Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 614:

::I personally don't see what benefit there is in merging this notion into this already mammoth article.--[[User:Hfarmer|Hfarmer]] ([[User talk:Hfarmer|talk]]) 00:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

::: Do we really have to get into attacking editors so soon ("no tool of BBL")? Believe it or not, some people here just want to make good articles. It would have sufficed to say, "You should have invited Dickylon, since they are active in that article."

::: "Female essence", in most of those references, isn't about a scientific theory -- nor do they use the phrasing in the article ("feminine essence" -- Blanchard's term). The very nature of using the term "essence" is pretty unscientific; that's a philosophical term ([[essentialism]] v. [[non-essentialism]]). Now, I don't think any non-Blanchardian theories belong in the BBL article -- only Blanchard's foil term. Legit, independent, notable theories deserve their own article. If there was a single comprehensive "female essence" scientific theory (which I see no evidence of -- just the occasional use of the term "female essence", not as a theory), it should have its own article. But all non-Blanchardian theories should not be lumped into one article simply because Blanchard does that, and nor should it be under Blanchard's choice of name for it. There are alternative theories of transsexualism -- for example, Ramachandran's innate body image theory, which suggests that transsexualism is a form of innate phantom limb syndrome. Lumping them all into a foil to Blanchard's theories using Blanchard's non-scientific term is improper, IMHO.

::: Now, there could be an issue if the individual theories do not meet Wikipedia standards sufficient for their own article -- notability, for example. I would be open to the existence of a broader article on transsexualism theories. But not simply as a foil to Blanchard, presented as "Blanchard vs. Everything Non-Blanchard using Blanchard's term for everything not under his theory". -- [[Special:Contributions/70.57.222.103|70.57.222.103]] ([[User talk:70.57.222.103|talk]]) 06:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)