors had published medical articles using this terminology, see the HBS International site. International mass media, including BBC News, uses or used at some moment this terminology when referring to cases of primary transsexualism - modern Harry Benjamin's Syndrome. However it should not be confused transgenderism and transsexuality with Primary Transsexualism, which is a form of Intersexualism, a biological inborn condition (Gooren, Diamond, Kruijver, Playdon, Reiner, Swaab, Walker, Cohen-Kettenis, Connolly, Sutter, Jones et al. 2002-08).
CharlotteGoiar (
talk) 21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)CharlotteGoiar
Yes, those authors have done work that implies that transsexuality has a biological component, but I'm unaware of them using the term HBS. Could anyone provide a citation for a single actual peer reviewed journal article that references the term and differentiates it from transsexuality? A full citation? -- Kathygnome ( talk) 19:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
From the boogey woman. :-) All of the above scuttlebutt boils down to one thing. Notability, and wikipedia's agreed upon standards for inclusion in wikipedia. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources The first one says...
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
WP:RS says....
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Look at this article, it's a hot mess. There is not one reliable source, not a peer reviewed paper, not a new article, nothing but blogs and personal websites to back it up. What sources that are here which are presented as backing up HBS are in fact unrelated and deal with the idea that transsexuals have a brain sex which is not compatible with their physical sex. Wikipedia already has a great article dealing with that idea... Brain Sex. That article cites secondary sources which directly support what is there. Whereas what is engaed in here is non neutral violates WP:NPOV and is a synthesis of other data which is both Original research and synthesis which are NOT allowed on Wikipedia WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH. These all add up to reasons to propose this article for deletion. Instead I am going to refrain from that and give an unspecified amount of time for those who want this article to be here to find acceptable reliable secondary sources which can back up the claims made in the article. ( Even though I am really confident that they don't exist. As far as I know this idea is the property of a few vocal netizens with no scientific backing not even by some small group of researchers...Surprise me.)-- Hfarmer ( talk) 22:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with this page being deleted. I think that the person who created the original entry was ill advised. HBS is a grassroots movement that will be best left to develop organically. Furthermore I can see better uses for this page, which the public need not be prevented from reading merely because it is not on Wikipedia. joanneproctor 14 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneProctor ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please protect this page. The medical birth defect of HBS is not a type of transsexualism, but a type of intersex condition and therefore a subset of the Intersex condition. Please protect this article and block anyone who keeps vandalizing this page and redirecting it to the chosen lifestyle of transsexualism. In my practice, I can easily tell a TS/TG case from an HBS case. People with HBS have the right to not be lumped in with TSs, TGs, nor homosexuals. People with HBS have their own community and do not acknowledge the LGBT community nor TGs and deny they are a part of such. People with HBS should know more than the arrogant liars who slander them, call them TGs, call them TSs, and say they are a part of the LGBT. They lie on people with HBS to deprive them of their rights. They hate people with HBS and *WANT* them discriminated against and killed. Do not use Wikipedia to further this conspiracy.-- 74.124.187.76 ( talk) 07:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
It is slander to redirect to TSism. That was evil and mean spirited. Instead, you need to just delete the article. If you delete it as if it was never created, with no redirects, I can promise not to recreate the article. That is all, just DELETE it. The whole purpose of the name was to get away from TSism, and why are you destroying our reputations, and putting our carreers on the line to destroy us? So please, delete it.
By the way, the Hispanic Wikipedia article remains, and EVERY other Wiki makes it clear that HBS is not TSism.
Even transsexualism isn't a valid medical diagnosis. A bunch of self-serving people formed the HBIGDA and self-appointed themselves to it.
I have HBS and am not a transsexual. If you do not permanently delete the article and the redirect, I will SUE wikipedia and boycott it.-- 74.124.187.76 ( talk) 20:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
{{
RFD}}
I am the main author of the content that started this article, and it was arguably promotional. I respectfully ask that you speedily delete the article and not have any redirects. The decision to redirect was not based on wikipedia policy. HBS is not TSism and a redirect is inappropriate and could lead to harm against others by persons reading it. The redirect goes against the whole spirit and reason I wrote the article, and is now being hijacked. So, there is sufficient ground that the entire article, talk pages, and redirects be deleted. How can I appeal to the Foundation Office?--
74.124.187.76 (
talk) 20:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) User:Marta314 has started Harry Benjamin's Syndrome while the redirect on this article is under discussion. Jokestress ( talk) 08:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change this page so that it redirects to Transsexual#Alternative terminology rather than Transsexualism#Alternative terminology to avoid the double redirect. Thank you. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 14:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)