Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

What makes one an expert on any of this.

Academic credentials? Direct knowledge? For example if we say that one must have an academic credential to be an expert on this...then someone who wrote a book on this but had no direct knowledge would be more of an expert than say...Anjelica Kieltyka, or perhaps Juanita/Maria.  :-? Which would be totally absurd. On the other hand much credit has to be given to someone with an academic degree for the expertise related to that degree. However in the words of Richard Feynman "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Therefore would say being a illustrious professor of English, Economics, and Microwave Cookery should not automatically make one an expert on this matter? :-/ How about if that professor is them self a transsexual? Should that have any bearing on the question of weather or not they are an expert. I think it does if the illustrious professor was here in Chicago and has some good first and second hand knowledge to draw on. Personally I don't think being a professor/PhD/MD/ grad student has any bearing on the matter at all unless you are a psychologist AND have shown familiarity with the situation. But that's just my opinion.

lol as you can see the "answer" we got from RS/N raises at least as many questions as their are peer commentaries lol :-) What say you all? --Hfarmer (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking atthis list Here are the commentaries I think we should stick with. They are people who for any number of reasons have undeinable expertise, Most need no explanation. Disagreed with Dreger, Bancroft, Barres, McCloskey, and Serano; Agreed with dreger, Richard Green and Anne Lawrence; Neutral Jonathan M. Alder A advanced graduate studet of psych at NU from 2003 until recently (perhaps a newly minted PhD by now?) he seems to have some good insights. I will also look at using some of these as matterials for other articles. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS sets the standard for "expert" at having published on the topic in an RS. Neither being a psychologist nor being transsexual are, in themselves, sufficient. The commentators whom I know off-hand to have previously published on sexology in an RS are: John Bancroft, Ray Blanchard, Alice Dreger, John Gagnon, Brian A. Gladue, Richard Green, Anne A. Lawrence, Marta Meana, Charles Moser, Bruce Rind, and Marilyn P. Safir. All that would be necessary to add someone else would be to provide the RS that that person published. If "topic" were interpreted to mean "transsexuality" instead of "sexology," then the list of experts becomes shorter, of course.
Although a second uninvolved editor has now endorsed my summary at RS/N, I repeat my apology for speaking out of turn. In my readings of the rules, I have not seen such a policy. I would be grateful if someone would direct me to where that policy is, so I can avoid making similar faux pas in the future.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that, because a self-published source can be reliable for eyewitness statements, such as "I had sex with him" -- which must be represented as "Gennifer Flowers said that she had sex with Bill Clinton," and not as "Flowers really did have sex with Clinton." For the purposes of RS, a self-published statement from McCloskey has sufficient "expertise" to support an assertion of what McCloskey did or didn't do/think/say. McCloskey is not, however, an expert on the classification of transsexuality, the motivations of other actors, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is that critics see these "experts" as akin to the kinds of "experts" who came up with the moron/imbecile/idiot taxonomy for cognitive ability: as pseudoscientific quacks whose ideas will eventually be seen as akin to phrenology and drapetomania (see for instance, Gagnon's statements about these schemes for organizing transsexuals). If only trained phrenologists can comment on phrenology (as is the case being made here), the article produced would have a strong pro-phrenology bias and would exclude important criticism. To claim that only scientists can comment on science ignores the important contributions to our understanding of science, pseudoscience, and pathological science via other disciplines. Jokestress (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not a very effective argument. For example some of the people on J_C's list (i.e. Bancroft) disagreed with dreger and have been critical of Bailey. Furthermore what you have said basically impunes the whole of academia. We are not always right but at least we give it a try. Let me show you a good arguement against J_C's rather elitist POV on this matter.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

J_C it does not take being a astronomer to look up into the sky, at the right place, and right time, to see a meteor impact. It does not take being an PhD in African American Studies to be able to comment on African American culture. You would agree that these are all true. Any reasonably inteligent educated, sightted person, or black person respectively could observe and write down what they saw/felt/experienced. That kind of direct experience is what Serano, and McCloskey have. I agree with you that does not make them or any other transsexual a world beating expert on transsexuality in general. I agree that would not make one an expert on the science of transsexualism. Nor would academic credentials in a far removed (not even scientific field, i.e history, economics, literature, gender studies, underwater basketweaving) be and being a transsexual sufficient to make one an expert on all aspects of this issue.

HOWEVER in this sense and this sense alone Serano and McCloskey are both experts... on how they related to TMWWBQ, the controversey, and their considered opinions of the book (Which I know McCloskey has read. I have been in her condo and seen her copy (sans dust jacked lol). ) They do not comment out of ignorance though I understand their immediate reactions to that picture. When it comes to the sciene content of the book I would say with all due respect to Dr. McCloskey she is not a scientist of any kind and her comments on that level should be totally ignored by us. Dr. Serano on the other hand is a biologist and would have some knowledge of the mechanisms that control the (sexual-gender)behavior of various organisms. (I write "(sexual-gender)" because when you look at non humans who cannot talk or express what we see as gender it's hard to tell gendered and sexual behavior apart.) That and she would have knowledge of how we say the scientific method works..and how it really works in practice.

Last but not least in general the reports of people who are more or less eye witness's to the happenings are as good as gold. We use them to convict people of murder and justify the sentence of death. Such people as Dr. Adler are in that position. There is no real reason to restrict our use of these commentaries to just those that are by psychologist/sexologist. Their are issues here that go beyond sexology.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never said, nor do I believe, that one needs a PhD to make a comment. I only reiterate the WP policy, which is that the opinions that merit mention are those that come from someone who has published on the topic in an RS. If Hfarmer sees that as elitist, her issue is with the WP policy, not with me. Incidentally, although anyone can watch a meteor storm, not everyone's description of the storm gets recorded in an encyclopedia. Hfarmer previously mentioned Richard Feynman; he once compared a scientist versus a non-scientist star-gazing and asked, "Do I see less or more?"

— James Cantor (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh and now you get it. The answer of course is that a scientist Vs non Scientist see equal amounts. Though the difference may be one see's a shining object in the sky and knows what it is the other observes to find out.

As for the elitism of your comment on who's commentary should be used I stand by it. Most if not all of the people on your list are PhD's in something or the other. I see one who is a transsexual, that's it. DID you know that Julia Serano wrote abook about transsexualism too? Is that not a reliable source? Why exclude her on the basis of not having expertise? I say again the scope of who is an expert is MUCH wider than you say. It actually includes a considerable number of people who disagree with your POV.

I suspect that Jokestress's comments on this being like any other case of those with more power and privillage using that to stiffle a minority group. (Ironic since some others have accused her of same.). --Hfarmer (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You ask me to repeat myself. I wrote already that my list was composed of those people whom I knew off-hand to have published in RS's and that anyone else could be added simply by naming the RS that the person produced. If Serano is such a person, so be it. Whether a book counts as an RS is also explicated in WP:SPS. I make no treatise for who is an expert; I point out only (and repeatedly) what the WP criteria are.

— James Cantor (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So your not doing it out of elitist impulses. The only other conclusion left is that you simply wish to bias the article in your POV's favor, which using your slection of people would. I too could say that every person on my list is an expert on the book's publishing and the controversey by any standard includine WP:SPS.--Hfarmer (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What a stupid argument! If someone adds a sourced statement of the opinion of one of the commentators, and then another editor wants to argue that that commentator is not sufficiently expert to be included, we can take up that case at that time. Dicklyon (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hfarmer: We can volley elist/person-of-the-people as many times as you like, but in none of your notes have you actually addressed the wikipedia rules or where my interpretation of them is incorrect. You can indeed say "that every person on my list is an expert on the book's publishing", but WP:SPS draws the line at those who have published on the topic in an RS. So, assuming that you meant your comment sincerely rather than as rhetoric, go ahead: Name the topic-relevant RS's that each of those people have produced.

Dicklyon: "What a stupid argument" is a classic example of WP:Incivility. Although I also think that Hfarmer is incorrect on this particular point, a simple "I disagree" would suffice.
— James Cantor (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing stupid about this arguement this is essential to determining what will and will not be used as source matterial for this article. Which is why we are all here right? You say we can take up that case at that time. Well Dick this is the time right now. Because adding or taking away content from this or that peer commentary is the logical next step in the process. NOW is the time to figure out once and for all just what criteria make one an expert on this matter. I am quite willing to refer this to whatever forum on here is appropriate. I am confident that ANY neutral editor would see that the likes of Julia Serano and Diedre McCloskey or Adler would qualify as experts on this controversey... they were either Directly invovled (McCloskey), Wrote a book that in part deals with this which was NOT self published ("Whipping girl" by Serano), or were an eye witness to some of it (like Adler a psych graduate student at NU from 2003 to recently). The idea that somehow these people are not experts is crazy. Serano's book makes her reliable under WP:SPS McCloskey's early involvement and Adler's position make them Just as reliable and I would say that under the official "Ignore All Rules" policy this is cearly a case where that SPS rule is preventing real improvement to the article and would create a slanted incomplete poor article at best WP:IAR and WP:WIARM and Wikipedia:Wikilawyeringread those carfully. The WP rules exist in order to make this encyclopedia better and fules that get in the way of that goal MUST be ignored. This is a clear case. As for your wikilawyering you are doing 3/4 things it says not to do on that page. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I didn't call James Cantor or you stupid -- just the argument. That's not incivil, is it? Anyway, there's all expert enough. If someone thinks otherwise, say who and why. Dicklyon (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is a witness or involved party an expert or are only published authors experts?

I think it's a silly question. Better question is whether a published opinion of a witness or involved party can be cited, without respect to the concept of "expert". Dicklyon (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardly silly for if they are not experts then by WP:SPS then we cannot use them. Rather than throwing out SPS in this case I think all we should do is be flexible and use common sense about who is or is not an expert.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand the SPS rules. SPS does not say that you can't use self-published sources. It says that you can use self-published sources in certain, limited ways. You cannot use a self-published source to assert something as indisputably factual. You can use a self-published source to support that someone said something. Again: It's "Gennifer Flowers said that she had a sexual affair with Bill Clinton," and not that "She really did."

In the instant case, that means that we can use, say, McCloskey's webpage to support an assertion that McCloskey said something -- say, that McCloskey rejects the Blanchard taxonomy and says personal experience proves it wrong (or at least inapplicable). We cannot use McCloskey's writings to prove that the Blanchard taxonomy is actually wrong. Similarly, we could use James' website to say that James thinks Bailey is a dreadful person who attacked innocent children with his offensive remarks. We cannot use that website to prove that Bailey is actually a dreadful person who attacked innocent children with his offensive remarks.

When we use SPS like this, it is not necessary for the self-publishers to be experts on anything other than their own personal opinions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's statement is correct with regard to the limitation on how the source is used, but WP:SPS also imposes the limitation that the person being quoted is indeed an expert. Not just anyone's SPS can be used as a source: The exact text from WP:SPS is "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (The emphasis is my own.) That is, WP:SPS imposes two restrictions: one for how the SPS may be cited and one for who may be cited with an SPS in the first place.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:wikilawyering again.--Hfarmer (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have. Sticking to the rules is not wikilawyering. The spirit of WP:SPS is quite conservative; the intent of that rule is that SPS's are in general not useable, with only a few rare exceptions for noting the opinions of experts.

To the extent that the uninvolved editors on RS/N said anything on this point, it was entirely consistent with I am saying here. That is, I am saying that the combination of (1) being transsexual, (2) being highly educated, and (3) having read Bailey's book, does not make one's opinion on the book an expert opinion. By analogy, the combination of (1) being pregnant, (2) being highly educated, and (3) having read a book on natural birthing does not make one's opinion on the topic an expert opinion that merits mention in an encyclopedia. This is indeed the spirit, not the letter, of WP:SPS.

Because we have volleyed this back and forth several times now without convincing each other, I think we need to seek more input.

— James Cantor (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the error here is in trying to split off two sides of a debate in a journal, calling one side peer-reviewed and the other side self-published. It's a pretty transparent wikilawyering ploy, driven by an active principal participant in the debate. Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Material in Archives of Sexual Behavior is not "self-published." It's published by one of the largest academic publishers. Trying to use WP:SPS is a clear wikilawyering ploy to minimize critical responses to Dreger and a misuse of Wikipedia policy. Jokestress (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagreed as the RS notice board decided these commentaries are equivalent to self published materials because they were not peer reviewed at all. So we cannot call them peer reviewed. Not all things that are printed in a journal are equal. ASB would have published any thing written by anyone if it was coherent and had something to do with the controversy. That arguement was had on the Reliable sources notice board and J_C's side rightly prevailed. Now he is reaching a bit too far in trying to say that the likes of Serano and McCloskey would not be experts on this situation. By any common sense notion they are as expert as anyone could be on the controversy. This does not mean I am saying that the people on his list are not also experts.

Understand that we have to treat those commentaries as self published sources and use their content with caution. Understand that the definition of an expert has nothing to do with the wording of some page on wikipedia. It has definitions here says "A person with extensive knowledge or ability in a given subject," and here"one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject." J_C your very academic understanding of the word expert which leads you to literally interpret the wording of SPS to be restricted only to published authors flies in the face of all common sense! I will try one more analogy on you.

Following the "logic" advocated by James Cantor if we were writing an article on oil painting or sculpture we could not used the unpublished notes of Pablo Picasso BUT we could use a book written, peer reviewed and published by some bookworm who has never touched a brush or chisel! Yes, that is the kind of outcome aplying your "logic" would bring us to.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hfarmer's on the right track here. Yes, they're SPS-style sources. However, "the subject of the article" isn't solely whether or not MtF transsexuals can be usefully divided into two groups. I don't know much about the content of these commentaries, but if a transgender activist writes that all his/her friends are mad about the book, and that everyone's terribly offended, and that Bailey should crawl under a rock and die of shame, then the relevant aspect of "the subject of the article", as far as SPS is concerned, is the response by transsexual activists, and a transsexual activist is an "expert" for that specific aspect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The RS discussion didn't "decide" anything. We got the comments of a couple of other editors, but mostly the conversation was driven by Cantor and you, so it was pretty useless. And it has not even been concluded. Dicklyon (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

At whatamIdoing get's it. The subject of the pertinent section of the article is not Dr. Blanchard's theory per se but the reaction of the TG activist community and others to the publication of TMWWBQ which contained that theory. The question is more one of politics and society than science. On those aspects the likes of McCloskey Barres and serano are as expert as anyone can.

Dick give it up you lost that round. The peer commentaries are basically self published because no one checked them for acuracy at all. There is just no other way to see it. For that reason what is in them has to be treated with caution and not used as "facts." I admit that on this point I must agree with Dr. One of the people I name as experts should do the work it would take to write a comprehensive history of the controversy. Then publishit in some peer reviewed journal. Though I fear none of them could because to do so they would have to earnestly attempt to interview and listen to Bailey, Blanchard, and James Cantor... Then treat the matterial in a truly objective way. Or write a book about the controversy and get a respected publisher to pusblish their POV. Why not do that? :-/ --Hfarmer (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested using them as facts; they are opinions, and are reliable sources for the relevant opinions of those commentators, just as Dreger's piece is a reliable source for her own opinion, and not for facts, because it's an opinion piece, not a fact-checked piece. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

Regarding the commentaries, clearly I am on my own in my opinion among us. If Hfarmer's logic is used ("On those aspects the likes of McCloskey, Barres, and Serano are as expert as anyone"), then there would be no one who fails to meet WP:SPS, which is clearly outside the intent of WP:SPS and counter what what every uninvolved editor wrote. Although no one has demonstrated how my interpretation is wrong (or the other interpretation correct), I do not (as you all know) edit the main page here, so I will defer to the group. I nonetheless believe that it is against WP policy and the recommendation of RS/N.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There was no recommendation of RS/N, except the one you wrote, and this is not an issue of self-publishing. The commentaries in the journal are all part of one conversation, and should be equally treated as such, for the authors' opinions expressed therein. Self-published sources such as the websites of the same people, or others, can be treated a little differently, but may still be useful for opinions when those people are either principals in the discussion or expect commentators on it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Dick, give it up. The commentaries are not peer-reviewed, fact-checked publications. WP:V doesn't set up an intermediate class of "sort of professionally edited and sort of not" (although that was proposed again recently). They fall under the SPS rules. The SPS rules say that you can't use them to support facts (we can work with that) and that the person needs to be more or less an expert on [that aspect of] the subject (we can work with that). There's nothing here that prevents us from using them. Rather than beating this dead horse, why don't you propose a specific statement that you'd like to use a commentary to support? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I do hereby repeat my stipulation that they're not peer-reviewed and should not be cited for facts. Did someone bring that up? Niether is the Dreger article to be cited for facts; it was "peer reviewed", not fact checked. They're also not self-published. I'm not pushing for any particular content from them, but for example someone (Cantor?) has recently objected to quoting the one by Nichols; what's that about? :::::::Dicklyon (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer-review (at least when it's done properly) includes fact-checking -- and dramatically more fact-checking than the editors of my local newspaper seem to engage in. I assume that you've never done any peer reviews? The process isn't really designed to catch outright liars (you rarely get a full data set to re-run the stats), but you are supposed to catch errors and the misuse of references as well as leaps of logic. If I were peer-reviewing something like Dreger's piece, I'd probably have sent a few e-mail messages to the principal figures, read James' and McCloskey's websites, and seen what other public information I could find. This journal doesn't do open reviews, so I can't tell you if they did the same, but I suspect that my standards are actually very average. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am very familiar with both ends of peer review. But this was not a scientific paper, not about facts, and it's a bit hard to imagine what the peers thought they were reviewing in this case. But it hardly matters, as the "peers", whatever they did, are all representatives of the academic sexologist side of the dispute; the fact that they reviewed Dreger's piece doesn't mean that we can in fairness ignore the other side of the issue as published in the same journal. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying that the other side should be ignored (well it seems that J_C is but other than him). All I am saying is that Dreger's paper had allot more vetting than the peer commentaries did. They need to be included but with caution and common sense. They are not as equal to the article in weight, length, or factual content. For example Dr. McCloskey's commentary is laced with liberal amount of venomous resentment for more youthful transsexuals. i.e. "Yet Dreger treats with the utmost respect Bailey’s generalizations on the basis of a half-dozen gender crossing prostitutes," as if talking to half a dozen TS's with PhD's would have been more balanced. She is incapeable of criticizing the "homosexual transsexual" concept without also criticizing the people Bailey so describes in his book. Should we give ever drop of venom that came out of her pen even a feathers worth of weight? No. Aside from that McCloskey does make valid points about the weaknesses of Dreger's article, and the book TMWWBQ. Things like that should be included. That's what I mean by caution and common sense. Their is also a question of weighting the commentaries VS the article. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Dick, I'm really surprised to see your argument that we can't trust peer reviewed publications to do a decent job with the review because all the reviewers are inherently biased because of being professionals in the field. I don't expect to see that argument outside of anti-psychiatry articles.

I second Hfarmer's statement: The point is not to omit any significant viewpoint. It's to follow the normal Wikipedia rules, which say that a peer-reviewed article is a stronger source than an unchecked, unedited, personal-opinion comment about it. We should treat the peer-reviewed article as a reasonably reliable source of facts and expert opinion. We should not present it as a highly suspect work of fabrication and half-truths just because the work happens to say some things that some people disagree with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you're the one not familiar with peer review. I don't mean to be too critical of peer review in general, but it's been widely known that peer review tends to perpetuate the view of the current paradigm and exclude other views. I could cite Kuhn or Smolin or something if you'd like to learn more about that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, once again from the top, and then I'll give up: Wikipedia rules say that we accept peer-reviewed publications to support facts and expert opinion. As far as I can make out, your evidence that the peer-review process failed/was biased/was inadequate/was done by lazy people who couldn't bother to check any facts/whatever is: you disagree with some of Dreger's conclusions.

I made no such claims. The peer review process did whatever it did. There's not evidence that it included significant fact checking, nor any reason to expect that it would in a case like this. Yes, of course I disagree with some of Dreger's conclusions, but my opinion is not relevant here. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the conclusions of this particular peer-reviewed publication don't line up with your POV (or mine, or anyone else's) is not a sufficient justification for rejecting the publication under Wikipedia policies. It's not even a sufficient justification for endlessly saying "according to [just one horribly biased person named] Dreger" instead of presenting the information in a normal, encyclopedic fashion.

Has somebody suggested rejecting the publication? Not that I recall. Certainly not me. But it's clearly an opinion piece more than a fact piece, so opinions quoted from it to be treated appropriately. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, in my real life, the dominant paradigm is both wrong (well, incomplete) and the knee-jerk perpetuation of it has been a significant problem (which, fortunately for me, has nothing to do with anything as messy as human behavior). So I am perhaps uniquely suited for understanding the expert bias against new ideas.

However, as far as I can tell, the dominant paradigm for transsexuality at the time (and probably still now) was that Bailey's a jerk who made a whole lot of mistakes, and that "I was born in the wrong body" is the true story of all, or nearly all, transsexuals. You will have to pick: either Dreger's piece didn't suffer from a biased review due to its support of the dominant paradigm, or Blanchard's taxonomy is accepted by a wide majority of the relevant experts. It's not logical to say that Dreger's piece got a pass for representing the dominant paradigm unless you are prepared to concede that it actually represents the dominant paradigm according to the relevant experts in the field. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say Dreger's piece "got a pass". My comments were directed to peer review generally. The "dominant paradigm" model is just one model of how peer review works. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ay there's the rub now isn't it? Dicklyon the article by dreger it self can be used as a source of facts because it was peer reviewed. For example..

Fact: Juanita/Sylvia/Maria says she and Dr. Bailey had sexual relations. Fact: Dr. Bailey says he was babysitting at that time and could not have had sex with her. (

Here is where we have to draw the line with using dreger's paper as fact. That is where she draws conclusions. For example from the above two irrefutable facts she jumps to the conclusion....

Conclusion: Therefore Juanita/Sylvia/Maria must be lieing (From here on out I am just going to type JSM and hope you know who I mean).

That conclusion and others like it that Dreger reaches are not the same as the facts that she did find in her investigation. I mean who appointed her judge and jury to acquit Dr. Bailey of the horrible crime of finding some transsexuals attractive. :-/

Do you see the balance I am trying to strike. We have to give Dreger some credit for having the wherewithal to write and research from 56,000 words, to contact as many of the parties as she did, to get it all peer reviewed and published. That says something about the quality of the work. Who knows how much revision and rewriting that paper needed before we ever saw it. Compared to the "peer" commentaries which what...had spell check ran on them that was about it. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If the "facts" she reports are not disputed or contested, I have no problem with Dreger as the source. But if anyone suggests that a a particular item be framed as "according to Dreger" or "Dreger said", then it should be done that way. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK it seems to me that the consensus of the editors is that the peer commentaries writers are experts in some aspect or the other of this matter. So we can use their commentaries under the terms of WP SPS.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Basic Result of the RS/N query Re:Dreger

The below is the last few comments on the reliability of Dreger's article, and the commentaries. As you can see (J_C) wrote a summary, was (rightly) scolded for taking that role, But the content of that summary was affirmed by an uninvolved editor.

_______________________

Discussion appears to have wound down now, so it might be worth summing up the general recommendations of the uninvolved editors. The strongest recommendation, of course, appears to be that Wyndzen is out. Regarding the remaining commentaries, no one expressed the views that all commentaries are in or that all commentaries are out. Rather, it seems that the opinion is a commenatary is in, subject to the restrictions of WP:SPS: A commentary written by an expert on the topic can be used as a source to show what that particular expert's opinions are, but not as a source for facts.

Does this appear to be the general conclusion? Is it better to allow for more conversation or to mark this conversation as complete?

— James Cantor (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

James, I think it is highly inappropriate for you to be writing the summary. We agreed to come here to see what others think. I'll wait and see if an uninvolved editor is willing to summarize the discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You'r right that it was inappropriate for James Cantor to sum up, but his summation seems to be a fair account of consensus. Wyndzen should not be used. Other contributors to the commentaries may be used if they are independently established as experts. Paul B (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Basically I understand this to mean Dr. Wyndzen as of now cannot be used as a source here. The Dreger article can be used as a reliable source on par with any other peer reviewed journal article. All the commentaries have to be treated as self published and vetted on a case by case basis.

I look forward to arguing over just what constitutes expertise in this matter. Why wait?--Hfarmer (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh so do I . Despite degrees in their given area there is nothing beyond "theory" . Peers who know nothing review peers who know nothing and so theories like "the world is flat " gain acceptance because no one knows any different. Psychiatrists , psychologists and "specialists" all pontificate yet not one of them has ever cured a single person . Not one. And worse many have killed the victim , er patient with ex-gay , ex-trans , forced gender changes (Dr. Money ) and yet something like 150 nonhuman species experience exactly the same or high incidence of these variations. Experts ? I didn't know that people who ignore scientific fact were "experts ". So Hfarmer I look forward to you "expertise" assessment. Dreger is no expert nor have her amateur investigations findings been checked. Being quoted in the NYT is not a validation of your sleuthing nor is it relevant to this article and especially given her bias. Countless quacks and frauds have been quoted in news papers over the years. Now we have Andrea James here and James Cantor . Both with some personal issues with this article. I have read it all again, removed the misleading misquotes and references to the NYT's ( I will be happy to reinstate it if ANY of you shows me proof that the NYT's actually investigated ). Till then these are nothing but Dreger quotes disguised . DarlieB (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Tag For Confusing

There can be 2 interpretations of the following sentence:

In 2003, the federal DHHS issued a clarification which formally states that taking oral histories, interviewing people (as if for a piece of journalism), and collecting anecdotes does not constitute IRB-qualified research.

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen#Controversy

One interpretation can be that the federal DHHS formally stated that the following 3 things do not constitute IRB-qualified research:

1. taking oral histories
2. interviewing people (as if for a piece of journalism)
3. collecting anecdotes

(in the order of appearance of the sentence when read from left to right, ignoring wordwrap).

Infact, in number 1, could taking oral histories not constitute IRB-qualified research, or just oral histories?

The second interpretation is that the federal DHHS formally stated that the following 2 things do not constitute IRB-qualified research:

1. taking oral histories, which is interviewing people (as if for a piece of journalism)
2. collecting anecdotes

(in the order of appearance of the sentence when read from left to right, ignoring wordwrap).

So this has to cleaned up.96.53.149.117 (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction that you're drawing, but the serial comma indicates that these are three separate examples of the sort of things that are not IRB-qualified research.

Perhaps you'd like to read the original joint statement on IRB-qualified research as it applies to these kinds of activities and the 2004 reinforcement at the Oral History Association's website. If you want a short summary, then the rule is that IRB-qualified interviews must be purposefully designed to elicit the specific kinds of information that the researcher wants, for the purpose of aggregating it with other highly similar ("systematic") interviews, to draw conclusions on a topic. There are several other distinctions, but one of the key points here is researcher control: if you and I are chatting, even if we're talking about sensitive subjects, then I have as much control over the direction of the conversation as you do. If I feel like telling you, for example, that I'm allergic to cats, then I can volunteer that information. If I don't want you to know, then I just won't tell you. You don't have a set agenda to get a response on the point of "Question 36b: Does the subject have an allergy to cats?" Since we're just talking about whatever subjects interest us, then you aren't controlling my responses in any way.

A few specific examples: Putting a video camera in front of Grandma while she talks about her childhood is not IRB-qualified research. Interviewing people for a printed publication is not IRB-qualified research. Asking every person you meet at a cocktail party the same "ice-breaker" question is not IRB-qualified research. Making notes about the best stories you hear ("collecting anecdotes") is not IRB-qualified research. In short, none of the things that Bailey seems to have done actually constitute IRB-qualified research. (As a result, I suspect that several people would like to have the rules changed -- but those are the relevant rules.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:BBL sidebar

Template:BBL sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 03:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Commentaries

Hfarmer, this edit is poor writing style. "Alternatives to Dreger's POV were presented in commentaries" is good style (if somewhat imprecise, since it pretends that every single comment opposed Dreger's POV). "Commentaries were presented in commentaries" is bad style. What's your goal here? Can we come up with a third way of saying this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I have written instead " 23 Peer Commentaries on Dreger's article are also presented in the same issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior." A little mistake is something one can fix usually without discussion. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole "Academic freedom" section is poor writing style. It's very POV, essentially pushing the view of Bailey's peers. At least the NYT article says that's what it is, but that detail sort of got dropped ("To many of Dr. Bailey’s peers, his story is a morality play about the corrosive effects of political correctness on academic freedom."). And now H has also removed the fact that the commentaries present the other side of the story. This is simply unacceptable POV pushing.

By the way, twenty-three needs a hyphen. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all. There is no standard that says when spelling out a number you need to use a hyphen. Can anyone else say that 1000000 is written out one-million or one million? Second of all not all of those commentaries are by critics of Dregers's report. Based on the discussion held earlier regarding these being self published and such, Which is now archived, all we can really do is mention the fact that these commentaries existed at all. As whatamIdoing said above the way that was written before is also slanted.

I thought this rule was well known and universal, but apparently you've never heard of it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include more information like a count of how many were "favorable" how many were "unfavorable" and how many were "neutral". Then find a RS which says that and include those counts. Otherwise there mere neutral fact they existed is the best we can do by WP:SPS,WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. Oh and as I said on another page. Life is too short for this. I am going to go away for at least two weeks now. DickLyon, AliceJMarkahm, Banjeboi, etc. all can sit up here and make your "neutral" ( :eye roll: ) edits. Edits, the true consequence of which don't seem to get thought about at all. (i.e. rm'ing dregers title and affiliation and leaving in long grandiose titles for critics of BBL theory. So as to legitimate your side (POV). With the unintended consequence of removing the fact that she works at the same place as Bailey and the implication of a possible conflict of interest.).... I swear some of you are so far over on the anti Blanchard side that even someone being really neutral looks like they are on the pro Blanchard side. If JamesCantor or someone else came here and tried to protray those commentaries as all being supportive I would revert that as well.

Happy Holidays --Hfarmer (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a source to categorize them as "favorable" or whatever, but it's certainly clear that they're alternative views. The whole point of mentioning the commentaries is that the view cited by Dreger is not the only view. Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about what you wrote just above here. We still need a RS which says what you want to say. Not all the views in the commentaries are the alternative you like. It characterizes all of the commentaries as going against Dreger to some extent. Which they did not. As I have written somewhere above I like how they were categorized on Conway's site, neutral, supportive, and critical. As she put it most were critical however her website does not meet the standards set by WP:RS OR WP:SPS. If it were not for that I would have no problem with including information from that cite, as well as others on both sides. This would be a much more interesting article if that were allowed. However policy being what it is such things cannot be used. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of a better term than "alternative," which certainly fits most of them. Did some of just back up Dreger? I hadn't seen that. Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes there were commentaries by Richard Green, Bruce Rind, Brian Glaude, and Ann Lawrence (see here for the list) Their were also two that were neutral and three that were on topics other than Dreger's article. That last group certainly wasn't really an alternative since those commentaries went off on tangents to the topic. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just fail to characterize them, with something simple like "Twenty-three comments were published alongside it" or "Reactions by twenty-three other people were published in the same issue." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine with me.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)