![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
There is a sentence in the second paragraph "Harry Benjamin treated her". It makes no sense. Someone who knows what was going on -- please fix. William Ackerman 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
When talking about or to transsexual people, it is viewed as extremely insulting to not respect the personal pronouns of the acquired gender. Can someone please fix this? Emilykitten 10:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but isn't it inaccurate to refer to a transgender person by their new gender, when describing events that happened before they had their sex-reassignment surgery? In other words, before Lynn Conway had the surgery, shouldn't he be a "he" and then afterwards a "she"? Lynn Conway wasn't born as a woman, after all. User:Anonymous 10:29, 04 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. It might be offensive, disappointing, or whatever to some, but that doesn't matter. It's the truth. A MtF transgender person was a man at one time, and living outwardly as as a man. So for that time in Conway's life, male pronouns are simply more accurate. There's not really any way to argue with that. BuboTitan 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, so we should follow Wikipedia's rules for pronouns, which are the same as the AP Style Guide. It says to use female pronouns in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
Identity
"This is perhaps an area where Wikipedians’ flexibility and plurality are an asset, and where we would not want all pages to look exactly alike. Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and no original research policies always take precedence. However, here are some nonbinding guidelines that may help: Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
So Kellyprice wants to consistently apply Conway's pronoun of choice to the entire life. BuboTitan wants to use both the pronoun that Conway used to use as well as the pronoun that Conway is currently using. I don't see enough information in the MoS to declare either of these approaches to be inconsistent with style. What needs to happen right now is that the two of you need to knock off this stupid revert war. Go read WP:3RR before you touch that undo button again, okay? WhatamIdoing 04:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
She wasn't a man. She was a woman with a birth defect. She was aware of it, and was able to eventually have it corrected via hrt and surgery. Gender is due to the way the mind is wired, not the physical body. It is disrespectful to refer to her in male terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Being unaware of a birth defect does not mean that it does not exist, however she was aware of her transgender status from childhood. Many women aren't fertile for various reasons; fertility isn't a factor in gender identification. DNA tests are also not definitive. XY doesn't always indicate male or XX female. There are always exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the LA Times article serves as a reference for almost the entire article, with the exception of the 2004 Wilson reference cited for a single sentence, and some unsourced information from the last few years. However, they're both listed in a reference section, and the Times article is linked as a footnote, seemingly arbitrarily, to one particular sentence regarding Conway's children. I would suggest creating a Notes section for the reflist template, to contain the 2004 Wilson reference, and changing the Times article from an inline-referenced footnote on a particular sentence to a standard reference in the references section. (My terminology may be off, but hopefully it's understandable.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle ( talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Some recent information doesn't include citations. I casually searched news archives using Google (e.g. like this) and can turn up reliable sources saying she's an activist, and a vocal critic of Bailey's, but not that she was a "prominent spokesperson for the rights of transsexual people" or that she was "a leader of a 2003 campaign against" Bailey. I added the Fact tag to the current sentences to allow time for references to be supplied. If they can't be supplied, the wording could be scaled (e.g. change "prominent spokeperson" to "activist") and any number of reliable sources are available.
I also tagged the recent personal information such as her 2006 marriage as unsourced. I didn't check the external link to her personal website, as it's not listed as a reference. I'm not disputing that she did get married, just indicating that a reliable source is needed to corroborate the fact. - Agyle 03:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Re revert of MarionTheLibrarian's edits, Lynn Conway's page on the controversy makes it clear that Dreger and the journal and editor that published her work are principals in the controversy. According to WP:BLP, "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement," and "Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources." If you want to add something from the sources who are involved in a dispute with Conway, it needs to be done carefully, encyclopedically, with attribution to who has express what, not via weasel words with a footnote. The obvious strong POV that colors all of MarionTheLibrarian's edits here and in other articles should really disqaulify this editor from adding such interpretations of controversial material to this BLP. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the page has been protected after our little edit war, we should discuss how to process after the protection expires. At present, the page Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy is not even linked here, and that's where the main discussion of the contentious issues is. Would it be helpful to use a main link or something to there, rather than trying to represent that contentious topic here in the bio (BLP would still apply there, of course). Other suggestions for how to avoid problems we've seen in recent days here? Dicklyon ( talk) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I can certainly appreciate that I would seem to have an agenda—after all, on this and on related issues everyone does appear to have one. I can only reiterate that my interest is in completeness; any bias I seem to have for one side is because there is a dearth of information about only one side. If you can think of a way for me to demonstrate to you that any opinion I have is based on and only on the available information, I will happily volunteer for the test. Otherwise, we will have to agree to disagree.
Although I am indeed new to wiki, you can see over the past few days that I am able and willing to provide well-sourced information on a range of topics in sexuality. I have substantial...er, library resources, to contribute whereas most editors rely on information already available on the web.
As for the neutrality of Dreger/Archives/Conway, that's an odd situation. Any perusal of Conway's or Andrea James' sites will show that they have made accusations of everyone who has ever said a negative thing about their side or a positive thing about Bailey's. They have long written that they believe there exists a conspiracy of well-placed transphobic academics. Over time, they have added to that list anyone (including other openly transsexual folk) who does not agree with them. The difficulty now is that there exists no one remaining to be called neutral at the standard you seem to be asking for. People Conway agrees with are called "recognized experts" on her site, and people she disagrees with are called "discredited" (despite any evidence in either direction). When Dreger began her history (in which she included her initial opinions), she was as neutral as a person can be shown to be; it was only because of her conclusions that Conway/James and others started going after her, forcing Dreger to mount a defence, making it >seem< like she could not have been neutral to begin with. In her history, Dreger does indeed find fault with some of Bailey's behaviors, and on her website, Dreger finds fault with Zucker. If that doesn't denote someone capable of seeing the grey where everyone else is casting characters in black or white, I don't know what would.
That said, I think we have what the only realistic solution is. Yes?— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I did a lot of work on the career section, refs, etc., which was large undone by Andrea Parton's edit, probably due to an improperly handle edit conflict. I've tried to repair it, incorporating what she added about activism, and the new section heads, but I may have missed something, so take a look. This also involved taking out MarionTheLibrarian's latest, which I consider as bogus anyway, since Marion and the author she likes to quote are both obviously very biased participants in the controversy they describe; I've withdrawn from editing the BBL controversy page because it is hopelessly partisan, but there's no reason to let that overflow into this bio. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
And I am not BarbaraSue. The check-users page is at your disposal.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I've reprotected the article for 30 days due to continued edit warring after the last protection ended. Work this out using the dispute resolution process. Dreadstar † 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Marion, your edits have gone beyond just very POV. You're even distorting the contents of sources like NYT now. Please consider how wikipedia works. In the long run, your efforts to push a point of view will come to nothing. There's no sense make a lot of work for everyone in the process. Slow down, do some more neutral editing, learn the process, and contribute, instead of disrupting by pushing a narrow point of view in an area that you are obviously much too close to. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Lynn Conway. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Dreadstar
† 07:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I am hoping you can provide some input to prevent a repeated edit war. Last week, you (correctly) protected the Lynn Conway page, which was devolving into an edit war between me and user:Dicklyon. He and I discussed the issue on the talk page and came to an agreement on how best to resolve the situation. The protection expired, and I edited the page in the manner to which Dicklyon and I agreed. However, he has now backed out of that agreement/consensus and is reverting everything that any other editor changes on that page. Any guidance or intervention would be greatly appreciated.
Help me, Dreadstar-Kenobi. You're my only hope.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 01:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am entirely amendable to mediation. BarbaraSue will have to speak for herself. The conversation leading to what I believed to be an agreement was:
When the protection expired, I put that text into the Conway page (including a summary and a link to the entire article) and put a note on Dicklyon's talk page indicating I had done so However, Dicklyon removed the text we discussed and replaced it with his own text that he had not previously shared, that we did not discuss, and did not provide the link to the full article.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 14:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Experts have every right to hold and express opinions on the subjects in which they have expertise. Both Dreger and Zucker have long histories of publishing in high quality professional outlets in the relevant areas. Whether you think that any given expert has a bias for a particular view is irrelevant. When opinions and debates reach the level of being printed in high quality outlets, such as the Archives and the NYTimes, they meet all the requirements for inclusion in WP. Whether you think that a peer reviewed journal should be disqualified is irrelevant.
Whether I misinterpreted your words/silence or whether you entered the discussion in bad faith is a judgment that only external readers can make.
I am ready to begin the mediation process when you are.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 15:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it incredible that Dicklyon insists that the editor of the preeminent sexology journal (Zucker) and the eminent historian (Dreger) were biased, prior to findings. There is no evidence of this, and if Dreger concluded (and Zucker published) results unfavorable to Conway, the most parsimonious explanation is that she did so because said results are correct. Conway's role in this controversy is very important to her career, and it generated both the New York Times article and entire issue of the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior. MarionTheLibrarian has tried to refer both to Dreger's target article and to the critiques of that article. That seems fair. BarbaraSue ( talk) 15:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
By Dicklyons logic, an article about the Holocaust is biased if it makes the Nazis look worse than the Jews. Give support for the idea that Dreger is "biased" rather than reporting what happened. MarionTheLibrarian has repeatedly tried to refer to both the Dreger target article and the commentaries on the article, some of which are critical of Dreger. BarbaraSue ( talk) 15:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have finished reading the mediation rules. Before formal mediation can begin, less formal methods need to be attempted. The third opinion option is meant for disagreements between only two people. The request for comment is unlikely to garner comments from anyone not already watching the Conway page. So, the 'mediation cabal' appears the most appropriate (to me). To start that process, the Medcab-request has to be added to the talk page of the relevant topic. So, I am relocating the above conversation to the Conway talk page, and adding that template to it.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 16:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I was asked for an opinion just of the standing of this journal: In the Web of Science Journal citation Reports, Archives of Sexual Behavior, published by Springer, one of the two leading commercial scientific publishers, ranks 15th out of the 86 journals in the field of clinical psychology with an impact factor of 2.198. It therefore is beyond much question a high ranking clinical psychology journal, as judged by clinical psychologists. There does not seem to be any specialty journal in the subject that has a higher ranking or reputation; the next ranking specialized journal, Journal of Sex Research has an impact factor of 1.149. This is referring to the journal in general; the quality of individual articles in it will of course vary. I suppose its obvious that there are many schools of though in psychology, and people in one school do not necessarily think highly of those from other scholarly traditions. But I see no reason not to quote it, even in a context of BLP, I consider it as highly reliable a source as you will get in this subject. Further, I think Marion's wording for the controversy seems reasonably objective. DGG ( talk) 02:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've accepted the 2008-06-01 Lynn Conway mediation case. Please feel free to visit the page and comment there. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 00:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The outcome was that user:Dicklyon and I agreed not to edit the controversial pages:
The Man Who Would Be Queen or
Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence Theory Controversy, nor to edit the controversy-section of related WP pages. You and everyone else, however, are free to edit as you like; any interference from Dicklyon or me will be limited to the talk pages.
— James Cantor (
talk) (formerly,
MarionTheLibrarian) 00:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I am going to update the section on Conway's role in the controversy regarding Bailey's book. I do not believe that any of the proposals by Dicklyon or Marionthelibrarian are sufficiently detailed. Conway leads her hugely popular website with a large section attacking Bailey, Dreger, and Zucker. It hardly seems undue weight to explain what the controversy is about, including both sides, rather than merely mentioning that there is a controversy. ProudAGP ( talk) 15:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there anybody neutral watching this article? User:MarionTheLibrarian (James Cantor) and I had an agreement to limit the BBL controversy stuff to a brief mention and a link to the relevant article, and then agreed to not engage in further editing that section. Now User:ProudAGP has taken Cantor's place as the pusher of the one side of the controversy, re-introducing a lot of negative POV into this bio. I reverted the obvious hack, and will have to do so again if nobody else is willing to take a sensible position and protect this article from WP:BLP violations. It is simply irresponsible to introduce Dreger's interpretation of these events without balancing with the other side, and this is not the best place to do it. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Until such time as somebody shows up here to control the wild BLP violations of User:ProudAGP, I'll just revert its edits back to the original compromise state. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Where to start.... First of all, there have been no "BLP violations." The edit that I made on the Conway page (which will be restored shortly) is accurate and fair. Dicklyon clearly has the goal of keeping any mention of the Bailey controversy to a minimum. (Those familiar with the facts of that case will understand why Dicklyon, Conway's friend and unofficial Wikipedia editor, wish to keep it off.) Dicklyon and Marionthelibrarion never reached an agreement about the precise wording of an edit, and even if they had, it would not bind WP editors forever. (If I am wrong, please refer me to the WP rule that says otherwise.) The administrator who concluded that Conway is primarily known for her engineering contributions was mistaken, I think. Google Conway and her second hit is her transsexualism page. I think that a good analogy is the page of William Shockley. Much more distinguished scientifically than Conway (he did win a Nobel Prize), he still has a not-small section of his page devoted to his late life controversy, in his case speculating about race differences in intelligence. Conway has been accused of worse, in my opinion (e.g., making up false charges against another scientist in order to silence him). Note that my edits on Conway's page stop far short of taking a side on this issue. ProudAGP ( talk) 15:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Dicklyon has never hid his relationship with Conway. If you google their names, you will find him mentioned on Conway's site, and Dicklyon acknowledged such the same here on WP. I can track down the diff's, if you like. Whether Dick's claims to revert on the Conway page what he believes to be BLP violations constitute being an 'unofficial WP editor' is open for interpretation.
— James Cantor (
talk) (formerly,
MarionTheLibrarian) 17:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's the problem: we have only one editor, with a bias professed right in its handle "ProudAGP", who is editing this section, since James Cantor (another highly involved and highly biased person) and I have agreed to leave it alone. That can't work. It's better to leave the section small, with link to the controversy, than to fill up the bio with biased criticisms. BLP violations are negative or critical statements not well supported by reliable refs. Such things as "Conway was a principal figure...", "Some feel that Conway's investigation was seriously biased..." for example. And the understated "Dreger's article was published alongside 23 commentaries, including some critical of Dreger" when in fact a large majority were critical of Dreger. Until another editor steps forward to balance ProudAGP, there is really no choice but to back out this biased editor's changes. I'll hold off a day or two, and see if help arrives; if not, I'll back it out again. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No, here's the problem: We have only one editor, Dicklyon (who has previously worked for Lynn Conway), who has been blocked three times for edit warring (including on this page), started yet a fourth edit war (this time with ProudAGP), and not only violated his mediated agreement with James Cantor not to touch the controversy section of this page, but also is declaring his intent to do so once again despite being told by an admin (DGG) that he should not be doing any such thing. Throughout these discussions, edit wars have occurred when and only when Dicklyon was involved: Despite having heated conversations, there have been no edit wars among ProudAGP, James Cantor, Jokestress, Andrea Parton, Hfarmer, nor any of the other people who edit the trans and related pages (at least, not in the few months I have been on wiki). Personally, I do not believe it is difficult to identify the common denominator among the edit wars. For reference, here is the agreement that Dicklyon and I made with each other not to edit the controversy section of the Conway page
[4], but which Dicklyon has declared he will simply violate as he sees fit. If anyone believes that Dicklyon, and not the result of this talk page, should be deciding which of ProudAGP's (or anyone else's) edits should remain, please raise your hand.
— James Cantor (
talk) (formerly,
MarionTheLibrarian) 13:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, in an attempt to separate discussions of edit wars and who should/shouldn't be editing this section from discussions of how this article should be written, I've created a new talk page section here to discuss my attempts to shorten this section, since I agree with DDG's statement that "The main article on the controversy is Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy. that's where to put the details. The others should refer to it, instead of repeating it". So, the first *major* edit I'm going to make is this - removing "Northwestern University conducted an investigation into some of these accusations, and while the university did not release the results of that investigation, their Vice President for Research stated "The allegations of scientific misconduct made against Professor J. Michael Bailey do not fall under the federal definition of scientific misconduct."" and replacing it with "These accusations were investigated by Northwestern University, however, no official action was taken against Bailey". This shortens things significantly, and I believe is still accurate and detailed enough for an overview. If anyone has suggestions or objections to my edits, I'd love to hear them. Xmoogle ( talk) 20:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The revision as it currently stands on the page is acceptable to me with the stipulation I will get to in a moment. Please do not change it along the lines suggested above, adding reference to Conway's accusations to Bailey without also referring to the very well supported allegations by Dreger that Conway's accusations were bogus. (These were supported by a lengthy peer-reviewed article in sexology's best journal and a New York Times article.) It is also not known whether any official action was taken against Bailey. Seriouisly, the version being discussed is much worse than what is now on the page. So please do not use it.
The stipulation I have is that it is not fair to have such a cursory treatment of this controversy on Conway's page while Bailey's page has a lengthy one. I therefore will lobby to change Bailey's page along the same lines. Furthermore (not a stipulation but an intention), I disagree that the discussion belongs on the BBL controversy page. That page is awful, and for reasons I will delineate when I propose various changes, it should not exist. The relevant controversy history is already on The Man Who Would Be Queen page. Since the present version links there, it is fine even if I am successful getting the controversy page deleted. ProudAGP ( talk) 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
One minor quibble: the phrase "since outing herself" seems rather loaded, as if this were an active or publicity-seeking event; in reality, she came out quietly, gradually, to various levels of friends and colleagues over time. The phrase "since coming out" might reflect this subtle difference better. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I also dislike "since outing herself." Personally, I find "coming out" and its cognates to be too informal for an encyclopedia. A more professional expression would be appropriate, such as "since openly acknowledging..." or "since disclosing her transexuality..."
— James Cantor (
talk) (formerly,
MarionTheLibrarian) 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
References
Recent edits have introduced at least one sort of flowery phrase, "While struggling with life in a male role..." Doesn't "While living as a man" or "Before transitioning from male to female" or some other plainer phrase sound more, well, encyclopedic? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Under #Transgender activism and controversy, if the single-quoted half-sentence is a direct quotation, then it needs double quote marks and an inline ref at the end.
The external link visible at "prevalence of transsexualism" needs to be removed, as external links should not be visible in an article per WP:EL#Important points to remember #3. (The usual solution is to turn it into a ref.)
Finally, I think that feud is a reasonably accurate description of the standing enmity, feelings of being attacked, guilt by association, and so forth affecting the various factions (do click the link and read at least the lead to Feud), and I don't think that "academic debate" is even close to adequately descriptive. For one thing, it implies that Conway has the same academic credentials in the relevant field, since an academic debate is most often a debate among peers -- not a long-running argument between an "expert" or "professional" in the field, and a person in an entirely unrelated field that feels personally disparaged by the "expert opinion". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Am I to understand that the New York Times is apparently not a good enough source for this article? Nevard ( talk) 04:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I am surprised that no mention is made in the article about Conway's paper (with Femke Olyslager) about the prevalence of transsexualism. The paper, which was presented at the WPATH Symposium in 2007, shows that when counted on the basis of the number of hospital procedures the incidence of transsexualism is far higher than the estimate commonly used by the medical profession. Everybody got to be somewhere! ( talk) 15:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Have had edits removed twice by User:Msnicki for adding this article to the transgender and medicine category. Taking this to the talk article. Last removal was due to Conway not being a physician. I'll note that the topic of medicine doesn't only cover physicians but the general study and practice of health care and this can take many forms. My addition of the category to the article is due to Conway's criticism of psychological theories on transsexuality and her website on transgender medical procedures. Rab V ( talk) 23:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lynn Conway. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lynn Conway. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lynn Conway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Lynn Conway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Conway has been a prominent critic of the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of male-to-female transsexualism that all{{dubious|reason=a typology that only recognizes a small number of formal categories—even a highly reductive typology—does not necessarily assert itself as total and exhaustive; if this typology does assert itself as total and exhaustive, please provide a source affirming this in black and white}} trans women are motivated either by feminine homosexuality or autogynephilia.
From another perspective, this is a simple matter of principal component analysis. BBL theory seems to me to assert that the first two principle components account for all the statistically significant signal their relatively small studies are capable of yielding.
"Well, I looked into this as deeply as my research funds permitted, and I only found two principle components that I could legitimately write about by the standards of academic evidence."
Translating this into a claim that "all" transsexual women are captured by these two principle components is quite possibly an extreme injustice to the original research.
Did they or did they not go there in how they presented their original results?
In my experience, formal academic papers of any kind rarely go there in an explicit register (it only makes your paper harder to publish and later defend); what you tend to find is what the detractors paint as "professionally irresponsible" subtext.
In this context, the citation standards on Wikipedia do not lean toward teasing out professionally irresponsible subtext (outside of postmodernist circles, it's not universally agreed that is the prevailing ethical model of the scientific enterprise), and to claim this even indirectly here on Wikipedia requires a strong and explicit citation from an intermediate party of some substantial standing. — MaxEnt 17:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
There is a sentence in the second paragraph "Harry Benjamin treated her". It makes no sense. Someone who knows what was going on -- please fix. William Ackerman 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
When talking about or to transsexual people, it is viewed as extremely insulting to not respect the personal pronouns of the acquired gender. Can someone please fix this? Emilykitten 10:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but isn't it inaccurate to refer to a transgender person by their new gender, when describing events that happened before they had their sex-reassignment surgery? In other words, before Lynn Conway had the surgery, shouldn't he be a "he" and then afterwards a "she"? Lynn Conway wasn't born as a woman, after all. User:Anonymous 10:29, 04 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. It might be offensive, disappointing, or whatever to some, but that doesn't matter. It's the truth. A MtF transgender person was a man at one time, and living outwardly as as a man. So for that time in Conway's life, male pronouns are simply more accurate. There's not really any way to argue with that. BuboTitan 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, so we should follow Wikipedia's rules for pronouns, which are the same as the AP Style Guide. It says to use female pronouns in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
Identity
"This is perhaps an area where Wikipedians’ flexibility and plurality are an asset, and where we would not want all pages to look exactly alike. Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and no original research policies always take precedence. However, here are some nonbinding guidelines that may help: Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
So Kellyprice wants to consistently apply Conway's pronoun of choice to the entire life. BuboTitan wants to use both the pronoun that Conway used to use as well as the pronoun that Conway is currently using. I don't see enough information in the MoS to declare either of these approaches to be inconsistent with style. What needs to happen right now is that the two of you need to knock off this stupid revert war. Go read WP:3RR before you touch that undo button again, okay? WhatamIdoing 04:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
She wasn't a man. She was a woman with a birth defect. She was aware of it, and was able to eventually have it corrected via hrt and surgery. Gender is due to the way the mind is wired, not the physical body. It is disrespectful to refer to her in male terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Being unaware of a birth defect does not mean that it does not exist, however she was aware of her transgender status from childhood. Many women aren't fertile for various reasons; fertility isn't a factor in gender identification. DNA tests are also not definitive. XY doesn't always indicate male or XX female. There are always exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the LA Times article serves as a reference for almost the entire article, with the exception of the 2004 Wilson reference cited for a single sentence, and some unsourced information from the last few years. However, they're both listed in a reference section, and the Times article is linked as a footnote, seemingly arbitrarily, to one particular sentence regarding Conway's children. I would suggest creating a Notes section for the reflist template, to contain the 2004 Wilson reference, and changing the Times article from an inline-referenced footnote on a particular sentence to a standard reference in the references section. (My terminology may be off, but hopefully it's understandable.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle ( talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Some recent information doesn't include citations. I casually searched news archives using Google (e.g. like this) and can turn up reliable sources saying she's an activist, and a vocal critic of Bailey's, but not that she was a "prominent spokesperson for the rights of transsexual people" or that she was "a leader of a 2003 campaign against" Bailey. I added the Fact tag to the current sentences to allow time for references to be supplied. If they can't be supplied, the wording could be scaled (e.g. change "prominent spokeperson" to "activist") and any number of reliable sources are available.
I also tagged the recent personal information such as her 2006 marriage as unsourced. I didn't check the external link to her personal website, as it's not listed as a reference. I'm not disputing that she did get married, just indicating that a reliable source is needed to corroborate the fact. - Agyle 03:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Re revert of MarionTheLibrarian's edits, Lynn Conway's page on the controversy makes it clear that Dreger and the journal and editor that published her work are principals in the controversy. According to WP:BLP, "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement," and "Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources." If you want to add something from the sources who are involved in a dispute with Conway, it needs to be done carefully, encyclopedically, with attribution to who has express what, not via weasel words with a footnote. The obvious strong POV that colors all of MarionTheLibrarian's edits here and in other articles should really disqaulify this editor from adding such interpretations of controversial material to this BLP. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the page has been protected after our little edit war, we should discuss how to process after the protection expires. At present, the page Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy is not even linked here, and that's where the main discussion of the contentious issues is. Would it be helpful to use a main link or something to there, rather than trying to represent that contentious topic here in the bio (BLP would still apply there, of course). Other suggestions for how to avoid problems we've seen in recent days here? Dicklyon ( talk) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I can certainly appreciate that I would seem to have an agenda—after all, on this and on related issues everyone does appear to have one. I can only reiterate that my interest is in completeness; any bias I seem to have for one side is because there is a dearth of information about only one side. If you can think of a way for me to demonstrate to you that any opinion I have is based on and only on the available information, I will happily volunteer for the test. Otherwise, we will have to agree to disagree.
Although I am indeed new to wiki, you can see over the past few days that I am able and willing to provide well-sourced information on a range of topics in sexuality. I have substantial...er, library resources, to contribute whereas most editors rely on information already available on the web.
As for the neutrality of Dreger/Archives/Conway, that's an odd situation. Any perusal of Conway's or Andrea James' sites will show that they have made accusations of everyone who has ever said a negative thing about their side or a positive thing about Bailey's. They have long written that they believe there exists a conspiracy of well-placed transphobic academics. Over time, they have added to that list anyone (including other openly transsexual folk) who does not agree with them. The difficulty now is that there exists no one remaining to be called neutral at the standard you seem to be asking for. People Conway agrees with are called "recognized experts" on her site, and people she disagrees with are called "discredited" (despite any evidence in either direction). When Dreger began her history (in which she included her initial opinions), she was as neutral as a person can be shown to be; it was only because of her conclusions that Conway/James and others started going after her, forcing Dreger to mount a defence, making it >seem< like she could not have been neutral to begin with. In her history, Dreger does indeed find fault with some of Bailey's behaviors, and on her website, Dreger finds fault with Zucker. If that doesn't denote someone capable of seeing the grey where everyone else is casting characters in black or white, I don't know what would.
That said, I think we have what the only realistic solution is. Yes?— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I did a lot of work on the career section, refs, etc., which was large undone by Andrea Parton's edit, probably due to an improperly handle edit conflict. I've tried to repair it, incorporating what she added about activism, and the new section heads, but I may have missed something, so take a look. This also involved taking out MarionTheLibrarian's latest, which I consider as bogus anyway, since Marion and the author she likes to quote are both obviously very biased participants in the controversy they describe; I've withdrawn from editing the BBL controversy page because it is hopelessly partisan, but there's no reason to let that overflow into this bio. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
And I am not BarbaraSue. The check-users page is at your disposal.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I've reprotected the article for 30 days due to continued edit warring after the last protection ended. Work this out using the dispute resolution process. Dreadstar † 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Marion, your edits have gone beyond just very POV. You're even distorting the contents of sources like NYT now. Please consider how wikipedia works. In the long run, your efforts to push a point of view will come to nothing. There's no sense make a lot of work for everyone in the process. Slow down, do some more neutral editing, learn the process, and contribute, instead of disrupting by pushing a narrow point of view in an area that you are obviously much too close to. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Lynn Conway. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Dreadstar
† 07:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I am hoping you can provide some input to prevent a repeated edit war. Last week, you (correctly) protected the Lynn Conway page, which was devolving into an edit war between me and user:Dicklyon. He and I discussed the issue on the talk page and came to an agreement on how best to resolve the situation. The protection expired, and I edited the page in the manner to which Dicklyon and I agreed. However, he has now backed out of that agreement/consensus and is reverting everything that any other editor changes on that page. Any guidance or intervention would be greatly appreciated.
Help me, Dreadstar-Kenobi. You're my only hope.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 01:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am entirely amendable to mediation. BarbaraSue will have to speak for herself. The conversation leading to what I believed to be an agreement was:
When the protection expired, I put that text into the Conway page (including a summary and a link to the entire article) and put a note on Dicklyon's talk page indicating I had done so However, Dicklyon removed the text we discussed and replaced it with his own text that he had not previously shared, that we did not discuss, and did not provide the link to the full article.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 14:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Experts have every right to hold and express opinions on the subjects in which they have expertise. Both Dreger and Zucker have long histories of publishing in high quality professional outlets in the relevant areas. Whether you think that any given expert has a bias for a particular view is irrelevant. When opinions and debates reach the level of being printed in high quality outlets, such as the Archives and the NYTimes, they meet all the requirements for inclusion in WP. Whether you think that a peer reviewed journal should be disqualified is irrelevant.
Whether I misinterpreted your words/silence or whether you entered the discussion in bad faith is a judgment that only external readers can make.
I am ready to begin the mediation process when you are.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 15:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it incredible that Dicklyon insists that the editor of the preeminent sexology journal (Zucker) and the eminent historian (Dreger) were biased, prior to findings. There is no evidence of this, and if Dreger concluded (and Zucker published) results unfavorable to Conway, the most parsimonious explanation is that she did so because said results are correct. Conway's role in this controversy is very important to her career, and it generated both the New York Times article and entire issue of the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior. MarionTheLibrarian has tried to refer both to Dreger's target article and to the critiques of that article. That seems fair. BarbaraSue ( talk) 15:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
By Dicklyons logic, an article about the Holocaust is biased if it makes the Nazis look worse than the Jews. Give support for the idea that Dreger is "biased" rather than reporting what happened. MarionTheLibrarian has repeatedly tried to refer to both the Dreger target article and the commentaries on the article, some of which are critical of Dreger. BarbaraSue ( talk) 15:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have finished reading the mediation rules. Before formal mediation can begin, less formal methods need to be attempted. The third opinion option is meant for disagreements between only two people. The request for comment is unlikely to garner comments from anyone not already watching the Conway page. So, the 'mediation cabal' appears the most appropriate (to me). To start that process, the Medcab-request has to be added to the talk page of the relevant topic. So, I am relocating the above conversation to the Conway talk page, and adding that template to it.
—
MarionTheLibrarian (
talk) 16:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I was asked for an opinion just of the standing of this journal: In the Web of Science Journal citation Reports, Archives of Sexual Behavior, published by Springer, one of the two leading commercial scientific publishers, ranks 15th out of the 86 journals in the field of clinical psychology with an impact factor of 2.198. It therefore is beyond much question a high ranking clinical psychology journal, as judged by clinical psychologists. There does not seem to be any specialty journal in the subject that has a higher ranking or reputation; the next ranking specialized journal, Journal of Sex Research has an impact factor of 1.149. This is referring to the journal in general; the quality of individual articles in it will of course vary. I suppose its obvious that there are many schools of though in psychology, and people in one school do not necessarily think highly of those from other scholarly traditions. But I see no reason not to quote it, even in a context of BLP, I consider it as highly reliable a source as you will get in this subject. Further, I think Marion's wording for the controversy seems reasonably objective. DGG ( talk) 02:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've accepted the 2008-06-01 Lynn Conway mediation case. Please feel free to visit the page and comment there. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 00:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The outcome was that user:Dicklyon and I agreed not to edit the controversial pages:
The Man Who Would Be Queen or
Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence Theory Controversy, nor to edit the controversy-section of related WP pages. You and everyone else, however, are free to edit as you like; any interference from Dicklyon or me will be limited to the talk pages.
— James Cantor (
talk) (formerly,
MarionTheLibrarian) 00:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I am going to update the section on Conway's role in the controversy regarding Bailey's book. I do not believe that any of the proposals by Dicklyon or Marionthelibrarian are sufficiently detailed. Conway leads her hugely popular website with a large section attacking Bailey, Dreger, and Zucker. It hardly seems undue weight to explain what the controversy is about, including both sides, rather than merely mentioning that there is a controversy. ProudAGP ( talk) 15:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there anybody neutral watching this article? User:MarionTheLibrarian (James Cantor) and I had an agreement to limit the BBL controversy stuff to a brief mention and a link to the relevant article, and then agreed to not engage in further editing that section. Now User:ProudAGP has taken Cantor's place as the pusher of the one side of the controversy, re-introducing a lot of negative POV into this bio. I reverted the obvious hack, and will have to do so again if nobody else is willing to take a sensible position and protect this article from WP:BLP violations. It is simply irresponsible to introduce Dreger's interpretation of these events without balancing with the other side, and this is not the best place to do it. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Until such time as somebody shows up here to control the wild BLP violations of User:ProudAGP, I'll just revert its edits back to the original compromise state. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Where to start.... First of all, there have been no "BLP violations." The edit that I made on the Conway page (which will be restored shortly) is accurate and fair. Dicklyon clearly has the goal of keeping any mention of the Bailey controversy to a minimum. (Those familiar with the facts of that case will understand why Dicklyon, Conway's friend and unofficial Wikipedia editor, wish to keep it off.) Dicklyon and Marionthelibrarion never reached an agreement about the precise wording of an edit, and even if they had, it would not bind WP editors forever. (If I am wrong, please refer me to the WP rule that says otherwise.) The administrator who concluded that Conway is primarily known for her engineering contributions was mistaken, I think. Google Conway and her second hit is her transsexualism page. I think that a good analogy is the page of William Shockley. Much more distinguished scientifically than Conway (he did win a Nobel Prize), he still has a not-small section of his page devoted to his late life controversy, in his case speculating about race differences in intelligence. Conway has been accused of worse, in my opinion (e.g., making up false charges against another scientist in order to silence him). Note that my edits on Conway's page stop far short of taking a side on this issue. ProudAGP ( talk) 15:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Dicklyon has never hid his relationship with Conway. If you google their names, you will find him mentioned on Conway's site, and Dicklyon acknowledged such the same here on WP. I can track down the diff's, if you like. Whether Dick's claims to revert on the Conway page what he believes to be BLP violations constitute being an 'unofficial WP editor' is open for interpretation.
— James Cantor (
talk) (formerly,
MarionTheLibrarian) 17:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's the problem: we have only one editor, with a bias professed right in its handle "ProudAGP", who is editing this section, since James Cantor (another highly involved and highly biased person) and I have agreed to leave it alone. That can't work. It's better to leave the section small, with link to the controversy, than to fill up the bio with biased criticisms. BLP violations are negative or critical statements not well supported by reliable refs. Such things as "Conway was a principal figure...", "Some feel that Conway's investigation was seriously biased..." for example. And the understated "Dreger's article was published alongside 23 commentaries, including some critical of Dreger" when in fact a large majority were critical of Dreger. Until another editor steps forward to balance ProudAGP, there is really no choice but to back out this biased editor's changes. I'll hold off a day or two, and see if help arrives; if not, I'll back it out again. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No, here's the problem: We have only one editor, Dicklyon (who has previously worked for Lynn Conway), who has been blocked three times for edit warring (including on this page), started yet a fourth edit war (this time with ProudAGP), and not only violated his mediated agreement with James Cantor not to touch the controversy section of this page, but also is declaring his intent to do so once again despite being told by an admin (DGG) that he should not be doing any such thing. Throughout these discussions, edit wars have occurred when and only when Dicklyon was involved: Despite having heated conversations, there have been no edit wars among ProudAGP, James Cantor, Jokestress, Andrea Parton, Hfarmer, nor any of the other people who edit the trans and related pages (at least, not in the few months I have been on wiki). Personally, I do not believe it is difficult to identify the common denominator among the edit wars. For reference, here is the agreement that Dicklyon and I made with each other not to edit the controversy section of the Conway page
[4], but which Dicklyon has declared he will simply violate as he sees fit. If anyone believes that Dicklyon, and not the result of this talk page, should be deciding which of ProudAGP's (or anyone else's) edits should remain, please raise your hand.
— James Cantor (
talk) (formerly,
MarionTheLibrarian) 13:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, in an attempt to separate discussions of edit wars and who should/shouldn't be editing this section from discussions of how this article should be written, I've created a new talk page section here to discuss my attempts to shorten this section, since I agree with DDG's statement that "The main article on the controversy is Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy. that's where to put the details. The others should refer to it, instead of repeating it". So, the first *major* edit I'm going to make is this - removing "Northwestern University conducted an investigation into some of these accusations, and while the university did not release the results of that investigation, their Vice President for Research stated "The allegations of scientific misconduct made against Professor J. Michael Bailey do not fall under the federal definition of scientific misconduct."" and replacing it with "These accusations were investigated by Northwestern University, however, no official action was taken against Bailey". This shortens things significantly, and I believe is still accurate and detailed enough for an overview. If anyone has suggestions or objections to my edits, I'd love to hear them. Xmoogle ( talk) 20:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The revision as it currently stands on the page is acceptable to me with the stipulation I will get to in a moment. Please do not change it along the lines suggested above, adding reference to Conway's accusations to Bailey without also referring to the very well supported allegations by Dreger that Conway's accusations were bogus. (These were supported by a lengthy peer-reviewed article in sexology's best journal and a New York Times article.) It is also not known whether any official action was taken against Bailey. Seriouisly, the version being discussed is much worse than what is now on the page. So please do not use it.
The stipulation I have is that it is not fair to have such a cursory treatment of this controversy on Conway's page while Bailey's page has a lengthy one. I therefore will lobby to change Bailey's page along the same lines. Furthermore (not a stipulation but an intention), I disagree that the discussion belongs on the BBL controversy page. That page is awful, and for reasons I will delineate when I propose various changes, it should not exist. The relevant controversy history is already on The Man Who Would Be Queen page. Since the present version links there, it is fine even if I am successful getting the controversy page deleted. ProudAGP ( talk) 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
One minor quibble: the phrase "since outing herself" seems rather loaded, as if this were an active or publicity-seeking event; in reality, she came out quietly, gradually, to various levels of friends and colleagues over time. The phrase "since coming out" might reflect this subtle difference better. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I also dislike "since outing herself." Personally, I find "coming out" and its cognates to be too informal for an encyclopedia. A more professional expression would be appropriate, such as "since openly acknowledging..." or "since disclosing her transexuality..."
— James Cantor (
talk) (formerly,
MarionTheLibrarian) 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
References
Recent edits have introduced at least one sort of flowery phrase, "While struggling with life in a male role..." Doesn't "While living as a man" or "Before transitioning from male to female" or some other plainer phrase sound more, well, encyclopedic? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Under #Transgender activism and controversy, if the single-quoted half-sentence is a direct quotation, then it needs double quote marks and an inline ref at the end.
The external link visible at "prevalence of transsexualism" needs to be removed, as external links should not be visible in an article per WP:EL#Important points to remember #3. (The usual solution is to turn it into a ref.)
Finally, I think that feud is a reasonably accurate description of the standing enmity, feelings of being attacked, guilt by association, and so forth affecting the various factions (do click the link and read at least the lead to Feud), and I don't think that "academic debate" is even close to adequately descriptive. For one thing, it implies that Conway has the same academic credentials in the relevant field, since an academic debate is most often a debate among peers -- not a long-running argument between an "expert" or "professional" in the field, and a person in an entirely unrelated field that feels personally disparaged by the "expert opinion". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Am I to understand that the New York Times is apparently not a good enough source for this article? Nevard ( talk) 04:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I am surprised that no mention is made in the article about Conway's paper (with Femke Olyslager) about the prevalence of transsexualism. The paper, which was presented at the WPATH Symposium in 2007, shows that when counted on the basis of the number of hospital procedures the incidence of transsexualism is far higher than the estimate commonly used by the medical profession. Everybody got to be somewhere! ( talk) 15:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Have had edits removed twice by User:Msnicki for adding this article to the transgender and medicine category. Taking this to the talk article. Last removal was due to Conway not being a physician. I'll note that the topic of medicine doesn't only cover physicians but the general study and practice of health care and this can take many forms. My addition of the category to the article is due to Conway's criticism of psychological theories on transsexuality and her website on transgender medical procedures. Rab V ( talk) 23:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lynn Conway. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lynn Conway. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lynn Conway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Lynn Conway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Conway has been a prominent critic of the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of male-to-female transsexualism that all{{dubious|reason=a typology that only recognizes a small number of formal categories—even a highly reductive typology—does not necessarily assert itself as total and exhaustive; if this typology does assert itself as total and exhaustive, please provide a source affirming this in black and white}} trans women are motivated either by feminine homosexuality or autogynephilia.
From another perspective, this is a simple matter of principal component analysis. BBL theory seems to me to assert that the first two principle components account for all the statistically significant signal their relatively small studies are capable of yielding.
"Well, I looked into this as deeply as my research funds permitted, and I only found two principle components that I could legitimately write about by the standards of academic evidence."
Translating this into a claim that "all" transsexual women are captured by these two principle components is quite possibly an extreme injustice to the original research.
Did they or did they not go there in how they presented their original results?
In my experience, formal academic papers of any kind rarely go there in an explicit register (it only makes your paper harder to publish and later defend); what you tend to find is what the detractors paint as "professionally irresponsible" subtext.
In this context, the citation standards on Wikipedia do not lean toward teasing out professionally irresponsible subtext (outside of postmodernist circles, it's not universally agreed that is the prevailing ethical model of the scientific enterprise), and to claim this even indirectly here on Wikipedia requires a strong and explicit citation from an intermediate party of some substantial standing. — MaxEnt 17:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)