Talk:Men who have sex with men/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Definitions

The material on identity and relationship with 'homosexuality' is needlessly confusing. Surely what we're talking about here is simply a category of people defined by their behaviour. We needn't wade directly into the mud of 'identity', except perhaps if we want to handle the relationship between identity and behaviour in a separate section. --Nmcmurdo 01:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with defining these people by their behavior is that you're not simply defining people by behavior, or this would simply be called "people who have sex with men." The moment you attempt to restrict this group to "men", the clarity of the issue as only a behavior goes out the door. Given a limited knowledge of the biological, and social aspects that seperate men from women, it is typically assumed by societies that the definition of "man" is clear, but as you can read below, I have already addressed that issue.

Give me any non-self-identitifying definition of "man", and I can show that it is logically invalid, biologically invalid, or simply bigotted. Thus the Ñ"mud" of identity is actually the only real way to define "man" at all. The only reason why someone would advance the assertion that identity has nothing to do with this article, are those that would have this article define "all transsexuals" as MSM, despite the information given below, that there are MTF transsexuals who never have sex with men, and there are FTM transsexuals who are clearly not even adequately addressed by such a definition. --Puellanivis 01:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I find that to be largely tendentious nonsense. The subject itself is intrinsically behavioural: it describes action. That is logically prior to the question of how a 'man' or any other word within the subject is defined. To be encyclopaedic, we should not leap immediately to one way of defining a man (self-reported identity), and dismiss other legitimate views.

The contention that any other definition but self-identification is logically invalid is absurd and clearly not one that anyone who has studied philosophy would arrive at! I would contend that strict self-identification is tantamount to solipsism, hardly a mainstream philosophical perspective! The unique logical validity of self-defined identity may suppose the possibility of private language, so your claim to logical demonstration would stand in opposition to one of the twentieth century's foremost logicians, namely Ludwig Wittgenstein! (An absoulutist view of self-identification is a form of the 'beetle in the box' argument presented by Wittgenstein. --Nmcmurdo 20:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the details that we covered in the lower secton? I present to you the case where a transsexual is married to a man, and is in "deep stealth", meaning that she has not told him at all that she was formerly a male, and he would have no idea that she had been (don't scoff, it is a documented real occurance!). There are many who would attempt to classify the man, with whom she is married as a MSM, even though he has no idea that she had ever been a male, and would thoroughly agrue with you that he has ever slept with a man! Thus, the existence of perception is absolutely vital to this definition. As the husband would certainly never account that any such "behavior" as you would define it would qualify to him. The "behavior" as you define it, itself requires the perception of the "man" to be that the person with whom he is having sex is a man.

The original assertion of this article and that you are trying to make is that the quality of "man" is definitive, binary, and absolute. The existence of intersexuality demonstrates that this definition is not definitive, nor binary, nor absolute. You can attempt to assert all of the philisophical jargon that you want, but you cannot deny physical evidence, which is exactly what I am asserting. Study of intersexuality, and human sexual development, human sexual dimorphism all demonstrate that the conception of "male" and "female" is a social, and perceptual construct. I invite you to actually study the evidence over which you are attempting to argue, because even the most philsophically enlightened person can not argue against physical evidence. --Puellanivis 21:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You're assuming far more about my views than I've actually said. I have two related points. First, that the topic in question is not necessarily bound to an adherence to the concept of self-reported identity, and that to do so is unencyclopaedic. Second, that it is absurd to assert the logical invalidity of all other definitions of the word "man" but that based on self-reported identity.

I agree that the example is conceptually difficult. My view is that a range of interally consistent interpretations of that situation are possible, such that the choice betweeen these arguments cannot be made on a strictly logical basis. The arguments must admit of some strictly non-deductive premises (adductive, inductive etc.) It should be clear then that I'm certainly not advocating a "definitive, binary and absolute" definition of "man". And my reference to Wittgenstein is based upon his fundamental recognition that any word is a "social construct"; indeed it is precisely because of this that Wittgenstein argues that nothing that is exclusively self-defined (such as his example of the 'beetle' in the box) can have meaning.

To conclude, whilst there legitimate arguments for doing so, we don't have to "wade into the mud" of self-identity, and basic encylopaedic principles demand that.--Nmcmurdo 22:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

From the view of a sexologist, there are at least eight factors, that determine sex. The five biological ones are chromosomes, hormones, gonads, internal sexual and reproductive organs, and external sex organs. The social ones are gender of rearing, gender role, and gender identity. If all of these are in allignment (as they most often are) then there is no question of gender, and in fact, because the most significant number of people have all eight of these factors in allignment, we are prone to believing that that is the only way that things occur.

But, let us take a look at all eight of these features. And remember, that taking a logical stand-point, the existance of a single counter example is sufficient to show that something is not certain. I will not argue that by far these are all relatively accurate indicators. My position is that none of them work for all cases. Chromosomes? There are 46,XY females, and 46,XX males. Chromosomes do not overide hormones, they just give a strong propensity. By far, hormone levels are the most accurate biological indicator, although CAIS shows that hormones are not necessary accurate in defining sexuality. Gonads? CAIS again. Internal sexual organs? CAIS. External sex organs? Intersexuality shows that external sex organs are not always sufficient to indicate gender. As for social ones? Gender of rearing, we already have documented cases of botched circumcisions where the parents decide to feminize the child, although the child rejects this assigned gender, despite being raised ni that gender. Social ones? It's already immediately apparent that social gender cues are not accurately indicative. Gender Identity is the only thing that no one can argue about.

I would honestly like to hear why you feel that you can argue with the presentation of physical evidence? Consulting the article Man, they list sexually dimorphic traits of males. Deeper voice (androgens), taller height (later exposure to estrogen, and not guarenteed), faical hair (androgens), diamond shaped public hair pattern (I've not heard of this described as a sexually dimorphic trait before, it would be attributed to higher androgen levels, as women with CAIS have almost no pubic hair), increased body size overall (androgens, and muscular development), less subcutaneous fat (less estrogen), increase ni overall body hair (this is called androgenic hair, because it's cause by androgens!), male pattern baldness (caused by a recessive genetic condition in the X gene, which is triggered by DHT, an androgen), coarser skin (androgens, I can only guess), darker skin tone (never heard of this, androgens likely), and *gasp* a higher level of androgenic hormones such as testosterone, allowing for muscle development.

So, by the encyclopedia entry for males, which God, I would think would be more encyclopedic than this article, since it has more examination, and review, admits that really the only differences are developed from hormone levels, at least externally. The moment you try to begin saying that there is a psychological element to being a male, I can easily counter with the issue that self-identification is the only reliable psychological indicator that you could use.

I continue to assert that any attempt to classify a MTF transsexual, if they truely identify as a female, as an MSM in any way, signals a person's desire to assert a world view upon transsexuals that classifies them as the gender that YOU want to assign to them, regardless of what gender should be assigned to them. --Puellanivis 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting material, but the argument is a non-sequitur. That a group of people (sexologists) choose to define a concept (maleness) according to eight criteria, the validity of seven of which can be questioned, does not verify the unique definitional quality of the remaining eighth criterion. Reductio ad absurdum is very easy: after your objections to the original seven, let's add in my 'beetle in a box' objection to the eighth. Perhaps you would then argue that we have proven that it is strictly impossible to define maleness, QED? No, because once again the argument does not logically follow from its premises.--Nmcmurdo 00:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, my affirmaton is that you cannot define "maleness" such that you can apply it universally to seperate all males from all females, and I present a definition of maleness which is accepted by the very people who study that which defines that property (sex, and gender), and then show how each of those properties carries with it flaws, such that none of them, even in combination can accurately seperate all males from females, and you tell me that my conclusion does not follow from my premise? Wait wait wait. P_{1 ... 8} = { the seven properties addressed above }; ∀i(∃x(x satisfies P_i and is not considered male)) This all does not imply ∄i(∀x(x satisfies P_i, and is considered male))? Because I'm pretty certain that I can mathematically prove that the two statements are in fact equivalent. Honestly, you're going to find it hard to find me assert anything that isn't really just at heart a tautology.

I will not deny that you present yourself as literate and intelligent, but you're attempting to assert a subjective opinion, and subjective criteria of what defines "male" against that which is presented by those who actually study this particular field, and have better reason to validate their findings of who is a male, and who is a female. You seem to me, to be attempting to assert a philisophical argument that denies physical evidence, but no philosopher could ever truly suceeded in arguing against given physical evidence. Even a cynic, who denies the actual existence of the physical world, must account for why we percieve the physical world that we do.

Your proposition that "self-identity" should not be included in this article requires an alternative. What biological factor can you present that would distinguish a transsexual MTF from all other females, and yet not distinguish them from being a male? I have already shown that no such biological criterion exists, as all given physical, biological distinctions between men and women are not actually affirmative distinctions between males and females. If you attempt to suggest that there are psychological conditions that define males from females, then how can you deny the assertion that self-identity as male or female is absolutely critical in evaluating a psychological condition of an individual? Do you assert that there is some permanent psychological trait that defines men from women, that cannot have misformed during development in order to produce a female personality and identity despite all other criteria? Considering that biologically, conditions exist that if any one of them fail to express themselves sufficiently the biological development of the person is female. What criteria do you propose for this? Or would you seek to introduce some entity inside of us that defines us as male or female, that cannot be changed, cannot be malformed, cannot be in conflict with your subjective opinion of male and female? All this simply to assert your personal subjective opinion that is already contrary to experts of the study of that field? --Puellanivis 02:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're once again reading far more into my views than I've actually said. My point is not that self-identity should not be discusssed (although I personally think it's flawed), but that we should not regard it as a necessary part of the subject. In other words, there are other valid approaches to the topic, other than that based on self-identity. I disagree with the usefulness of strict self-identity, but I agree it should be covered in an encyclopaedia article; it should be presented alongside the other legitimate approaches to the topic (which at present are not well covered). --Nmcmurdo 18:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What other legitimate approaches are there to the topic of defining "man"? The IOC (olympic commitee) has already dealt with this problem. They attempted to impose genetic testing on athletes, only to find that they were excluding all the 46,XY females, even though particularly in the case of CAIS females, they were at a disadvantage to the average 46,XX females, because at least the 46,XX females could react to testosterone, and build up more muscle than a woman with CAIS could. They had to relent, and redefine their cut off of what a "man" is. Now, for a transsexual, or woman with male gonads, they require at least surgerical removal of gonads (as most countries do, in order to change one's legal gender, by essentially international concensus, namely, if a MTF wants to have a passport say that they are female, they must be anatomically female), and that their hormone levels be in an equivalent range expected for the average 46,XX female. Thus ensuring that the transsexual would not be naturally producing testosterone, which would grant them an unfair advantage against other women.

Should we base this article off legal gender? Considering that effectively, legal gender is just an official stamp by the government approving your gender transition? I know a particular transsexual who is not changing her birth certificate until she decides she would like to marry a male, as having the legally male gender allows her the ability to marry a female, even though she could at any time request a change of legal gender, and thus no longer be able to marry a female, and only be permitted to marry a male. Obviously, legal gender is just as useless as any other subjective definition of gender, and even more so, because the legal definition of female and male changes from one jurisdiction to another. (Within the state of California, one can legally change their state-defined gender at will, and without hassle. Within the state of Washington, a letter must be provided by a therapist who is currently seeing the transsexual, who vouches for the transsexual that such a change is appropriate for them.)

In truth, no matter what system one chooses for dividing male from female, it will necessarily be subjective as already indicated above, no objective criteria exists to positively seperate male from female with absolute accuracy. (The only remaining criterion which does 100% seperate male from female in the opinion of the person themselves is self-identification, which duh, is literally defined as seperating male from famel based on the opinion of the person themselves.)

If you have a suggestion for an alternative method for dividing male from female, I ask you please to start a new section in the discussion, and list such systems that you feel should be covered in the article, and we can examine them for their validity. In any case, few MTF transsexuals will allow any offensive definition of "male" which would classify them as male to enter this article, I being among them.

It should be noted that any attempt to define a difference between "biological females" and transsexual MTFs will fail, and attempting to declare a similarity between "anatomic males" and transsexual MTFs may fail. Although, such a definition would be logically valid, if you define "anatomic male" as those who have male external genitalia, thus including post-op FTMs and excluding post-op MTFs, but you have to consider that there are transsexuals, who have no choice but to have unsatisfactory external genitalia for the time being, because they are either too young to concent to such surgery, or they have yet to fufill the 1 year RTL requirement stipulated in the Standards of Care. Thus, should one consider an MTF who has yet to have surgery as being an MSM if she absolutely does not permit sexual contact with her masculine genitalia? Should we not count those MTF transsexuals who are intending to get surgery as soon as they are able to, despite the fact that they classify as "anatomically male"? Should we only exclude androphilic transsexuals if they are practicing abstinence, or is mere desire sufficient to include them?

Lay any of those differentiation systems out, and I will show that each one will be so seriously complicated and require so much tedious clarrification that the subjective self-evaluation of the individual is the only thing that makes sense to spend anytime explaining in this article. Not to mention the men (and women) that exist, who are engaged in a sexual relationship with a MTF, who only see a female in that person, and basically ignore the fact that she still has male genitalia. If a man had a girlfriend, and only ever had oral sex, and anal sexual penetration of her, would you declare him a MSM? Because that's essentially the only difference between such a male and their MTF girlfriend. Considering that if they ever broke up, he would not be looking for a man to have in a sexual relationship, nor another MTF, they're simply looking for a female for an intimate relationship. Yes, those men who target MTFs for sex as a form of fetish, are definitely engaging in MSM behavior, because they are targetting the MTFs particularly for the history that they were at one point male, and in fact, many of them lose interest in a MTF once she has had surgery.

So, anyways, if you have another system of differention that you would like to see discussed in this article, present it here in the talk page, and we can discuss that particular system specifically, instead of debating on philisophical terms the generals of a definition behind a man or a woman. Especially as I have already explained above, that there is no objective criterion to seperate male from female, thus no matter how we choose our system, we must choose a subjective judge either universally, or on an individual basis. --Puellanivis 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem lies with the section 'MSM as a construct'. My suggestions would be, the following order:

• The section should begin with etymology. This would, I hope, clarify or at least organise some of the discussions that follow.
• To what extent is the phrase used as an analytical tool by psychologists, anthropologists etc.? And to what extent is it tag of 'social identity'?
• Reference other wikipedia articles on the defintions of sex, gender and sexual behaviour (which should be the primary repositories of this information).
• Discuss the relationship with other related concepts (such as 'homosexuality')
• Discuss some paradoxical or conceptually testing cases (such as the transexual case).

The article should avoid apparently contradictory statements such as "It is possible for only one member of a sexual encounter [presumably an encounter involving a man having sex with a man] to be having sex with another man." This appears to assert the irreflexivity of the MSM concept - a highly unusual linguistic form, which if meant needs to be explained and qualified.

The article should avoid casual hypothetical examples such as "she most certainly would not" or "[she] may even become quite upset." This is not encylopeadic material.

The article should avoid tendentious statements that presume prior unstated assumptions, such as "There is no homogeneity among the MSM population other than them being males." --Nmcmurdo 00:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Begin with etymology? The etymology of which word? Because etymology relies on only a single word. As such, and phrase's etymology can easily be broken down into the words involved in the phrase, in a similar manner to saying that "111" is composed of three ones. Personally, I'm one to believe that the term "Men who have Sex with Men" does not need to be examined etymologically, unless you're thinking of a TOTALLY different topic than etymology. I mean, what good would it do to show the etymology of "man" in this article: "Etymology: Middle English, from Old English man, mon human being, male human; akin to Old High German man human being, Sanskrit manu" How exactly would this be useful?

I can't argue with showing how the phrase is used as an analytical tool by such people, but I have no idea who actually uses it, but the problem will come about that it could only really be used for a biased purpose. Your later point about "here is no homogeneity among the MSM population other than them being males." is a good example of why it's a useless classification. While you state that it's an unstated prior assumption, perhaps better would be to clarrify it that "people studying MSM have found that there is no consistent defining feature about MSM, except that they are males." This is because many heterosexual males have had a sexual encounter with another man, and never repeated it, or that there are men in prison who rape another man, but since it's all about power, and not sex, they do not see it as threatening their heterosexuality, and once removed from the prison environment, will not have sex with another man. Literally, the classificaton as a MSM can tell no one anything about another person, except that they are a male, and have at one time had sex with another man. Wow, so incredibly useful...</sarcasm>

Consulting Irreflexive_relation, your statement of "This appears to assert the irreflexivity of the MSM concept" No, it's asserting that the binary relation is not reflexive, not that it is irreflexive. I said it's possible that only one person in the sexual encounter could be a man having sex with another man. And the difficulty in this still lies in the deep stealth transsexual female, who is married to someone. Even if you classified all MTFs as transsexuals, he would never know that she was a man, how can he possibly count as a MSM, if he has absolutely no way to tell that she is a transsexual. There are gynecologists who even after a thorough examination cannot tell that a transsexual was not born with a vagina. You cannot account for all cases while demanding reflexivity.

To point out a particular note in the Reflexive Relation page: A common misconception is that a relationship is always either reflexive or irreflexive. Irreflexivity is a stronger condition than failure of reflexivity, so a binary relation may be reflexive, irreflexive, or neither. To which, I am absolutely dumbfounded... I find that your entire argument lacks an signifcant value, and that you attempt to make yourself sound knowlegable by using uncommon words, such as "irreflexive" and "etymology" and you state that the claim that this binary relationship is neither reflexive nor irreflexive as if it should be "contradictory." To which you call it a "highly unusual linguistic form", which it most certainly is not, as it is a perfectly grammatical sentence, and does not use any unusual grammatical features of English, such as topicative phrasing, and by no native-speaker standards would they label it as ungrammatical, or even questionably grammatical. Linguistically, nothing is neither wrong nor unusual about something merely because it is a contradictory statement (this is a lie) or makes no sense (colorless green ideas sleep furiously).

You assert continuously that this article is full of fallacy, or that I make falicious arguments, but you fail to even use terms correctly. Do you think that your biligerent forcefulness would convince me to stop my argument? You use terms that I have a very strong background in, and have immediate reason to doubt your correct usage of these terms. Linguistics and Math are immediately my fields of study and interest.

It is clear to me now why I seem to so entirely misunderstand you constantly, and that is because you are not actually saying what you intend to say, because you're too busy pulling out big words, and obscure references that only hinder the understanding of your argument. And by far, when you do use big terms you are using them incorrectly, thus setting the stage where I am expected to divine the meaning of what you intended to say, because what you actually said is not what you truely intend to say. I must say that I am through with this discussion. I am certain that I will not ever be convinced that your position is correct on merit and value of the argument itself, or upon the logos of the argument, as you consistently intend on asserting against the reality of evidence. Your inability to say accurately what you want to say, and neither to use words correctly as they are actually socially defined, and your attempt to use vague and obscure references and jargon in what I can only imagine is an attempt to baffle me, has not helped your credbility, and I will never be convinced that the merit of your argument needs to be addressed simply because you are convincing. Neither is your constant assertion that transsexuals born as males are unequivicably male, and that self-identification as female is insufficient to declare one's self as female is not winning any votes over here either from an emotional stand-point, pathos. You literally have failed on all three primary points of argument to assert any influence that you are, or ever will be correct.

As this is a wiki, it's time for you to either put up or shut up. (Or continue to whine to the walls, your choice.) When I took issue to this article, it was a horrible logical mess, and bigotted and biased. After polishing it up, so that it would not be offensive anymore, and it actually takes proper account of transsexuals, I supplied that edit to the page. I don't recommend that you apply your edit directly to the page, as it would likely provoke a firestorm of reverts. Instead, you are freely able to post here in the discussion, what you think this article should say, and look like. People will either collaborate with you to make it better, or they will refuse it. If it is deemed better than the existant version, we would supplant it. Asking me or anyone else to do this work for you, is entirely against the spirit of a wiki. It should be obviously clear to you, that I

would be unable to produce a version that you would be happy with, as *duh* the version that I'm happy with is the one that you are specifically taking argument against!

As such, I will not enact your changes, and I highly doubt that I even could... etymology of "men who have sex wth men"? I don't even understand what you're trying to say there, because it does not make any actual sense. It's like asking for the chemical formula for cake. Anyways, since no one else can produce an article fitting your specifications, supply us with an alternative proposal, and we will evaluate it, or improve upon it, or refuse it. That's how a wiki works. Not by having a pointless philosophical argument about "blah blah blah you would argue with a major philosopher." You know what? I'm arrogant enough that I will argue with any major philosopher, Socrates, Plato, who ever. They're all wrong if their arguments deny physical evidence! So, I leave you with this: "I will not write your article for you, please do so yourself." --Puellanivis 04:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I see this debate has generated a couple of helpful clarifications to the article, although I wonder if it’s worth the cost in terms of ever-more shrill, one might say desperate, rambling responses such as the one above! Two quick clarifications. It should be perfectly clear that the ‘etymology’ I meant applied to the term as a whole, not the individual words. The correction on the use of ‘irreflexivity’ is right – apologies, it should be non-reflexive - but the further interpretation is not. The phrase in question is either contradictory or using a highly unusual type of language that should be explained (If I said “two ducks were swimming together in a pond, but it is possible that at least one of the ducks was not swimming in a pond with a duck.” – this is either based on very unusual definitions or it is a straight contradiction.)--Nmcmurdo 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There exists no such thing as an etymology of a phrase, unless that phrase has become a lexicalized unit, which "men who have sex with men" certainly has not. Please actually look at a definition for a word before you try and use it in an argument.

The phrase in question is not contradictory and does not use a highly unusualy type of language. Your example is using something where there is a reflexive relationship, and you are attempting to show my analogy that the other statement doesn't make sense. Recall though, that this article is currently defining a man as one who self-identifies as a man. If one person in a sexual encounter self-identifies as a man, and percieves his partner to be a man, then he is having sex with a man. If the other person self-identifies as a woman, then by mere definition she is not a man, and thus cannot be a man having sex with another man. All of these definitions are laid out earlier, and later in the article.

As I said before, you do not seem to understand what you are talking about. If you want your considerations taken, write your suggested replacement to this article, or sections and they can be evaluated on an individual basis. Please don't continue to go on about how I'm making "contradictory statements", which I am clearly not. For your further clarification, I will team up two people from the lists. One who is an MSM, and one who is not an MSM, and hopefully you can work out how they end up in sexual relationships: "Males who engage in sex with MTF transsexuals under the belief that they are males" with "Any woman, including MTF transsexuals, regardless of any other factors." (Nota Bella: for future reference, you should at least attempt to actually read, and understand a person's or article's definitions before you make any proclamations about it, and for heaven's sake, don't just assume your own definition, or else you're commiting Equivocation.) --Puellanivis 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In my view, MSM is either a lexicalised compound, or it does not merit an entry. I would not expect, for example, to see Wikipedia entries on 'boys who kick balls', 'postmen who wear large shoes' or 'ducks who swim together in ponds', unless these phrases begin to act as independently meaningful units. As soon as that happens, it's instructive to explore the origin of the phrase itself. In fact, I'll put my initial objections on the line there. If it can be shown that its usage as a distinct phrase has always carried with it the assumption of self-reported identity, then, whatever objections I or anyone else may have to the underlying thinking, it's not worth exploring other perspectives directly, except perhaps in a 'criticism of...' section. That assumption should be explicitly stated at the outset, however, as it would be far from obvious.--Nmcmurdo 19:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A lexicalized compound exhibits certain grammatical features that fortunately mean that you don't have to be subjective, and it's not "in my view, ___ is a lexicalized compound". For instance, given that "peanut butter and jelly" is a lexicallized compound, if you are talking about two of them, would you talk about "peanut butters and jellies"? Or would you talk about "peanut butter and jellies"? Linguistics indicates that the later case is the one that happens, because PB&J is lexicalized. Now, is the plural of "a man who has sex with men" a) "men who have sex with men" or b) "man who has sex with mens"? If the term MSM were a lexical compound, the later would be the case. The plural of MSM being "men who have sex with men" can only be performed if the component is not a lexicalized compound, as the lexicalization of the compound will prevent you from entering into the compound in order to pluralize any part of it irregularly. Feel free to put the article up for VfD, I certainly won't object. --Puellanivis 03:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What biological factor of humans can you present that seperates a transsexual female from all other females? I have already shown that no such biological critera exist.

Removed the sentence But in reality this phrase is meaningless, because if you have sex with men, you're gay. from the end of the article. Whoever wrote it is a moron who (A) didn't even read the article, (B) for some reason thinks women who have sex with men are gay, and (C) apparently disbelieves in the existence of bisexuals. --Ketsy 01:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I saw this article title scroll by on CDVF and was sure it was garbage. Imagine my shock to discover that it was a reasonable and useful article. Congrats! --William Pietri 16:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Down low

I recall hearing on SVU or something that a number of men who have sex with men but don't regard themselves as gay, especially African-American men on the lowdown do not use condoms because they feel doing so would make them gay. Can anyone confirm the veracity of this claim? If true, it's well worthy of inclusion in the article, especially for the implications of this to the spread of HIV between these inviduals and to their partners Nil Einne 17:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The term is actually "down low". Here's a tSan Francisco Chronicle article that I happened to see about it, and it turns out there are plenty more media articles about it. Go to it! --William Pietri 16:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should merge this with Bisexual.

It seems a bit odd to have a whole article for it.

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks!

How so? What about gay men, they aren't bisexual yet they are men who have sex with men? Hyacinth 17:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This page does seem to repeat material that would other wise be in bisexual and gay, though. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

By definition, this article is talking about men who aren't bi or gay. It's talking about same-sex male behavior by guys who don't identify themselves as gay or bi, so merging it with those articles would be silly. This is talking about behaviors and the way some people see themselves, ie: not as gay despite same-sex contact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.27.198.172 (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Other Aspects

I think the phenomenon of prison rape should probably be discussed, if it can be done so sensitively and in an encyclopedic manner, since this seems to be a main area where "men who have sex with men" is quite distinct from homosexuality in general.

Some mention should probably be made of the Red Cross's use of this term with regards to who can give blood since this is another example of the activity of man-to-man sex is held as distinct from the homosexual orientation. --Chesaguy 00:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This articel is not very good at all. There is a huge amount of resources available about MSM. It also ignores Asia where same sex relations are common. A lot of work is needed to improve it. Roger jg 05:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten article

I have entirely rewritten this article as it was not reflecting the complexity and breadth of the topic. I have kept some of the info from the first article but have removed the long discussion on the low down as it is only one category of MSM and should be discussed in the relevant article. Also it was narrowing the MSM sexual behaviour to one limited category. I will endeavour to add more references and more on this subject.Roger jg 11:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful to add a section on MSM and the society where the suggestion about the Red Cross using MSM could be added. However, it should be more about how societies perceive MSM and how MSM "fit" into society. That's were facts about MSM being often married could be mentioned.

Another section about sexual role and its perception in sexual relationship is needed. I could write something but it would be based on my knowledge of the SE Asian example. Though I believe it would be more or less the same everywhere some may perceive it as being to narrow.

A section about MSM and HIV/AIDS would be useful too. If someone wants to help?Roger jg 11:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Transgender/Transsexuals

Ok I get your point that transsexuals m2f are men in the purely biological sense. Even if that this the definition we adopt for discussing this topic there are still questions about including transgender or transsexuals in this article.

Could you explain why "transsexuals" and "transgendered" people are included as men who have sex with men. Do you realize that many many transsexual and transgendered, biologically male people do not have sex with males. A majority of transsexuals (at least in the USA) would be considered bisexual asexual or heterosexual with respect to their birth sex. Then there are the transgendered and transsexual biological females. What of them? Perhaps you shoudl reword this part.

I will admit that people who fit the description you are looking for exist. They are called various things in various sources. Perhaps you should be more specific. Mentioning the Katoey and the Hijira of south Asia is a good start. You could also mention the "Travesti's" of Brazil... But that would be too nitpicky. Perhaps you could simply cover all of those groups by saying "male to female transsexuals who prefer men." As a matter of fact I will put that in the article and see how it fits. --Hfarmer 20:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's also cover what it means to be "biologically" or "anatomically" male. Women with Androgen insensitivity syndrome have female external genitalia, but have testicles, and lack Müllerian Ducts (the upper vagina, uterus, etc), there are men who have Müllerian Ducts, there are women who do not have Müllerian Ducts, there are women who don't have either form of gonads, but rather just a small gonadal ridge. This article is entirely almost useless, as it presumes a definition of "male" that does not necessarily exist. Is someone with a 46,XY karyotype automatically male? What about those with 47,XXY, I don't suppose that they really count as males, since they are not genetically male.

Anatomical? What about post-operative MTFs? They are anatomically female now, NOT male. (The law gives them the legal protection to use any female restroom they want to, considering that they now have female genitalia.) If you want to assert that a post-op MTF is still a male because she cannot produce, there are women again, who do not have Müllerian Ducts and have essentially the same anatomy as a post-op MTF, and if such a woman were to get ovarian cancer and have an oopherectomy, then they would have EXACTLY the same anatomy as a post-of MTF.

Biologically? I've already pointed out that "biological male" and "biological female" don't actually exist in any sort of concrete binary system that this article is attempting to assert. Genetic? I've already covered AIS, natal? Ok, so only if you were born and assigned a male identiy are you a MSM. So, if we take an FTM, who then sleeps with a gay man, who has no interest in sleeping with women at all, does that make "her" an MSM, and him not an MSM? What about the male partner of a MTF? He sees her as a female, and in some cases, despite being married to her, may not even know that she was ever at one point a man. Is he suddenly an MSM, because he slept with her? And then to cover the topic raised by HFarmer, what about the MTF who is a lesbian, and never has sex with a man ever. Is this transsexual simply not an MSM?

This whole grouping is logically flawed in so many ways it's useless, and is just an attempt by some person to advance an agenda that somehow any sexual contact between who ever they regard as male with another person who they regard as male (regardless of any information provided to those participants) that they are now labelled as "different", and is just homophobia with a pretty PC bow on it. Or, it's an explanation for others to label themselves or identify themselves as something other than bisexual, or as having homoerotic encounters, as they view some denigrating social stigma upon such terms, thus they must try and seek out some other term which does not have such a stigma upon it�. Then, lump in other people, who may or may not fit any true definition of "man" in with them, so that they can attempt justify the label.

I can't even think of how to clean up this article so that it's not a travesty upon logical, realistic, and non-contradictory categorization. But starting with a definition of what you consider a "man" to be would be a darn good start. Then we can discuss how valuable, or accurate such a definition would be, and seek one that doesn't fly in the face of real evidence. --Puellanivis 22:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your points. The trouble is they all deal with intersexed individuals. Transsexual/transgender =/= intersexed. AIS and all that are intersex conditions. XXY is a condition that many many transsexuals have. It is not a intersex condition (it is not anatomical in relation to ones external genitalia at birth).

I personally define a biological/anatomical male thusly: A Male is one who was born with a Y chromosome and the external genetalia of a male with no intersex condition present. A M2F transsexual is a male who lives as a female. Transsexuals appear female, act female, and are refered to verbally with female pronouns.

Therefore in a sense a M2F transsexual is a male who has sex with men if she is homosexual/androphillic (choose which word you prefer). Men who have sex with them do not consider themselves gay and in general are not considered gay.

Personally I would stricken any mention of transsexualism from this article but I can see the point of the people who put it here. I personally have come to accept that to some people I will be male no matter what I may do. Cest le vie. --66.92.130.180 00:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

These sections of the article were bigoted and unsourced nonsense, seemingly based on personal opinion alone. The claims as they were contradict legal definitions in most Western states, legal precedents in numerous countries, and much modern medical and gender theory. If claims are going to be made in this article based solely on the work of Bailey, then this really does need to be placed into context, since the previous version suggested some sort of widespread agreement with his lunacy. Rebecca 04:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree 75% of that emotion. Especially as far as transsexuals are concerned. A transsexual goes as far as technology will allow to become anatomically female. However the broader term "transgender" includes CD's, DQ's, gender queers, and a range of other males who do not self identify as females. As well as transexuals who do. Puellanivis was correct in saying that a working definition of a male for the sake of this article is in order. In other words "yes it does".

I expect in the morning someone of the other maintainers of this article. The one who rewrote it will come back and have reverted the total removal of transsexuals from this article. Like I said as far as I am concerned I could do without it.

Who the heck said anything about Bailey? The idea that transsexuals m2f "once a man always a man" is not his idea, not new, and will probably never go away. :-( That's life,s__t happens. --Hfarmer 10:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to including the transgendered here, but it should probably mention the specific elements of the transgendered community who identify as men, because it isn't all of them. I still don't see the point of trying to come to a definition of man for this article, since a male as it applies to this article also applies to every other article on Wikipedia. As for the subject of Bailey, I mentioned it because you added a primary link to one of the core elements of his theories. The "once a man, always a man" idea may never go away, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this article, seeing as no one has provided a reliable source for including them in any discussion of "men who have sex with men". Rebecca 12:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue I have with this article's defnition of male is that it is *not* in concensus with what "also applies to ever other article on Wikipedia." Your responses to so much of this stuff shows just as much bigotted hate as I want to see removed against us. Jesus Christ lady. I accept that to some people I will always be always be viewed as a male, I don't have to look hard, because ONE OF THEM IS MY SISTER. As far as "intersexed" there are males who have AIS but only the the point that they are infertile, while they are intersexed, no one would claim that they are not "men", the same with the other end of the spectrum. As for a biological/anatomical male requiring a Y chromosome: Sexual differentiation points out that there are XX males. Biologicial/anatomical/genetic all fall short of defining someone as a male, and I have never seen any sufficiently accurate definition of "male" that would include all natal males and absolutely no FTMs, and the same for women seperating MTFs from natal women. The only definition that has any sort of "accuracy" at it is "natal female" and "natal male", which runs into the problem that you assign people to an unchanging group based on how their genitalia looks when they were born, and this "natal female" means that all MTFs are more passable as female than some subgroup of "natal females" (as FTMs would still be "natal females".)

Logically, and scientifically, there exists no real bases to establish any sort of "male" vs. "female" except when describing actual conception. From a scientific view point, males and females are so similar, that the only true groups that you can make are fertile females, fertile males, and EVERYONE ELSE. If you're not exchanging genetic material to make a baby then "gender" as it applies is entirely a socially created construct, that is wavy, subjective, and often times only used only to futher discrimination. The fact that this article previously failed to provide any sort of consistent view of males other than a subjective "if I say so", is why I demanded a definition of male. The article on pornography doesn't say that it includes all nude art, even though some people would classify even some non-nude art as pornographic! When it comes down to it "pornography" is a subjective definition, as is the term "male" in the previous article. "These people are males, just because I say so/the author says so", that doesn't work. If you're going to dictate to me that some woman is a male, you better have a darn good reason why, and be able to defended it. Not just push your fingers in your ear and shout "nanananana!!! I can't hear you!"

This classification is at least somewhat useful, in that it is a non-self-identifying group of people, because you can ask a guy "are you homosexual or bisexual at all" and he could honestly say "no", even if he has had sex with another man. But it should not, and cannot be consistently used against those who would never identify themselves as males. This is the clarrification I was looking for, not some bland assumption that the authors actually knew what they were talking about, and using the same "male" that all other articles on wikipedia was. To assume that they're talking about the same "males" that we are, is a blatant fallacy, and leads us no where, as we're arguing with different definitions of "male" in the first place! The complete exclusion of "transsexuals" is just as poor a choice as the first position that it includes all transsexuals, because clearly transsexual men who are homosexual would clearly fit in this group! --Puellanivis 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You say transsexual men who are homosexual. The problem is, as was pointed out repeatedly by the BBl controversey is that to most people outside the Transgender/transsexual community that means male to female transsexuals who prefer men. That is the cold reality I have come to accept. Just as you have come to accept that some people will never see you (or me or any other TS) as our target gender I have had to accept that to some I will just be a really really gay guy. I have also come to accept that for some reason the fact that I live as a woman will make that more tolerable to some people. Now that's not my reason for being transsexual. That's nobody's reason for being transsexual. There seems to be no reason (or even emotion) behind bening transsexual. However that is the way the world will see us.  :-(

I do agree with the latest edition as of this writing that lables a man who has sex with a TS and sees them as men as a man having sex with a man. I mean. If a guy is having sex with a post op stealth TS then is he a MSM? If he is then how so? Afterall he thinks he is having sex with a natural born woman.

All of these odd issues are why there should be nomention of transsexualism in this article. It is just a special topic that it derserves it's own articles and has articles aplenty already. --Hfarmer 22:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason why "transsexual man" is ambiguous, is why in the article I avoided using anything but MTF and FTM. I just do not accept that transsexallity should not, and cannot be worked into this article. People who primarily will be editing this article arbitrarily will attempt to include transsexuals to include MTF transsexuals. If it is explicitly defined in the article that you are talking about self-identifying males, and only self-identifying males, then any such edits can be reverted as being against the purpose of the article. If you leave the definition of "men" out of this article and just leave it assumed, then anyone can come along and add to the text "a butch woman who likes men". At this point they need argue that the definition of "self-identified man" is invalid, incorrect, or not useful before they can just label someone a MSM.

I'm wondering why this issue is even murky. Is it that other editors are not understanding the importance of establishing a common basis of definitions, etc before you can have a reasonable argument? Perhaps, we may need editors to review Socrates and Plato, and fundamental rules of philosophy in order to understand how arguments are best to be handled? I've had discussions with one particlar person, where he fundamentally refused to recognize the existence of "true" and "false", and allowed for the existence of "contradiction", and you would be entirely surprised at how much we can discuss once we laid out those ground rules, and came to an agreement. Everyone else gets stuck in a big shouting match with him that he won't accept their evidence as true. The lunacy here is that they are trying to get him to assert something about what they are asserting that he doesn't even believe! This is why I said the article needed to define "men", because the blanket assumption that "man" is self-explanitory is the most ridiculous assertion I've ever seen. How can anyone even attempt to make such an assertion as a transsexual, because of the ready and available number of people who would assert to their death that self-identity does not define your gender. "Men" had to be defined this article simply to come to a discussion of the very basis of this article: MEN who have sex with MEN. If you come across this article and it disagrees with your definition of "man", then why the hell would you sit there and say that "men" doesn't need to be defined?

I do think this article is misleading about mainstream usage of the term. Yes, transsexuality is covered under the umbrella of the definition, but the common usage of the term is to refer to the simpler case of non-transsexual men who have sex with non-transsexual men but may or may not consider themselves gay. The term was basically invented to cover that case, because of a discovery in the medical profession that using the word "gay" in surveys and questionnaires was missing a large number of people who engaged in same-sex sexual behavior but didn't self-identify as "gay". --Delirium 22:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that the intro that I wrote was confusing. Trying to account for all cases that would be undeniably MSM, but exclude those that should not be considered MSM is pretty hard to do. Your description of transsexuals that self-identify as male works fairly well. It's clear that any such complete explanation will be overly complex, in as much as gender identity itself is incredibly complex. Your simplified version though is sufficiently accurate so as to cover the greater number of examples, and yet remain very simple.  :) Good job :) --Puellanivis 22:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)