Talk:Transvestic fetishism

Untitled

Fetishes on cross dressing

• Return Petticoating article - Someone redirected the "Petticoating" article to this page. The "Petticoating" article deserves to be included in Wikipedia. Originally, both it and the current "Transvestic fetishism" articles both had their own pages (perfectly fine), but then several vandals (Mdwh and Dr Zak, among others) moved the "Petticoating" article to the "Transvestic fetishism" page and redirected readers from the original "Petticoating" article to this one on "Transvestic fetishism." Both pages should appear among Wikipedia's articles, as they originally did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpscholar (talk • contribs)

The discussion was at Talk:Petticoat Discipline. The upshot, as far as I can see it that there is nothing wrong with an article on petticoating per se. There were however serious problems with your article, it's unreferenced, ill-defined and written in the style of an essay.

The fact that your article its getting pasted all over Wikipedia doesn't help much either. Dr Zak 01:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, Gpscholar, but the one who persistanly moved the Pettycoating article into this one was you. I also doubt that anybody would mind an NPOV article about that pettycoat-thingy, under an appropriate title. And as your moving mania shows, you should know enough about WP to retrive the article in question. Therefore, this complaint is obviously made in bad faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexR (talk • contribs)

Proposed merge

I have proposed that the article on Autogynephilia be redirected to this article. It seems that this article is about the actual psycological diagnosis in the DSM IV which coresponds to Autogynephillia. What do the people who edit this article think of this proposal? 66.92.130.180 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a very good idea, because it confuses this humbug-diagnosis of autogynephilia with one that is indeed in the DSM. Not to mention that the other article is about women who get SRS, while this one here is specifically about people who won't get it. And the other is about one specific outsider theory with no merrits whatsoever, which should not be thrown into with any other articles. -- John Smythe 19:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If anything should be merged at all it's the articles on Ray Blanchard and Autogynephilia. Autogynephilia is a controversial concept/theory (to be polite) related to gender dysphoria, and Ray Blanchard's fame AFAIKS rests on having invented that theory. Transvestic fetishism on the other hand has nothing to do with gender dysphoria, on the contrary, it involves men dressing up as women. Dr Zak 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, well, so the theory goes ... but you can bet that there is a considerable number of transwomen who tried to tell themselfes that they were just transvestic fetishists. There is a considerable number who tried to cope by cross-dressing in all variations.

I am not sure about a merge with Ray Blanchard either; there are after all a few more who promote this theory, it isn't called B(lanchard)B(aily)L(awrence) for nothing. -- John Smythe 23:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

All of the above is somewhat true. But I have found the following information on the matter. The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism (2003), page 169, third paragraph. This accursedly simplistic book is a primary source in this source at the location I have refred to transvestetic fetishim is equated with autogynephillia. Perhaps the catch is the severity of the condtion. Certainly most men who crossdress who are avdily hetero, comfortable and successful as men etc would not desire a sex change. What this article is about does not seem to be what it's title is about. The article seems to be about casual cross dressing that does not yet rise to the level of the true diagnosis of transvestetic fethisism. As a matter of fact here is what I would do with the article on transvestetic fethisism.--Smartgirl62 14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged.

Proposed post merge version of this article between these lines.

---

Transvestic fetishism: Proposed post merge article.

Transvestic fetishism is a sexual fetish for the clothing and/or role of the opposite gender. It is one of a number of Transgender behaviors and is primarily a psychiatric term as defined in the DSM Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Transvestic fetishism, fetishistic transvestism and sometimes transvestism are also often used to describe any sexual behavior or arousal that is in any way connected to clothes of the other gender. In the most extreme form this behavior has been called “Autogynephillia”. In plain language this term means men who are attracted to the image of themselves as women. Hence they seek gender reassignment surgery.

Also, not every sexual behaviour where clothes of the other gender are involved are transvestic fetishism, they are also often used in sexual roleplay without being a fetish. Also, many transgendered people, mostly transwomen, also cross-dress, in sexual situations, before coming out.

A folded cream-coloured full slip

Some male transvestic fetishists collect women's clothing, e.g. nightgowns, slips and other types of nightwear and lingerie. They may dress in these feminine garments and take photographs of themselves to live out their secret fantasies. Many men love the feeling of wearing silk or nylon and adore the silky fabric of women's nightwear and lingerie.

Most transvestic fetishists are said to be heterosexual men. As of late there are in fact studies which affirm this. Even those who seek gender reassignment surgery will remain married to their wives if they can. The studies which affirm these observations are not without controversey however.

When is it a psychiatric condition?

According to the DSM IV-TR the diagnositc criteria for this condition are.

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, in a heterosexual male, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing.

B.The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Specify if: With Gender Dysphoria: if the person has persistent discomfort with gender role

Controversy

Continued inclusion in the DSM The DSM is the diagnostic and statistical manual of the American psychiatric association. Mental disorders are classified and cataloged in the DSM. Work on the DSM V has begun and there are discussions about the validity of transvestetic fetishism being a paraphillia and gender identity disorder being a mental illness. By 2010 these disorders may not be considered...disorders any more. There are mental health workers who say that it should not be an article of shame and pathologizeation to be arounsed by womens clothes. Afterall how is that so different from being aroused by a photograph of a woman?

Reactions among transwomen

The model is highly controversial and conflicts with the commonly accepted model of gender identity disorder. Some suggest that, since correlations do not establish causality, Blanchard may be mistaking a symptom of gender dysphoria for its primary cause. The model has also been questioned on the grounds that it does not properly account for the behavior and self-identification of a great many transsexual and transgender women. Proponents of the concept, who are classic, primary, "homosexual transsexuals", have asserted that "autogynephiles" are willfully deceiving others in claiming to exhibit behaviour that does not fit within it. Specifically they repeat the well known, canned, history of a "homosexual transsexual". A number of transwomen, who could be described as autogyneophilles have accepted this theory. They take the diagnosis of DSM Code 302.3 Transvestic Fetishism ( autogynephillia ) as an adequate description of themselves. Where as the alternative theories deny their desire for sex reassignment all together.

References ( I will fill this out for the actual article)

Related topics

• Compare also: List of transgender-related topics
• Category:Transgender people and behavior
• Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders
• Category:Sexual fetishism
• de:Transvestitischer Fetischismus
• is:Transvestic fetishism
• he:פטישיזם טרנסווסטי
• nl:Travestiet

---

How does the above read to you all? This seems concise and to the point and covers both concepts fairly and wihout bias.

As for my opinoion of this as a model for why some transsexuals are the way they are. I think this model is overly simplistic and faluty. A more in depth model is needed to really know what the heck is going on. Many people feel insulted by this description of what they are as being a paraphillia. A sexual disorder on the same level as peadophillia, or beastiality. I would say they are right to be offended by that. Historically what would count as a paraphillia seems to vary with time and place. So I give no weight to the idea that those designations have any meaning. --Smartgirl62 14:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Errr ... you are aware, I hope, that at least in the German WP there is an article on TVF as well as one on autogynephilia? -- John Smythe 17:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

ErrRerr.. We don't have to do what the Germans say we beat them remember. :-) Seriously the evidence I have preseted in particular a link to a book written by one of the psychologitwho studies all of this says that they are the same thing. Now I am no psychologist myself. But I think they know their own theories. Here agin I post the link. The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism (2003), page 169, third paragraph.--Smartgirl62 21:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why the idea of transvestic fetishism is controversial - this is about a fetish, not merely cross-dressing, and so shouldn't apply to transsexuals. This proposed merged version seems to confuse the two very different concepts of transvestic fetishism and transsexuality, as if they were the same thing. You have also put in other changes, such as stating that there are studies affirming that "Most transvestic fetishists are said to be heterosexual men", without giving any references (unless you have some to put in?) Mdwh 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad proposal -- too much content missing

What's the point of this proposal? Most of the information from the other article is missing. Now, it does not belong here anyway, but you know, removing material is a bad, bad, bad idea. -- John Smythe 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well most of the content of the other article was POV garbage. A bunch of misdirected sour grapes. Wikipedia is not the forum for refuting or arguing for anyting. Articles should just be a dry and concise presentation of facts. Keeping trash is never a good idea. I take it you are in favor of the status quo on this issue. No need to yell Mr. Smythe. --Smartgirl62 13:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• yawn* I am not yelling, and this article does stick to the facts. I also don't know what you think the status quo of the issue (which issue?) is, so I can't tell you whether I am in favour of it. I also don't quite see where the "sour grapes" are supposed to be; it isn't as if people could possibly gain something from being called either pervertes or thiefs. And if there are no potential gains, then there are no sour grapes, either. Whatever, I guess I won't bother with your rants any more; they are conspicuously lacking any arguments, and you are loosing the VfD anyway. -- John Smythe 13:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You think anything I have wrote is a rant. Apparently you have not seen very many rants. Nice technique though. Calling someones argument a rant is a good way to make other people ignore it. --Smartgirl62 13:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally not inline with self-identification

The problem that I see with such a merge, is that autogynephilia is a proposed etiology for transsexualism (which has its own DSM and ICD entry), while transvestic fetishism is exactly that, a fetish. TVF is an intense sexual interest in wearing female CLOTHING, while autogynephilia is an intense sexual interest to BECOME female. There is a very explicit difference here, and I don't see how mingling the two would make any sense, clarify anything, or help anyone.

At worst, it would cause an autogynephiliac transsexual to read this page and go "Oh, I just have a fetish for wearing women's clothing", when in reality they would best receiving treatment as a transsexual as soon as possible. I am not an autogynephiliac transsexual, but even I at some point wondered if this was "just a fetish", which is what I went on for at least a year as an explanation. But after reading about TVF, it was clear that this is was not what I was suffering with (yes, "suffered," my issues were causing me considerable distress and difficulty in life), and after reading about "autogynephiliac transsexuals" vs "homosexual transsexuals" from Anne Lawrence (who agrees with Blanchard quite strongly) I figured I had to be an autogynephiliac transsexual, since I sure wasn't so pronouncely placed in the homosexual transsexual category that it could be called, also Blachard and Anne Lawrence tend to have a very strong "you're A or B" attitude towards this issue no different than "you're either man, or you're woman", and anyone in the TG spectrum should easily dismiss the latter, why not the former?

I'm certainly not strictly homosexual transsexual, I've had only male-female sexual relationships in my life (as a male), but yet I see now just how unfufilling and undesired they were to me. Yet, my transsexuality is so deep that I absolutely despise my penis, I am presenting full-time as a female before I've even had hormones, and before I made my decision, I was a complete and miserable mess, who was apathetic about everything. The Autogynephilia response may represent a number of transsexuals, but it leaves out more than just the homosexual transsexuals, and the position that "if you're bi, then you're autogynephiliac" is perposterous. What kind of person working with TGs would ever even THINK that such a declination were possible? I mean, don't they deal with people in between all the time? --Puellanivis 01:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Let it be known that I am the same person as Smartgirl62. I have decided to step out from behind the curtain. :-)

First to the poster above if you really want to know if you are HSTS or AGP you need to go to a psychologist. They will interview you for about six months, then ask you a LONG list of questions like those found in Man Who Would Be Queen page 192. Then they will diagnose you. If you get your hands on the actual DSM IV-TR you will see the way GID and transvestic fetishism are presented in the DSM with TVf as a subheading under GID. If they just diagnose GID then you are not an autogynephile. If they diagnose TVF then you are definately an autogynephile. Only a psychologist who is versed in this theory and who feels such a theory is valid will give you this information.

The only difference between TvF as described by this article and autogynephillia is the presence or absence of gender identity disorder due to that fetish.--HFarmer 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

However, the Blanchard school treats both groups as men with a mental disorder, only that the alleged disorder is different, or the cause of the gender identity disorder. In the "HSTS" group, the disorder is supposedly extreme effeminacy that is virtually impossible to suppress (along with homosexuality, which the Blanchard school still ultimately views as pathological), and that makes it very hard to live as a man, even inside the gay scene, while in the "AGP" group the root disorder is claimed to be a special paraphilia ("autogynephilia") caused by transvestic fetishism.

Nevertheless, when pressed on this point, Blanchard et al. also claim they do not deny transition treatment to anyone they deem "AGP" in principle. (Whether this is actually true I have no idea. Clearly anyone who fits the "HSTS" type should find it a lot easier to blend in as a woman than the typical representative of the "AGP" type will, however, since transition appears to relieve the issues of the "AGP" group, too, there is no principled reason to deny them treatment, as long as they are clear on the risks and disadvantages.)

In fact, as argued here, transition treatment (HRT, at least) is a logical solution for a crossdressing paraphilia that the patient is suffering from. Whether the patient will undergo further treatment such as epilation, voice training or surgeries – and whether the patient will actually go on to publicly come out live as a woman at any point – should be left to their own discretion.

Reading older literature like this, by the way, it becomes obvious that the Blanchard school is still stuck deeply in the attitudes of the 1960s and 1970s (when cisgender psychiatrists were still unsuccessfully looking for psychological causes of transsexualism and ways to "cure" transsexualism without transition, and focussing their efforts on transsexuals assigned male at birth while neglecting the female-assigned ones), and in fact even fall behind the more nuanced hypotheses and classifications of the time. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The 2nd picture

Does the second picture really represent "Transvestic fetishism"? The person depicted look more like a woman then a man to me which would make it not an example transvestic fetishism. I could be wrong though.--Cab88 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

File:Bluedress.jpg

Indeed. Click on the picture, then go to its commons history. Then go to other contributions by the same person and you'll find this self-portrait. --AliceJMarkham 12:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• None of the three images in this article at present illustrates transvestic fetishism.

The first and third might have captions that claim they represent transvestic fetishism, and both were contributed by a person identified as "Fetishist", but those are the only indications. They merely show some items of underwear/lingerie which would not be out of place in an article about stockings or slips. It should not be necessary to look at other images, not in the article but by the same person, in order to see that they might be related to Transvestic Fetishism.

The second image is a generic photo of ankles and feet in stockings, and serves to illustrate the caption that says some men find stockings erotic.

I don't know if there are some better images out there, but I believe that the first and second of these are certainly not worth including as they stand, and all of them are only about transvestic fetishism as experienced by males.49Sally (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd go further than Sally. These pix add absolutely nothing to the article. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please review an addition

User:71.231.210.181 has included the text:

A small number of people with Transvestic Fetishism, as the years pass, want to dress and live permanently as women, and desire surgical or hormonal sex reassignment. In such cases the diagnosis should be changed to Transsexualism.

with an accompanying reference. Remembering something that happened long ago, I may have overreacted and deleted that text. Upon questioning, I've restored the text and would like more qualified people to comment. (Everybody is more qualified than I am, should be easy?) Shenme 04:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my edit. 71.231.210.181 05:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Yes we have heard this all so mnay time before i really do fail to see why we must be continued you labled as some quite of weird peoples we are not this way at all we are just peoples like anyone else except that we want to and desire to dress and be just the opposite of the way we were born that is we want to dress in what is still refered to as women or girls clothing and really folks is it so very awful to want to be who and what you are suppose to be male and or female we are al humnas and should be accepted as what we are inside as well as out it is not some fad or weakness we are what we are and thats the way it really should be if and when you want to be or become the opposite of what you were born as theyn who is really to question it at all being labled only makes it all the harder!

Jay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleventhdr (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Causes of Transvestic Fetishism.

Definition:

Transvestic fetishism is defined as sexual arousal by clothing belonging to the opposite sex of the subject.

The Transvestic fetishism is contrary to homosexual fetishism, which consists in the sexual arousal by clothing belonging to the same sex of the subject.

Description:

It is complete in the principal article...

Possible Causes of Transvestic Fetishism:

According to the DSM-IV, this fetishism has been described only in heterosexual men.

The main reason why a fetishist man get aroused by women's clothing is mainly due to the material they are made garments, the softer to the touch, the greater the stimulation. In fact, is the stimulation of the erogenous zones causing sexual arousal in the fetishist man.

If a man wears woman's clothing , such as lycra stockings, made of a smooth and soft material, to the contact with the corresponding erogenous zones, including the buttocks, feet and legs, will cause sexual arousal in the man due to stimulation of the erogenous zones.

Most people think a transvestite is a homosexual, but all are heterosexual by nature with a certain homosexual attraction, as to he feels sexual arousal by seeing other men dressed in women's clothing.

This last happens for a narcissistic sexual theory that says:

"That that arouse you to wear on your own person will arouse you by seeing it in other people of your same sex."

According to this, If a man get aroused by wearing skirts, he will get aroused by seeing other men who wear skirts, even more that see women wearing them.

But both, the man and the woman who wear a skirt, will be a source of sexual arousal for him.

Classification of sexual fetishes, two categories for sexual fetishes:

A) Transvestic fetishes involving sexual objects belonging to the opposite sex.

B) Gay/homosexual fetishes that involves sexual objects belonging to the same sex.

Rafaelosornio (talk)

Possible Transvestic fetishism treatment:

Transvestic fetishism treatment:

The transvestic fetishism treatment consists of not wearing women´s clothing, and stay away from them and from the sight of men who wear them. Rafaelosornio (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted you. Your information is unsourced. We have no way of knowing that you are a researcher in this field. And even if you are, you must adhere to our WP:Reliable sources guideline and our WP:Original research policy. Read that, and also read WP:MEDRS and WP:Conflict of Interest. Flyer22 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:LGBT about similarity among several related articles

A discussion about the similarity and differences among several articles including Cross-dressing, Transvestism and other related articles (Drag (clothing), this article, Ball culture, et al.) is taking place at WT:LGBT. Your feedback is welcome. Mathglot (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC) Archived. Mathglot (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

transvetic fetishism

transvetic fetishism is a made up disorder I can't find anything online about it other than it definition I can't find one person that admits to having it can't find anything in social media like facebook such as group page or webpage devoted to it nothing but it definition which is not that well define such as most people that have it or heterosexual men but then says they some times sleep with other men that would make them bisexual I think it made up disorder and should be removed from wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.118.111.22 (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Straining to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding the seriousness of your question: you "couldn't find anything online" about it? And your go-to sources are Facebook and social media? Wikipedia does not allow article content that is present only in social media, since they are a self-published source, and not considered reliable for verifying article content. The definition is quite well-defined: it's code F65.1 in ICD-10, and 302.3 in DSM-IV TR. (In both cases, they are up for review for the next version, but they are clearly defined.) If you want to make general comments about whether the disorder exists or give your personal opinion about it, please don't do it here; you can use the Ref Desk for that. Mathglot (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I said any where online you idiot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.118.111.22 (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Glamour (presentation)

Can someone tell me if Glamour (presentation) is a fetish? --14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The article rewrite/expansion and its reversion

Edit: Never mind, please disregard. – 104.177.77.7 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I passed off to WT:LGBT because I didn't have the bandwidth to fully deal with this. Since you've pinged 1 of the 3 respondents there, I'll add pings for User:Flounder fillet and User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the overemphasis on 'conditioning' and social explanations in the 'causes' section. The sources don't really put much emphasis on that. The Lawrence source seems to suggest against it. As I understand it, Blanchard and Bailey believe it is probably non-social or random. For example, Bailey 2003 page 169 states "Regarding the fundamental question of whether autogynephiles are born or made, my intuitions are with “born.” Perhaps every day in this country, at least one adolescent boy secretly puts on his mother’s or sister’s lingerie for the first time, becomes sexually aroused, and masturbates. As far as anyone can tell, there is nothing unusual about the environments of these boys, and certainly nothing in their environments obviously contributes to their unusual preoccupation. This smells innate to me. (I do not claim to be making a strong case here.) Anecdotally, I have heard several accounts of first-degree relatives (brothers, or fathers and sons) who discovered that both were cross-dressers. The discovery was invariably after both relatives had a great deal of cross-dressing experience that they had hidden from each other. This smells genetic to me. Again, though, this is not meant to be a strong argument".

Also, the Lawrence source you used actually has an entire section dedicated to "possible biological factors" which you made no mention of? Edit: just to clarify, this comment shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of Blanchards typology. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You have effectively announced the intent to create a WP:CFORK in your edit summary here. The contents of the body make this a clear WP:POVFORK. Flounder fillet (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Two notes:

• 1) I followed Wikipedia policies for the article, like WP:RS, WP:MEDMOS, and WP:MEDRS.

• You added almost 160 citations to a single book chapter by Lawrence (not a MEDRS)
• You added ~70 citations to the DSM-5, many of which are not supported by the text. Such as Most cases of transvestism involve autogynephilia or The concept of autogynephilia, which is believed to underlie most cases of transvestism, was introduced in 1989 by Canadian sexologist Ray Blanchard.
• Apart from Lawrence, there were 100s of citations to WP:FRINGE scholars such as Blanchard, Bailey, and Zucker
• The article frequently conflates "transvestism" and "transvestic fetishism" - the DSM-5 is clear that they are different.
• The Notable cases section is entirely BLP violations - is there any evidence Virginia Prince, F1NN5TER, or Vladimiros Nicola have been diagnosed with "tranvestic fetishism"? You use Lawrence to diagnose a bunch of people "Caitlyn Jenner, Deirdre McCloskey, Kate Bornstein, Katherine Cummings, Nancy Hunt, Rebecca "Becky" Allison, and Renée Richards, among others" as having "transvestic fetishism", same issue.
• TLDR you did not follow Wikipedia's policies - the article conflated as you rewrote it conflated two things that are not considered the same, committed BLP violations, misrepresented MEDRS, and heavily relied on WP:FRINGE sources.

• 2) If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to rewrite this article? I ask because it's very odd for an IP editor to completely rewrite an article from scratch like this.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• I waited to comment after seeing this posted at WT:LGBT to think about the matter and see what others said.

I've only given a fairly brief skim to the long version, but I agree with a number of the critiques above. Specifically: the section listing BLPs is very problematic. You need to use only sources specifically about "transvestic fetishism" in this article. Other content may be better at transvestism and perhaps cross-dressing, contingent on it being well-sourced and reaching consensus there. I see that some sources are WP:PRIMARY, which on a medical topic not to mention a controversial topic, should just be dropped. Please stick to review articles, academic books, and similar absolutely top-tier sources. And these have to be used fairly - both the views within them and in terms of which sources you choose.

Contra some of the comments above, while Blanchard's two-type theory of the causes of gender identity in trans women, and of autogynephilia being one of them, holds less sway these days, that isn't necessarily the case for everything he and others in that sphere have said about 'transvestism', or autogynephilia in itself. Certainly there do exist people who are cis men, yet engage in cross-dressing as an erotic activity or fantasy. In this distinct sphere, I don't think we can say (at least based on what I've seen so far) that Blanchard and others' research is widely rejected - it's in the extension of such theories to explain gender identity and gender transition where the problems start. As noted here, the DSM-5 does include autogynephilia as a specifier to "transvestic disorder", and the DSM-5 is certainly not fringe.

I can certainly understand why having one's work reverted would be frustrating, but to be fair, it is a controversial topic, so I'd be more surprised if a big addition did not cause waves. I'd suggest that, after revising your work to drop the problematic stuff, you then think about what article each bit would really belong in. Then, only address a small part at a time; re-adding it all wholesale isn't going to happen. If high-quality sources exist with the opposite POV to the ones you have been using, add them, and use WP:In-text attribution liberally (e.g. 'psychologist Jones states that... professor of trans studies Smith argues that this is instead due to...' etc.) Crossroads ^-talk- 20:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the responses. I've reassessed my aims based on the input. It's clear to me now that this subject area is very hot-button and it would be a very difficult and involved process to reach consensus on the content and complete the rewrite. I'll be honest, I shouldn't really be spending time on any of this and need to be focusing on off-wiki things. I was hoping for a reasonably fast resolution (as in the article being restored) and other editors besides myself working out any disagreements and problems with the content. But per the comments, that seems quite unlikely. I tend to get really sucked into things, so further working on the rewrite, particularly considering how controversial and contested the subject matter is, wouldn't be good for me and I can't really have. Moreover, I was enjoying myself working on the article before, and it's clear to me that further working on the rewrite from here would not be especially fun. As such, while quite painful to have put in so much work for nothing, I've accepted the situation and have decided to withdraw the content submission from consideration. Thank you for your time. – 104.177.77.7 (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)