I read the reference used to source this paragraph:
- J. Michael Bailey, a psychology professor and sex researcher at Northwestern University, published a book called The Man Who Would Be Queen which sharply disagrees with the pro-sex change view. Dr. Bailey argued that MTF sex changes are motivated primarily by erotic interests and not by the problem of having the gender identity common to one sex in the body of the other.
I'll quote from the source referenced:
- Bailey’s rejection of the feminine essence narrative has led a number of readers (and non-readers)
to incorrectly assume that he has also rejected SRS. In particular many I talked to assumed that, like psychiatrist Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins University, Bailey thinks that having autogynephilia (considered a sexual disorder) should eliminate one from SRS candidacy. But, in fact, for autogynephilic as for homosexual transsexuals, Bailey believes that, if the subjects will be happier with SRS, they should seek and obtain it. Indeed, he takes McHugh to task for forcing transsexuals to continue suffering by denying them SRS. “Given our present state of knowledge, saying that we should focus on removing transsexuals’ desire to change sex is equivalent to saying that it is better that they should suffer permanently from gender dysphoria than that they obtain sex reassignment surgery” (p. 207).
The paragraph does not match it's referenced source, and in fact, misrepresents it. I have removed the unsourced, and misrepresenting material. (that he disagrees with the pro-sex change view).
Perhaps we should split Transgender Activism from Transgender (which includes cross-dressing, transvestitism, transsexuality and Intersex), and split Transgender into separate articles on each of those 4 sub-categories. Not everyone who dresses in drag wants surgery, and not everyone who wants surgery dresses in drag. - ZoeB
- Really? What does any of this have to do with Conservapedia:Commandment 2:
- Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language. Rob Smith 13:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)
- I really can't see a reasonable justification for this. While the distinctions given exist, providing an article for each would be covering far too in-depth a sexual topic. It is a common value of conservatives that sex-education should only be provided by the parent. Covering GID, and transgender activism is one thing, however going into depth about what distinguishes a cross-dresser from a transsexual is far too invasive into the territory of sex ed. --Puellanivis 16:34, 7 December 2007 (EST)
- A reasonable, accurate treatment of transgender/intersex/transvestism would not be sexual nor family-unfriendly. If we focus on unfounded claims that transgender/transsexuality is some sort of paraphilia, then it will be -- but then, we could write a lot of pages that way and get nowhere in creating an accurate, family-friendly 'pedia. Gabe 12:18, 22 January 2008 (EST)
- If the goal of Conservapedia is to be a more trustworthy encyclopedia than Wikipedia, as well as to have its articles be as educational as it claims, the articles can't be written like this one. There are two sentences on what it is, and then several paragraphs on what conservatives have against it. If Conservapedia is to be either trustworthy or educational, both sides of a controversial argument need to be on the site, or else neither side. -Grapes
The subsection, == links to homosexuality== is either incomplete or does not belong in this article. This article is about activism, not about transgender links to homosexuality, which belongs in the Transgender article. It's presence here only creates confusion, cause readers came to this page to read about activism, not what a transgender is. That has its own article. RobSFree Kyle! 00:44, August 9, 2021 (EDT)