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

Line 634:

:::That's why the other article ''should not'' be merged here. The actual subject of the other page is the "woman trapped in a man's body" idea, not "Blanchard's name in a single publication for the idea of a woman trapped in a man's body". Wikipedia doesn't care if the idea is "scientific"; Wikipedia has plenty of room for non-scientific theories. (See, e.g., just about everything written about fine arts, popular culture, business, society, people and athletics.) But Wikipedia should have a page on that idea -- and it should be a completely separate page, entirely dedicated to that concept, and not merged into this unrelated idea.

:::If you think that the FET page is incomplete, then ''please'' expand it. (I do, but I haven't been able to find many good academic sources, and I found Dick's knee-jerk opposition so frustrating that I gave up.) If you think there is a third (or fourth, or seventeenth) [[WP:N|notable]] idea about the nature of transsexuality, then please write those articles, too. This page should be specifically about Blanchard's [[psychological typology]] of MTFs, not 'Career-long summary of everything Blanchard has ever published about MTFs'. The other page should be specifically about the "woman trapped in a man's body" idea. Wikipedia needs one article for each notable idea, not one page with multiple separate ideas mashed together. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:::: But half that article, as it stands, ''is'' about Blanchard's theories. And I'm sorry, but Wikipedia in no way supports arbitrarily lumping independent theories together and calling it a single theory. For something like the fifth time in this section, ''there is no scientific feminine essence theory of transsexuality''. It's an article on a fake theory. Rather, there are a number of ''real'' theories which Blanchard lumps together. Blanchard does not get to dictate how Wikipedia should lay out its articles.

:::: As for a separate article for each theory, first off, "feminine essence" would need to be deleted, since ''it's not a theory''. It's a philosophical concept at best. Secondly, having a bunch of small articles scattered around is in no way conducive to learning about a topic. What good do you think having a short article out there called "Ramachandran's 'phantom limb' theory of transsexualism", and a dozen others like it, will do for anyone? -- [[Special:Contributions/70.57.222.103|70.57.222.103]] ([[User talk:70.57.222.103|talk]]) 05:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)