User talk:James Cantor/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Jokestress is editing your comments

James, you may be interested to know that, apparently without asking your permission, Jokestress has edited some of your comments (take a look at the Man Who Would be Queen talk page). I'm resisting the temptation to undo what Jokestress did to your comments, but only just. Skoojal (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 07:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this

I have appreciated your un-pushy editing style thus far. forestPIG 17:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; that's nice to hear.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thread relocated here from Hebephilia

Dear Dr Cantor,

Just as a quick aside, regarding your work:

"Brain regions that respond to visual sexual stimuli in human males: Preliminary meta-analysis being presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the International Academy of Sex Research, Leuven, Belgium. (Collaborators: Todd Girard, Matt Lovett-Baron, and Thomas Blak)"

How do your results in 'normal' human males correlate with the 'normal' homosexual males of Schiffer et al?

"J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2008 January; 33(1): 23–33. PMCID: PMC2186373 Brain response to visual sexual stimuli in homosexual pedophiles Boris Schiffer, PhD, Tillmann Krueger, MD, Thomas Paul, MD, Armin de Greiff, MSc, Michael Forsting, MD, Norbert Leygraf, MD, Manfred Schedlowski, PhD, and Elke Gizewski, MD"



The purpose of my team's meta-analysis was to combine all the previously reported results in functional neuroimaging studies into a single, large dataset and thereby to ascertain which brain areas most reliably responded to depictions of sexual stimuli. (No two studies implicate exactly the same set of brain coordinates.) The set of coordinates reported by Schiffer et al. did not depart from the overall pattern any more than any single study did.

On a side note, I have noticed that you are signing your comments "manually," rather than by using Wikipedia's automated name/time stamp. I am still comparatively new to wikipedia myself, but I have learned that the convention here is to "sign" one's comments with four tildes (the tilde is the "~" character). The system will then replace that sequence of tildes with your name and the time you saved your comment.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 15:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dr Cantor,

Thank you for your conclusion.

Oh no, I like to sign manually. I do not depend on robots, wherever possible :) Maybe later.

Thank you for your responses. As you may be aware, I am an ex-offender, in regards to 'child pornography' downloading, precipitated during a period of intense, mental distress (I had used such images, prior to that, during lesser distressful periods).

I do have a vested, personal interest, in this area, but also a much wider one too.

One issue I do find intriguing, is the following. I am not short (5_11), my penis is bigger than the average gay :) and, apparently, I do not have a low IQ; I am an outlier in these respects.

I am ambidextrous, in that, I am more powerful on my right side, but much clunkier there (punching, playing guitar etc). However, I throw and kick with my left, and it feels a more delicate side (although a fast punch, would always come from my left side). I carry out fine work with my right hand (painting, models etc).

Although there seems to have been no viral/bacterial antecedents, during my foaetal development, my mother did go through a very serious and protracted period, when I am pretty sure, that her hormonal balance would have been skewed by aggressive and anxious secretions.

I describe myself as a bisexual, non-exclusive MAA, but my sexual arousal patterns are varied, across age, sex and type, and have shifted through the years (and can still do so).

Of course, my activities are (other than by computer, historically) always legal.

This may be of some interest to you (and readers), and is just a gift for the efforts you are making here and elsewhere :)

All the best.


Dear Dr Cantor,

“I am also mindful, however, that talkpages are for discussions about improving WP articles, not for discussing the actual topic of the WP article,”

I think it impossible to discuss the subtlety between hebephilia and ephebophilia (in fact, any paraphilia), if we have little confidence in their actual existence. This need not be an extended discussion.

“I do not refer to the plausibility of clinical and non-clinical samples differing”

Really? Thank you for the clarification. Of course, we could discuss the nature of the word ‘clinical’ in this context, but this is not the place. To review, it is plausible, that, clinical and non-clinical samples could differ for reasons other than those proposed.

“I refer to the plausibility of subgroup differences existing between two clinical samples (clinical hebephiles and clinical teleiophiles) but not existing between their two non-clinical counterparts (non-clinical hebephiles and non-clinical teleiophiles).”

Yes, I appreciate that - my statements stand.

The usage of the word ‘teleiophile’ (let alone ‘clinical’) is obtuse and incorrect. An ‘x-philia’ is only a psychiatric definition, invoking some perceived dysfunction, as suggested by ‘norms’ and other socio-legal measures. People, of any age, who are sexually-attracted to adults do not have a dysfunction. This is merely a non-MAA (an AAA). That is the ‘natural order of things’. There is no psychiatric dysfunction, associated with being sexually-attracted to adults. It is a psychoconstructual fallacy created by Blanchard - see later.

Before I may answer further, how can one be a “non-clinical hebephile”? Since one cannot be a “clinical teleiophile”, how can one be a “non-clinical teleiophile”?

“Statistically, these situations are analogous to detecting a main effect versus an interaction effect. I have no reason to reject ideas about there being main effects; it is the interaction effects that are implausible (to my mind).”

The situation is quite clear. You do not know why ‘active paedophiles’ are statistically shorter or NRH than the general population. Your inferential statistics suggest that there is ‘something in it’. There is little (if any) evidence for causality, only some overlapping inferential statistics. In fact, have you analysed against the general population? You have analysed against non-sexual offenders (of which, many will be MAAs, of course). Am I correct?

I will take your word on your rationalisation, although I do not see the applicability, here.

“It is rather premature for anyone (including me) to assert any strong hypothesis for what causes the effects observed.”

Noted - thank you.

“There are some obvious possibilities”

Indeed, ‘possibilities’ - thank you.

“which I discuss in my articles on the topic.”

Indeed, thank you for your work.

“I do not claim that sex offenders engage in their behavior with the same motivation as do nonsexual offenders. (Sexual offenders are highly heterogeneous as a group,”

Noted - thank you. Some of your paedophilic sample base was non-offending. Correct?

"however, and there appears to exist a subgroup sex offenders who do have the same motivation as nonsexual offenders; such people typically have both sexual and nonsexual offenses on their records.)"

This was the totality of your paedophile sample base, was it?

"Regarding replication, there have only been three MRI-based studies reported thus far (including my own), all of them within the past year."

Understood - very valuable, thank you. We are our brains, for sure - I do not dispute that.

"We used overlapping, but non-identical methods, so it is difficult to compare the results directly. I have recently received funding to replicate and expand the finding in a way that would do so, however. I do not know if other groups are planning anything similar."

“difficult to compare the results directly” Noted - thank you.

"I do not understand why you would write “I am not sure descriptive statistics have much worth, here, other than for academic interest.” First, as a scientist, my very purpose in pursuing this line or any other line of research is for academic interest."

Yes, but looking at a linear regressions etc, tell us nothing about causality, only correlation; academically interesting, for sure. Some of us deal with more than academic interest.

The inferential statistics are the only tool which moves us in that direction and, of course, we will use the data, as above.

“Moreover, descriptive statistics are needed precisely for the reasons alluded to earlier: One can only rule out height as an important effect in the basketball example when the researcher provides the relevant descriptive statistics on height, for example.”

No, one only describes a correlation. ‘Ruling out height’ is not what has been achieved.

“Regarding your question “Do you mean, in regards to the generalisability and validity (internal and external) of its discussed outcomes?”: No. My point is also easier to see by example: If one reported a correlation between two variables, a critic could (correctly) point out that correlations do not imply causation.”

An expert in statistics would, yes.

“If, however, one of the variables necessarily preceded the other in time (childhood head injuries and age at marriage, for example), one would, however be able to rule out marriage as a cause of childhood head injuries.”

So, let me review your position.

I plot % head damage in males, versus the age they get married. I observe a low correlation coefficient. You then tell me, that this is proof (you stated ‘rule out’) that head damage does not cause early marriage, based solely on correlations? You believe you can do this? Scientifically? That is the difference, between a Social Scientist and a Pure Scientist, I suggest

“Thus, my response is the caution that one cannot (meaningfully) use the presence of inferential statistics in a study—outside the context of other factors in the research design—as a method of assessing the quality of a research project or its conclusions.”

I have asked you to consider the possibility, that the outcomes, derived from the inferential statistics are bogus, due to cumulative, systematic errors.

You have not answered my question. Do you think they could be?

“Regarding your question “Do you not agree, that each of the tests…”: It is not clear to me which of the tests your are referring to. A test that is highly appropriate in one situation can be less appropriate in another, and vice versa.”

I refer to my question above. You know your papers.

“There is no ‘CAMH application’ of the term paedophile (or pedophile).”

Really? So how do ‘you’ define one?

“ There are only specific researchers, including myself, housed at CAMH; each of us is responsible for our own research. Our views do not necessarily reflect those of the institution, nor vice versa.”

That is a little worrying, in an ethical sense.

“Regarding the APA definition of pedophilia: The operational definitions for research purposes differ from those that appear in the DSM. I provide the precise operational definitions in each of my publications.”

Really, let me check - why do you do this?

How do you define ‘acted upon their urges’ or words to that effect?

Would masturbation to images or mental fantasies qualify, in your sample?

“I cannot speak for my colleagues, but my own opinion on the proportion of the population who are (primarily) attracted to minors, but who are not pedophiles is, “There is no way to know.”

No, but do you not hypothesise, that the millions of people who have sex with minors (and those, many more, who fantasise about such activities) and those who are apprehended in illegal pornography offences (only an iceberg tip, of course) may be a good indicator?

"(It's not the kind of information that people are likely to answer truthfully on a survey.)"

Well, we have had such a survey carried out in the UK, as it happens. This should be seen as the minimum, of course, for the reasons you give - but we are getting there. We also have some international research, indicating such attractions.

“I would happily predict, however, that the proportion will vary enormously with one's definition of “minors.”

Indeed, I believe that the paraphilia boundaries are well chosen, but for the wrong reasons.

We have done some anecdotal and evidenced-based research on this, but it need not be shared here.

“My primary criteria for a useful term is that it is precise, unambiguous, and invariant across contexts. Neither the word “minor,”

Boundaries, as defined by the paraphilia descriptors.

“ “attracted,””

Evoking a physiological, sexual response - may not be only simplistic penile/vaginal responses etc.

“nor even “adult” possesses those characteristics.”

Sexually-developed to full puberty.

We are speaking of sexuality here, not the legal domain.

“(I am not saying that the alternative terms fly past my criteria either, but I have little motivation to replace well-known but imperfect terms with unknown terms that fair no better.)”

I have defined them for you.

One of my issues, is that 'your' terminology is based on foundations of sand, and yet 'you' use these terms as your primary, selection variable. I have challenged Dr Seto on this, but he chose not to reply.

Tell me, do you think a MAA (as I have defined) is just a paedophile waiting to happen? You do accept there is a difference - No?

“I do not know what a “psychoconstructual terminology” is.”

I have given an illustration, above (cf Blanchard). It is the terminology, created, used and perpetrated by psychologists (and some psychiatrists ), which they believe to be true. They are often fallacies, because they are dependent on the imprecise and complex nature of the Social Sciences

Another example, is how homosexuality was once in the DSM and transexuality still is. Another, the ‘purging of demons’.

Thank you for your responses. You may answer my questions or treat them as rhetorical. I was just interested to know how you approached some of these issues.



Nigel: You have every right to hold any opinion regarding my interpretation of my results; however, in order for one’s opinion to be meaningful, one needs to understand exactly what my interpretation is. As you can see from my answers to your prior set of questions, many of your beliefs about what I think were mistaken; your subsequent set of questions have several similar misconceptions about what I think. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, of course, but it makes no sense to disagree with ideas I don’t hold in the first place.

Your questions suggest that you are not looking to understand what I think, so much as to find short-comings in my work. Although I am always happy to answer questions about my research, let me instead save you from having to postulate another set of possible short-comings and point out that of course my work has short-comings. Science is a human endeavour; perfect experiments do not exist. Although none of what you wrote actually identifies any such short-comings, they most certainly exist; you need not expend energy trying to convince anyone.

I appreciate your thought that “Some of us deal with more than academic interest.” You are not at all the first person for whom a finding in sex research has challenged a sociopolitical belief system. Such conflicts continue to be played out here on WP as well as in other venues. Although I support everyone’s right to challenge a scientific finding—regardless of whether they are motivated by academic or by sociopolitical reasons—it is specious to use faults in research as support for one’s politics. That is, whenever research has led to an incorrect answer, the truth has rarely (if ever) turned out to be the view that sociopoliticians were espousing. The correct answer came from better science.

So, if your goal is to help improve the science, I am all ears. If your goal is merely to increase the apparent veracity of your own point-of-view by postulating (incorrectly) faults in my research, then you do not need me at all: You can simply make things up about my work. The production of rhetorically advantageous sound-bites through a willful avoidance of complete understanding is no better than is generating entire falsehoods. (Although, in the latter, one does not need to delude one's self about one's purpose.)

If you actually want to understand my work and are willing to consider the possibility that your sociopolitical (at least, non-academic) views are in error, then I continue to be happy to answer your questions. If you are unwilling to challenge your views regardless of what my answers could be, then (as I wrote) you do not need me here at all.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 12:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dr Cantor,

“Regarding the APA definition of pedophilia: The operational definitions for research purposes differ from those that appear in the DSM. I provide the precise operational definitions in each of my publications.”

I should really like to know why you think you are able to do this, and still claim you are assessing 'paraphiles'?

I note, from one of your works, that you describe those who possess 'child pornography' as being paedophiles, by your definition.

You have elected to do this, yes ... not your organisation or your co-workers (I believe you stated this above)?



Nigel: It is an error to treat the DSM as more than what it is: a committee’s consensus, based (where possible) on the then-current science (and on clinical judgment otherwise). The DSM (at least, in theory) follows what research shows to be the criteria that yield the strongest reliability and validity data. As scientists (including me) produce new information, the DSM committee incorporates it into its subsequent visions. If scientists were limited to existing DSM definitions, then the definitions could never improve.

Regarding 'by my definition', it is an error to treat a scientific use of “definition” as if it were a legal one. Unlike law-makers, I cannot simply declare what counts and what does not count as something else and be done with it. For a scientist, Mother Nature always gets the last word. All I do is to set-up a situation and systematically record what I see; it is the results that then say whether the criteria I used were correct. When my colleagues and I looked at the data from a large number of men who were convicted of child pornography offenses (but were not otherwise known to have molested any children), they matched the profiles of men who had no pornography offenses but did molest children. This finding was reported in one of the highest-ranked journals in behavioral science.

Thus, it is quite misleading to say that we merely "elected" to define child pornography offenders as pedophilies; rather, my colleagues and I demonstrated it. You can disagree with our demonstration of course, but (as I wrote already) if you are going to fault our work for things we never actually did, then you don’t need me here.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dr Cantor,

“[snip]… of course, but it makes no sense to disagree with ideas I don’t hold in the first place.”

You presume that is what I am doing. Perhaps I am doing this, so that readers and, ultimately, the wider community who apply your work, understand, more clearly, what you are saying in comparison to what you believe. Let us be honest, you do not make that clear when you appear in the media - I know, I archive it. Just like Dr Seto et al, you cannot escape the widespread, ethical outcomes of your statements, due to your ‘scientific neutrality’.

I know you are gay. I know that the research suggests (by the same techniques you apply) that you have brain damage. That is how the populace would interpret the scientific research (and particularly those with a vested interest). Are you? Am I? Is ‘brain damage’ the natural evolution of the human race?

“Your questions suggest that you are not looking to understand what I think, so much as to find short-comings in my work.”

I suggest they may one of the same, until proven otherwise.

“Although I am always happy to answer questions about my research, let me instead save you from having to postulate another set of possible short-comings and point out that of course my work has short-comings.”

I have not pointed that out. I have asked you to answer a series of questions about the techniques used.

“Science is a human endeavour; perfect experiments do not exist.”

Yes they do, perhaps not in your sphere of study.

“Although none of what you wrote actually identifies any such short-comings, they most certainly exist; you need not expend energy trying to convince anyone.”

Noted - thank you. There are shortcomings in your work.

“I appreciate your thought that “Some of us deal with more than academic interest.” You are not at all the first person for whom a finding in sex research has challenged a sociopolitical belief system.”

I am not sure I suggested I was.

“Such conflicts continue to be played out here on WP as well as in other venues. Although I support everyone’s right to challenge a scientific finding—regardless of whether they are motivated by academic or by sociopolitical reasons—it is specious to use faults in research as support for one’s politics.”

Mine are not driven by politics, per se. They are driven by the search for truth, humanity and justice, and to ensure everyone with influence (i.e. pertinently, you) does exactly the same - as is their responsibility.

“That is, whenever research has led to an incorrect answer, the truth has rarely (if ever) turned out to be the view that sociopoliticians were espousing. The correct answer came from better science.”


“So, if your goal is to help improve the science, I am all ears. If your goal is merely to increase the apparent veracity of your own point-of-view by postulating (incorrectly) faults in my research, then you do not need me at all:”

I have made my position clear.

“You can simply make things up about my work.”

Why would I do that? The logic and your replies speak for themselves.

“The production of rhetorically advantageous sound-bites through a willful avoidance of complete understanding is no better than is generating entire falsehoods. (Although, in the latter, one does not need to delude one's self about one's purpose.)”

You believe you understand sexology and sexuality, and your results, any better than I?

You are accusing me of doing this? You are accusing me of using sound bites, for personal gain?

“If you actually want to understand my work and are willing to consider the possibility that your sociopolitical (at least, non-academic) views are in error, then I continue to be happy to answer your questions.”

Initially, you will do me good favour, to point out anything I have said which is incorrect - anything, if you are able, socio-political or otherwise.

“If you are unwilling to challenge your views regardless of what my answers could be, then (as I wrote) you do not need me here at all.”

You are the creator of these socio-political viewpoints. It is you, who is required to justify them, here and elsewhere. If you are unable to do so, then one may be compelled to suggest that you may be in your position fraudulently.



Dear Dr Cantor,

“ It is an error to treat the DSM as more than what it is: a committee’s consensus, based (where possible) on the then-current science (and on clinical judgment otherwise).”

Oh, it is much worse than that.

“The DSM (at least, in theory) follows what research shows to be the criteria that yield the strongest reliability and validity data. As scientists (including me) produce new information, the DSM committee incorporates it into its subsequent visions. If scientists were limited to existing DSM definitions, then the definitions could never improve.”

Yes, this is one input into such a document. As stated, ‘you’ are the creator of these socio-political viewpoints.

“Regarding 'by my definition', it is an error to treat a scientific use of “definition” as if it were a legal one.”

Well, how odd. You admit your work serves the DSM and the DSM is applied in law. Your definition is absolutely pertinent and that is why using it incorrectly is totally abhorrent and, in fact, unscientific, in the wider sense. You would not create your definition of any other psychiatric term, why do you choose to do so in the case of ‘paraphiles’?

“Unlike law-makers, I cannot simply declare what counts and what does not count as something else and be done with it. For a scientist, Mother Nature always gets the last word. All I do is to set-up a situation and systematically record what I see; it is the results that then say whether the criteria I used were correct.”

Yes, I am aware of the scientific method, but that is not the issue, here - unless your results are bogus.

“When my colleagues and I looked at the data from a large number of men who were convicted of child pornography offenses (but were not otherwise known to have molested any children), they matched the profiles of men who had no pornography offenses but did molest children.”

Again, you are well aware of the source of the samples. You do understand how skewed and unrepresentative they are of the general population? You do know how these people are ‘collected’ by the LEAs? Perhaps you do, but your ‘scientific neutrality’ is the blinker which selects the source. It is not generisable and you know that. Why have you not stated this in your media appearances?

However, to clarify, for readers ... what you are saying, is that, a proportion of your sample (but far from all of those who have been have convicted of such offences) have, apparently, slightly different brain structures (in some regions) to those who do not. You do not really know how these regions affect sexuality or if it is a cause or effect issue (or even statistical error). If fact, you do not know how ‘normal’ brain structures correlate with sexual orientation/preference/arousal … that being ‘normal’ heterosexuals, or those who were ‘abnormal’ but are now ‘normal’, i.e. gays.

I have no problem with that, if that is what is shared. I have no problem if my brain structure is different from a ‘normal’ person, because, of course, everyone’s brain is a personal map of genetics and environment, constantly shifting and restructuring, although (except in exceptional circumstances) not in a gross sense.

You state your empirical observations (without really indicating the selective nature of the sample, the borderline quality of the inferential statistics or your own terminology); this is incorporated into the DSM etc; that becomes pathology; pathology become danger; danger becomes civil commitment; civil commitment becomes concentration camp.

Socio-political - no doubt. What is worrying, is that it is based on foundations of sand and inconsistent terminology, and approaches across two, until recently, quasi-sciences. You are fine; you are young enough to have escaped the worse of the gay holocaust. Perhaps you should be a little more open and forthcoming about ‘your’ work (and being much more careful in its design and discussed outcomes), in the widest sense, so as to reduce the damage of the present final solution.

"This finding was reported in one of the highest-ranked journals in behavioral science."

Noted - thank you. Please clarify, were they psychiatric journals or other?

"Thus, it is quite misleading to say that we merely "elected" to define child pornography offenders as pedophilies; rather, my colleagues and I demonstrated it."

Only by your definition, which, interestingly, you have still yet to define. Your apparent 'definition' (i.e "someone who has been convicted for 'CP' is a paedophile.") is not in agreement with the DSM criteria.

You have not demonstrated what you claim.

"You can disagree with our demonstration of course, but (as I wrote already) if you are going to fault our work for things we never actually did, then you don’t need me here."

Well, as Limp Bizkit may say "... stop writing checks your ass cannot cash" :)



Why "marionthelibrarian"?

Dear Dr. Cantor

Hello I was just wondering why you initially choose the name MariontheLibrarian? I mean were you trying to evoke a certain Image? A sort of psychological experiment on us here? I am not angry just curious. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

lol No. I just thought that my major activity here would be adding references from medical libraries, since most folk don't have access to them. (It's turned out to be largely true, I think.) "Marian the Librarian" is from a famous musical (I'm a fan), so I masculinized "Marian" to "Marion" to form the name. Why, what image did it seem to evoke?
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 01:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Really "masculinized" To my ear Marion sounds just as feminine. Marion Jones, female US Olympian, is the most famous person I know of who has that first name. I have known a few other women named Marion ( a Chicago news woman Marion Brooks. I'm sure I have meet or heard of at least one man with the name but I can't think of who. For that reason to me Marion sounded like a female name.
Add "thelibraian" to that and put "Marionthelibrarian" in the context of editing WP articles on BBL theory, autogynephilia and such... Practically everyone who has had something to do with those articles has been a transsexual themselves so I just assumed "she" (you) were...a transsexual. Specifically a older transsexual who from the looks of your edits was not offended to the point of foaming at the mouth by "Bailey's" theory. I though that perhaps that explained the relatively mild reaction you got from Jokestress. Back when I first showed my tranny @$$ here she jumped right on my head. (Revamping WP's coverage of Dr. Blanchard's theory and the controversey was my initiative. Before me there was just an article about autogynephilia which was mostly about how horrible it was and who horrible Dr. Bailey's book was. Little to no mention of "Homosexual Transsexuals" at all. Even then for a long time each article was half controversey.)
I see now that I totally misjudged the situation. I guess I need to get to the theatre more often and see that show.  :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

John Wayne's original first name was "Marion." I didn't think about it enough to try searching on the name first. And "The Music Man" is a classic; the movie version is also very well-known.

I had heard about the earlier versions of those pages, but I never gave them more than a glance or followed the talk pages on them.

I quite liked your comment about the BBL-theory and BBL-theory-controversy merger, btw. I haven't had a chance to weigh in there, but you actually changed my mind on the discussion. Although I didn't/don't have a strong feeling about the issue, I took for granted the logic of the controversy discussion being within the theory page. The perspective you provided hadn't occurred to me.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Music Man" eh. Think I'll keep an eye peeled for that one. Thankyou for the above compliment. :-) ( If you knew what I used to say about psychologist in general you may not have given it.  ;-) )--Hfarmer (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

lol You sound fact, you should have heard some of the things I have said about psychologists.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 23:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense in the Sexual Orientation Template

James, I think you should take a look at this There's an ongoing debate there over whether what looks like extremely dubious content should be in the template. Your contributions to the debate would be welcome. Skoojal (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I've left my comments there.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LeVay article

James, I've been looking at the sources of the Simon LeVay article. There is a quote from LeVay about misinterpretation of his work that is sourced to the NARTH website, an unfortunate state of affairs. The NARTH site quotes part of an interview with LeVay in Discover magazine; it would be much better to use the original interview as a source, but I don't know where to find it. I wondered if you could help? Skoojal (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a whirl and let you know; popular sources can be harder to track down than scientific ones.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 13:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Found it. The link is I've inserted into the Levay page.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 21:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bailey and Juanita

According to Juanita, Bailey did have a sexual encounter with her, something she continues to assert. I added "alleged" to make it more neutral, but I believe what she says. Jokestress (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

People can allege whatever they want. Moving from allegation to conclusion of guilt is a habit one would be wise to avoid. I note that your edit [1] is the third time you have treated allegations as if they were true.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because I believe they are true. That's why I treat them that way. Jokestress (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Children say the same of Santa Claus. The wise follow the evidence.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well IMHO the allegations are quite credible. Perhaps Juanita/Maria/Sylvia was just a bit off on dates or something. From reading Dr. Dreger's report and if my memory serves me the argument that it's not true goes like this... Juanita says that Dr. Bailey made a sexual advance on her but for some reason was not able to perform. She says that it happened after one of their clubbing excursions with the good doctor on such and such a date at such and such a time. Dr. Dreger says to that well we have email that says that Dr. Bailey was taking care of his kids at the time. The whole counter arguement hinges on drunkend people correctly remembering times dates and actions. (Things which people who are intoxicated are not known for). It's he said she said.
Like jokestress I am inclined to believe that in the kind of state he was allegedly in Dr. Bailey would have tried something. During that period a large part of his life was about transsexuals. Studying them, talking to them, socializing with them, at least the "homosexual" ones that he writes in his book about finding attractive. :shrug: Then there is my recollection of what little interaction I had with the guy. My personal impression is that he is a man of strong opinions and deep passions who when surrounded by temptation would pounce.
However the above kind of thoughts are just a synthesis and original research and for that reason they cannot be included in the wikipedia. All that could be included is the allegation as well as the paper by dreger. But we should provide enough detail that a reader could make their own judgement.
This is OT....Why is that a bad thing to defend yourself from?  :-) This could perhaps maybe be some reverse psychology on his part eh? Deny the sex then everyone will believe that you had it :-) I mean this whole discussion is predicated on, animated by the transphobic notion that it is bad for a man to want to have or have sex with a transsexual such as Juanita/Sylvia/Maria. Which is ironic becase it is transwomen who put it out there with that spin. Just IMHO. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, of course. My own opinion comes from knowing Bailey, knowing several of his students, and watching many, many attempts by his detractors to revise history. The truth never needs the kind of selective quoting and decontextualizing that that crew produces. That the accusations were entirely fabricated is, by far, the most logical conclusion to me.
The next time I'm in Chicago, I'd enjoy introducing you and Bailey. He was a math undergrad, and I think you two would quickly come to like, or at least respect, each other.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Dr Cantor, he and I have already met. In the last year I have peeped him on the streets of the north side neighborhood were he lives. Not to far from the Howard Brown Health Center, where I met him, many years ago. If he remembers me at all it would likely have to be how I derided psychology and psychologist right to his face. Compared it's scientificness unfavorably with that of physics. (I was only going to community college back then yet I was already full of physics chauvinism. I was a real asshole.) Last but not least a certain happening in a support group that I would drop in on at the HBHC which he or a student would sometimes observe... Basically I made one smart remark too many to an older TS...gave her some unsolicited advice...they got verbally physically threatening and he intervened. According to him such was not uncommon. For the older people at such groups to gang up on and chase away the younger. That was back about early-mid 2000. That person, if it wasn't him i'd be surprised. I have no proof to offer other than the circumstance that I live in chicago, and can prove that I was under the care of the Howard Brown Health Center back in those dark ages (T was not all together with LGB and TS's were not part of their mission statement. My how things have changed for the better.)
But I would still like to meet you just to meet you.  :-) (Jokestress too for that matter just so I could put to rest any idea that I am a "internet faker" of some kind.) email me and CC to be sure I get it. We'll have lunch.  :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


"You can say it as many times as you like, but it is still untrue. Testimony is evidence of other observations; it is never evidence of itself. If that were true, we would need no detectives. Testimony can serve as the allegation or as evidence that supports the allegation, not both."

Perhaps the problem here is that you are thinking of a scientific description of evidence, when it is being used in a legal context. According to any dictionary, testimony is evidence obtained from a witness who makes a declaration statement of fact. Juanita testified to Northwestern's investigating committee about the sexual encounter with Bailey, which is part of the record of the investigation. Her testimony was evidence of the sexual encounter, and cases are often tried based on testimony alone. At any rate, we can mention the McCain piece or others in terms of her statements. Jokestress (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I am a scientist, I do work in a law and mental health program; the problem may be that you are using lay sources such as dictionaries. In law, an allegation is an assertion made without proof. Evidence is that which is used to support the allegation, including testimony. Allegations are not proof of themselves. All of the legal definitions are available here on WP.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 23:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I see what Jokestress is getting at. Her testimony is evidence but not proof. In a legal context she would have to have been cross examined and corroborated ideally by an uninterested party or some physical evidence (a stained blue dress of sorts).
But Jokestress you want this evidence to be accepted as final proof. Based in part on knowing Juanita well. Practically everyone else is at a disadvantage there. That is why her evidence cannot be proof by itself. Understand?--Hfarmer (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I would not be surprised if Jokestress has understood the truth all along. It would be consistent with her prior edits that she wants to use the word "evidence," not because it is accurate, but because "evidence" gives her better optics than the word "allegations."
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 23:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You initially claimed "there is no evidence that Bailey did" have a sexual encounter with Juanita. I countered, yes there is - Juanita's statements are evidence. I was correcting your original misuse of the word "evidence," a term you introduced into the discussion (not me). I hope we can agree now there is evidence supplied to Northwestern about this sexual encounter. Since they never released their findings, we can't say what they thought about its veracity. At any rate, the way to discuss this evidence or not is a discussion we can continue on the J. Michael Bailey page. I just wanted to clarify your misunderstanding. Jokestress (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely correct that there is no evidence that Bailey had a sexual encounter with Juanita. All that exists is the allegation; evidence would be that which supported the allegation...and there isn't any. Juanita's statements would be evidence rather than allegation if the allegation preceded her statements, which is not the case, the testimony was the allegation. (And no, someone making allegations on Juanita's behalf does not make allegations precede the testimony.)
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This article describes paraphelia as a almost exclusively male phenomena. In this, paraphelia includes fetishism and describes fetishism as the use of inanimate objects for sexual stimulation. Does the use of a vibrator not fall under this category and subsequently change this exclusivity from "almost exclusively" to "primarily" or something less akin to "all"? It doesn't require primary literature to see that many females use vibrators with comparable frequency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphi (talkcontribs) 18:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Paraphilias (specifically, the fetishes) don't include merely using some inanimate object; they regard actual sexual attraction to the object. Although there are, of course, women who report stronger orgasms with vibrators than with partners, these women do not report being more sexually attracted to vibrators. Men with fetishes, however, report how sexy the actual thing is...its texture, color, etc. I hope that's a help.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


... and now you begin to 'understand' (expose, actually) why the concept of the 'paraphilia' is a ridiculous fabrication of social control and nothing more ... which (worryingly) you draw upon. When a female thinks about a vibrator, which, in the past, has provided her with her most intense orgasm, she may show all the physiological and emotional responses of being 'sexually-attracted'. That is all 'sexual attraction' is. Anything else is not 'sexual attraction', but a related, social response. I hope that's a help.



(PS For the record, minors are not inanimate objects, why is there such a thing as paedophilia?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talkcontribs) 16:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • You are mistaken to interpret my comments as support for yours. I contest the current DSM definition, not the constructs themselves.
  • You are mistaken also to say what I am coming to understand: I have long understood the position expressed by you (and others before you)—I merely disagree with it.
  • Your comment regarding women's reactions is empirically unsupported; that is, once you need to start saying "may," you start hypothesizing about evidence that does not (yet) exist. The evidence that does exist suggests that women do not (by physiological reaction) discriminate between erotic stimuli representing males or females (despite what sexual orientation they report identifying as). Thus, there is no reason to hypothesize that women who enjoy vibrators would respond to them in the same way that paraphilic men respond to their stimuli of interest.
  • I wrote nothing to suggest that minors are inanimate. Fetishes refer to inanimate objects; paraphilias are a broader category that includes the fetishes. My definitions of paraphilia and of fetish are made more explicit in my chapter on the topic in the upcoming edition of the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


"in my chapter on the topic in the upcoming edition of the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology"

Not much more to say, is there? "I contest the current DSM definition" and yet you are going to define them in a forthcoming weighty tome ... are you are going to create some more of your own definitions, such as the picture-observing paedophile?

I am well aware of the definitions and the realties, thank you, and was contemplating them when you were still working out what The Milgram Experiment may mean.

Look for 'words/phrases like this' and smilies - they are your friend :)

I used the word 'may', not in caution, just that I cannot justify 100%. In the scenario I provided, 'all' the women will be 'creaming their jeans' in anticipation. That is what will drive them to use the vibrator, once more. If they do not 'cream' they will not use the vibrator, as they are not 'sexually-attracted' to it/the outcome. Did I mention anyone else?

But heh, it does not harm to complicate the issue, yes?

Until you have to explain, why the ship does not fall off the end of the World ;)


Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talkcontribs) 17:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


The style of interaction to which you are accustomed is not appropriate here. I once again ask that you stop engaging in passive-aggressive sniping, insults, etc. Let's focus on content and avoid the personal attacks, please. Jokestress (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that I am incivil, and it is possible that you are using such an accusation merely as an excuse not to have to answer my pointing out of your many factual errors. No one has ever accused me of incivility other than you, suggesting the latter is the correct interpretation.
It is possible that I am accustomed to a specific style of interation, and it is possible that your are merely using that as an excuse not to have to present evidence of your many baseless accusations. Short of a Vulcan mind-meld, there is no way for you to know what I am accustomed to, again suggesting the latter interpretation.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I see you are ignoring my request. Wikipedia is a community. People disagree, but they do so with a sense of community and a sense of respect. I feel you have made a number of helpful contributions here. You are interacting here as if you can "win" something, though. This is collaboration, not competition. This is not academia or psychology. This is a place where people work together to create a useful summary of human knowledge. From here out, I am going to ignore any responses by you that are violations of WP:CIVIL. If you wish to interact with me, it needs to come from a place of respect. Otherwise, you do not belong here. If you want to have a little off-wiki slapfight with me, go for it, but don't import it here. The project is not improved through that kind of interaction. Jokestress (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Signature on new line

I notice in your posts that there is always a line break and then your name. Would it be possible to fix that to be like everyone else's sig where it appears directly afterwards? Currently, when you do indented replies, your signature on the new line does not indent so it breaks up the appearance of the discussion and is confusing. Tyciol (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

When I sign comments, I try always to indent my signature to match the indentation of the comment (such as my signature below this). It is certainly possible that I miss one now and then. I apologize if that caused confusion. If you let me know where I did that, I'll correct it.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is a new example. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that one is that WP format does not position its bullet lists the same as it positions its indents. Using one indent pushes the text farther than does using one bullet-list level. So, when using bullet lists, I indent my sig one level less than the level of the list.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Code titles

Please, please tell me you're joking. You want to delete the article on Title 15 of the United States Code? What possible good can come of such an action? And what motivation could you possibly have for doing it? --Eastlaw (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your question, but my motivation is the obvious one: I ran across something that violated WP policy (NOTLINK). The bulk of the comments (thus far) do not indicate that my perception of the rule violation was incorrect so much as they suggest that the article should be an exception. That is certainly a fair enough response (it would be quite odd to claim the U.S. Federal law itself is an unimportant topic), but the responses do suggest that the NOTLINK should be modified/clarified.

You were correct to point out that Title 15 is merely one of many similar pages. The WP pages on deletions (which I re-read before nominating the article) recommended that, for groups of pages, one page be nominated first while holding off on the others until the consensus was achieved on the first. In retrospect, it would have probably been more logical for me to have used Title 1.

Did this answer your question?
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So why not try to improve the page instead of deleting it? Or are you really on a crusade to disrupt Wikipedia? --Eastlaw (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not on a crusade to disrupt Wikipedia. I am not sure whether you mean your question rhetorically, but to answer it: There was no indication (current or past) that there was ever any intention for the Title 15 to be more than what it was, a list of links. No one editing it (or its sister pages) ever added any information beyond the list of links. It contained no source other than the link to the government page that it is identical to. What I took from all that was the conclusion that no one ever tried to help make the page achieve something bigger is because the page looked to everyone to have already achieved its intended purpose...of being what it was.

To me, that made the Title 15 page (and family) different from pages that consist only of links and are in need of improvement rather than deletion. For example, I have been editing for the past few weeks list of paraphilias, which was in a state analogous to the descriptions of the Title 15 page (important, but not quite a list, etc.). It, however, looked (to me) to represent an attempt to assemble a variety of sources...but was lacking most of the actual sources. So, in that case, I'm doing the old-fashioned work of filling in the sources.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 13:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

LeVay article

James, there's a somewhat unpleasant dispute about the LeVay article that I'd appreciate it if you would comment on. See the talk page. C0h3n is insisting on removing a comment by LeVay on the ostensible grounds that it's not about LeVay's own research, but he is adding other material that also isn't about LeVay's own research. The real issue seems to be that he doesn't like that comment because it appears to cast doubt on an exclusively biological theory of sexual orientation. I know that you lean toward biological explanations yourself, but you've generally been fair and tried to take a balanced approach, so I'm hoping your comments can be helpful here. Skoojal (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


I'm sorry to bother you with this stuff, but there's an edit war on the INAH3 article. Again, I'd appreciate your comments. Skoojal (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Might interest you

Were you aware of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources? The current discussion (which I don't actually intend to inflict on you, or at least which I don't intend to accept blame for, if it raises your blood pressure and gives you a headache) revolves around an editor's choice of a history department's definition of "primary" and "secondary" sources (which we use to mean what's properly known as the primary and secondary literature; the true primary source is the lab journal, not the paper that you write using the lab journal's data), despite the fact that a pharmacologist ought to know better. The various demands for counter-sources made me wish for a good research librarian -- which of course made me think of "Marion the Librarian".

Anyway, if you weren't aware of MEDRS, it seemed like the sort of thing that you might want to look over and perhaps comment on; comments on the guideline in general are being collected in the RfC section on its talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. DGG had alerted me previously to the difference between how science and other fields use primary/secondary sources. I'll take a look. (For the record though, I'm not an actual librarian. I used that name since many of my edits were about added sources from medical libraries that most people didn't have easy access to.)
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 21:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy category Dispute

James, having recently responded to your request at Talk:List of paraphilias for input, I'd like to ask for your input regarding a dispute over the recently-created Conversion therapy category, which in my view is being inappropriately added to several articles. The relevant disputes are here [2], here [3], and here [4]. Skoojal (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to trade. I'm happy to contribute just for the general improvement of sexuality articles. I'll have a look.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 01:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; that's greatly appreciated. Skoojal (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to Etiology of transsexualism

Hi, I'm going to be blunt here - your recent edits to Etiology of transsexualism are a complete mess. You've removed huge amounts of properly cited information, and very interestingly removed a lot of criticism of the methods of the clinic you work at. Right now I'm very busy with real life, but just to let you know, I do intend to go through your edits to clean them up - but to be fair, I will assume that some of your information removal may be due to concerns about the cited sources, so I will be double checking the references you have removed before I put them (and the relevant information) back in. Personally, I do not feel that your edits on this subject tend to stay NPOV, so I would urge that you use caution and restraint in future, especially when possible conflicts of interest around your employers exist. Xmoogle (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that many separate minor edits in a small amount of time is usually frowned upon in Wikipedia, as it makes maintenance of articles rather a nightmare. If you'd made 2 or 3 edits, that would have been fine, but 16 edits to the same page within 20 minutes is seriously excessive. I'm tempted to revert the whole lot purely to make the history less of a headache to look through, to be honest, however that action could easily be misinterpreted so I shall attempt to trudge through them to clean them up. On the principle of assuming good faith, I'll assume that you weren't aware of the editing problems that this creates. Xmoogle (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I did not remove any information at all. I removed unsourced claims only, and indicated such in the edit summaries.
  • Because I did not removed any cited sources, I don't know what sources it is you are saying you will double-check. Nonetheless, all double-checking of sources by any editor will improve the page.
  • I am happy to discuss the NPOV of any of my edits, but I can do that only if you are more specific about what it is you contest.
  • You may recommend caution and restraint all you like, but your urging does not alter WP:BOLD.
  • I chose to enter my edits individually instead of holus bolus so that any interested editor could discuss the changes independently of each other. When many edits are made at once, my experience with sexology topics suggests that they >all< become reverted when someone contests only one of the changes.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ephebophilia#Editor placing neutral point of view tag on article

Your comments on this matter would be much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE: The question has been posted on the RS noticeboard.

Hello. I have decided that at long last we have a good enough question to ask the notice board and posted it. here The question has been negotiated and all parties have had input. It is possible to comment further on the notice board so any other questions or concerns can be raised there. I think that the question that I posted which is evolved from drafts of mine, Jokestress's and James_Cantor's is a good framing for the issue and gives all the information that the uninterested RS editors will need to make a determination.

I took this action because we could end up negotiating the content of this question and have about as much success as we have had with the article itself. Someone had to say enough. So I say enough already. I hope that we can resolve this question and move on to more productive editing of the article in the near future. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual Transsexual Good Article Review

Homosexual transsexual has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Hello I have requested a good aricle status review on this article. I have done this because the article needed a big rewrite and reorganizeation in order to make the article more acessible to the uninitiated. From a Featured article cadidacy review I was informed that the articles prose was too dense and that it may not be comprehensive enough. The changes were enough in my mind to warrant reassment of the articles good article status. As a courtesy as a big contributor I am notifying you of this.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What science can say about Pedophilia

Hi, if you have time I would appreciate if you could give your opinion on the discussion here: The article should be divorced from the criminal behavior material. My claim is that current science and the Wikipedia article cannot and should not be used to make a general description of pedophilia since the science is mostly based on clinical samples. Today I believe that the articles tries to do this, or atleast comes of with that impression on the reader. Considering your familiarity with the professional literature, your opinion would be helpful. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

RS Notice board:Commentaries on a Peer reviewed Article.....Again


You are being informed of this topic on the reliable sources notice board because you, commented on the question the last time, or are editor of the article The Man Who Would Be Queen, or you edited a related article. This is a complex topic and hopefully you will remember what this was all about and be able to comment insightfully and help us reach a consensus. I have asked that the comments found in the archive of the original discussion be taken into account this time since I am sure those other editors will return at some point. It is my hope that these can be comprehensively settled this time. To see why This is being asked again check out Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen.

This link is to the new request for comment on the reliable sources notice board. (You may have to scroll down to see it)

Please please don't confuse up this discussion with things about other tangentially related discussions. Please please focus on just the question of sources. (Don't take anything in this message personally as it is being sent to everyone involved.)

Thankyou for your help. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi - I noticed your intelligent and perceptive comments on the talk:Pedophilia page. I have some questions about this. My background is in philosophy which has little directly to do with pedophilia. But philosophers do have an interest in ethical issues, and also in logical and definitional issues, which is where my question lies. Question (1) is 'pedophilia' a term for a practice, or not? If pedophilia is, as the article appears to claim, simply a feeling or disposition or orientation, then this can preclude any practice or exercise of those feelings or dispositions. So we are missing a useful term here. There is an older term 'pederasty' which does explicitly signify the practice, but that is not quite the same, for apparently it signifies adult-adolescent sexual practice. Second question (2) do people in your field distinguish feelings or dispositions towards pedophilic practice from an intention to practice, that happens to be unrealised? I think these are different. I gave up smoking about 20 years ago. Occasionally I get feelings or urges to smoke, which I (nearly always) resist. So I have the relevant feelings or urges, perhaps even the disposition to smoke. But I wouldn't say I ever wanted to smoke. And certainly not that I ever had the intention to smoke. There is presumably a corresponding distinction in the case of pedophilia and it is an important one. I wouldn't blame anyone for having pedophilic feelings or urges, so long as they didn't have the intention of acting on them. On the other hand, I would blame anyone for having an intention to do so, which happened to be frustrated for the usual reasons (parents, police, guardians and so on).

Those are my questions. I think there is an area missing from the article, namely ethics. Ethics would be concerned with the sorts of issues I have mentioned, and others such as abuse of the duty of care and so on. I wonder if there is any literature on the subject? Peter Damian (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I had actually been most of my way through an MA in philosophy before I switched to psychology.

The term pedophilia has been used somewhat differently in different contexts. The scientists who conduct the front-line research on the phenomenon (including me) use the term to refer specifically to the sexual interest/attraction to children. It's this definition that has produced the greatest amount of replicated/verifiable information, suggesting (at least, to me), that this is the best definition. Other folks, including law enforcement, the media, and other non-experts have sometimes used the term more broadly to include some behaviours or as a synonym for child molestation. There has never been, however, any consensus (or even much discussion) about exactly which behaviours should count or when.

I have not heard very much discussion, by any group, about intention. In discussions I have had with professional ethicists, behaviour has always been the focus. Unless a person has actually engaged in sexual contact with a prepubescent person, one can never be sure how to interpret the intention. One can imagine a pedophile intending to engage a child in some sexual behaviour, but deciding against it before actually doing so without any external intervention.

Your analogy to smoking has much going for it, but I would caution against over-thinking it: I suspect that it would lead one to think more about the definitions of "urge," "want," and "intend" than about the definition of pedophilia.

It would certainly be nice if society applied ethics to developing relevant public policy; however, much public policy instead follows from fear and anger.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Cantor, I've raised another disagreement over your edits to this topic. I hope you can agree that my reasons for doing so are reasonable, it is simply a matter of presentation, after all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy. Thank you. Hfarmer (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey== Ideas ==

James, just for my own knowledge, can you tell me what the actual ideas are about transsexuality? There's the Blanchard taxonomy, and there's "feminine essence", and is there anything else that is considered relevant/important/used by more than one lab? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC) who is watching this page for a few days, so you can reply here or on my talk page, as you prefer

Looked at one way (the current state of affairs), you are completely correct: The only two major ideas about the nature of transsexuality are Blanchard's model and the feminine essence theory. Ironically, despite that he believes it is incorrect, the only person who has actually written out the feminine essence theory is Blanchard. Although other folks use the idea, none has actually tried presenting a complete version of it.
Looked at the other way (historically), no one has ever really tried to explain transsexuality as an independent topic unto itself. Early sexologists were trying to understand all the variations of sexual orientation/identity with regard to how they related to each other. That is, they were trying to figure out what the relationships were among cross-dressing, homosexuality, transsexuality, and all their variants. Asking about transsexuality in the absence of any other sexual atypicality came about from transsexuals themselves; they were (naturally) interested in statements specifically about themselves.
Because early sexologists were asking about transsexuality in relation to all the other ways to be sexually atypical, there were many theories, each emphasizing this or that aspect as well as any apparent similarity with other sexual atypicalities. I guess I am saying that transsexual people have tended to be individual-focused, whereas scientists have tended to be phenomenon-focused.
Although transsexual activists tend to be familiar only with the portion of Blanchard's typology as it pertains to transsexuality (understandably, their main interest), his taxonomy also includes homosexuality and transvestism. After he proposed his taxonomy, all the other taxonomic theories have essentially fallen by the wayside. None was able to simultaneously explain the features of all the sexual atypicalities nearly as well as his.
So, I guess I am saying that there are, currently, two major theories about the nature of transsexuality, but the scientific theories are not actually about transsexuality so much as they are broader ideas that >include< transsexuality; but, if one looks up older books that never made it onto the Internet, you will also find many now-obsolete taxonomies.
Is that a help?
— James Cantor (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Enormously, thanks! Moser claims[5] that he has his own idea, but it doesn't appear to be published, and that's the only other hint of other ideas that I've found (in my admittedly brief search), and I've long suspected that our fellow editors' quiet refusal to name the "other, better, correct" ideas were simply because the "other, better, correct" ideas do not actually exist.
Do you think it would it be fun to write a new article, Feminine essence narrative? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a brilliant idea. I'll need a new set of flame-retardant clothes, I'm sure, but you are absolutely right. It's a piece glaringly missing from WP.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Asbestos won't save you this time. What a jerk! WhatamIdoing, do you think that if the trans women don't like the categories made up by Cantor's sexologist buds they're going to like what he and Dreger and Blanchard come up with in the way of another alternative to ridicule? Sure, let's let Dreger define the alternative, Blanchard "deconstruct" it, and Cantor write it up. What could be more fun? By the way, I have no idea whether "other, better, correct" ideas exist; that's no reason to make up "other, better, distorted" ones. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey...Dr Cantor might be critical of transpeople, but that does not mean he is wrong. Vomiting out faeces in support of an emotional viewpoint is what renders people wrong. While I'm sure Dr Cantor has done some of that, I'm not sure it's his entire position. I'll state it you think transexuals are misguided gays who have not tried having gay sex?

Proposed deletion of Feminine essence theory of transsexuality

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Absurd article, totally WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, made up by a colleague of the principle Blanchard to ridicule the transsexuals that they are embattled with with respect to autogynephilia and such. How can the predictions of a 2008 theory have been tested in a 1995 study? How can Dreger be taken seriously as having proposed a new theory of transsexuality? How can Blanchard have desconstructed a theory that nobody had proposed. I recommend that User:James Cantor be canned for his blatant WP:COI on this one.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Feminine essence theory of transsexuality

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminine essence theory of transsexuality. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Information.svg If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Cerejota (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Information.svg If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Cerejota (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • After reviewing the articles and appropriate disclosures made by this editor, I don't see any WP:COI issues of concern. I'm not sure I understand why these templates were posted here, but I don't see problems with this user's edits. To the contrary, James Cantor 's edits appear to be productive contributions that benefit the encyclopedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
He tends to keep his nose clean, until this recent article creation that he refers to above (his "brilliant" in response to WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)'s "fun"). But if you look back at when he was MarionTheLibrarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and search out the old COI complaint before he would admit or I was allowed to reveal his identity, you'll find that his name disclosure hasn't really changed his biased COI editing; it was just a lot more blatant back then. Dicklyon (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a COI concern. That is why the templates were put. If James is aware of the COI polices, and follows them, then there is nothing to it. Even if the contributions are biased, when there are personal relationships amongst researchers it is a better idea to let others do the edit, and just put the information and sourcing int he talk page to avoid even the appeareance of COI. But it is uncontrovertible that James Cantor has a professional relationship either directly as par tof his research or inderectly as co-publisher or colleague of some of the people used as sources and of the topic in general. Nothign sinister is implied, but as someone with absolutely no interest in editing these topics, I say that the concerns are legitimate, even if no actual violation of COI rules have been made. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing of why I think this is legit: Ray Blanchard's website, James Cantor's website, Example of co-authorship - Cantor and Blanchard.
Am I confusing you with a different Dr. Cantor? If not, editing an article on a model developed by a close colleague and co-researcher, and editing a topic central to that research is trivially revealed as plain potential COI. There are no tinfoil hats involved. Even if the editing is according to policy, the community has a responsibility to raise awareness of this fact so they can judge for themselves. Don't like this fact to be raised time and time again by different user? Then don't edit were you have COI! Arguably encyclopedic quality has so far warranted ignoring the COI, but that doesn't mean the COI disappears. It means we ignore it when it makes sense to do so. We raise this all the time with Jimbo and his autobiography.:D Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You have it right; that's me. I'm not sure that the search was necessary, however: I informed the public of my association with Blanchard on the article's talk page myself as soon as I wrote it (see here). I have done the same thing when posting on, for example, pedophilia. I have no objection whatsoever to raising awareness of it. I just couldn't tell from the template whether you thought I actually broke a rule or were giving a generic alert. With the single exception of user:Dicklyon (who has COI issues of his own here), my edits have been unanimously supported with regard to my handling potential COI (such as here). It never occurred to me to put a notice on my own talk page in addition to the talk pages of the actual articles (doing so isn't mentioned in WP:COI), but I certainly have no objection to it. So, I think we are agreeing.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you denying that your conflict led to some serious problem edits when you were hiding your identity, as User:MarionTheLibrarian? Ref this discussion. Also note that at least one other editor there accused you of COI and you accused both of us in turn, though you were hiding your identity while ours were in the open. Dicklyon (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

Ambox warning pn.svg

The article you created, Feminine essence theory of transsexuality maybe deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

Life Preserver.svg
Presa de decissions.png
Question book-new.svg
  1. List the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
  2. You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
  3. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
    Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept. Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
  4. You can vote to merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article are the very best way to keep an article.

Find sources for Feminine essence theory of transsexuality: google books, google news recent, google news old, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the notification. [6] I have nothing useful to contribute to the process, although it does seem fairly obvious that numerous parties are editing articles for which they appear to have too close of ties to edit in an NPOV manner. I hope things work out. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And I thank >you<. Because discussions on those pages are so acrimonious, I thought it best to include everyone who edited any of those pages even though it meant including some people who were not "regulars". Happy editing.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for mediation - The Man Who Would Be Queen

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User Conduct RfC Vs. Dicklyon

I have taken the action of filing a user conduct RfC against Dicklyon based on his past and recent behavior. If you want to make your POV on this matter known please do. Users are needed to certify that the events as I presented them are factual, and they have to certify that outside help has been sought to address the issue. I have written this to every involved user in the mediation. Since Dick has proven that he will ignore any mediated arrangement when it suits him. The community must impose one on him. The proper venue for that is a user conduct RfC, not mediation. The proposed sanctions banning for editing any of the name space of the articles listed in the mediation, and from the user pages of any user who wishes to not have to deal with his mess any more. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon. Thankyou and have a nice day :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no preference for RfC versus mediation. I am, however, having a little trouble understanding the instructions on the RfC page. Am I supposed to add diffs of Dicklyon's incivil behavior or other evidence?
— James Cantor (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


James, I have agreed to mediation. I'll be happy to discuss civility issues as part of it. But if you're going to add personal attacks on me into the mediation page, I'll withdraw my agreement. So back off. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

MEDCOM are finalising a mediator for the case. Dont worry you havnt been forgotten about :) Seddσn talk 12:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen#Mediator

Hello. Please see the above link regarding the mediator for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I noticed that when you recently converted Hypersexuality into a redirect, you added the text "{{Hypersexuality merged into sexual addiction 28 Jan 2009}}" after the redirect. Just to let you know, the {{ }} symbols have a special meaning in Wikipedia: they transclude the contents of another page, usually one from the Template: namespace. Putting random text inside {{ }} doesn't do anything. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you: I tried following the instructions at WP:SMERGE. When I inserted the text from there, the template text did not appear to do anything (at least, anything that I could see in a preview), so I thought it was serving as a comment function.
I've now replaced my "comment" with the verbatim text that was at SMERGE ("R from merge"). In the preview, the page had some accurate and descriptive text, but when I saved the page, it included the category for redirected pages, but not the text I saw in preview. I'm still rather green around here and appreciate the input.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi James, in case you missed my question on the mediation page — are you willing to stop editing the articles in question? Personally, I don't believe you have a COI, but two other editors do, and there's a feeling that it might be unfair for Jokestress to agree to stop editing them, if you continue. Please let me know one way or the other.

The other question I asked was what you see as the outstanding COI issues. You keep raising COI, but without saying what your concern is. Jokestress won't be editing those pages anymore. Is there anything else (apart from your own involvement) that needs to be dealt with? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I will stop editing these pages. I already have stopped editing these pages, as is rather well known. (At least, I have continued to refrain from editing those pages as described by the agreement I had with Dicklyon, even after he abandoned it, and even after you opined that I do not have a COI).

I cannot speak for why others might feel that you are not hearing them, but I can point out some examples which might have contributed. First, of course, are direct questions to you that you simply did not respond to. For examples: Of the incivilities I labeled as they were happening, you responded to none (not even to disagree with my calling them incivil or my question about whether I was being overly sensitive to incivility). Of the three issues I posed here, you responded to one. When ProudAGP asked you directly about Jokestress’ participation in the content issues here, you did not respond either.

I did reply to both issues, though you may have missed them. I asked Jokestress to confirm again that she won't be editing those articles, and she did confirm it, which answers your question. And I explained that she is still able to edit talk pages, which is why her views are included in the discussions, and which answers ProudAGP's question. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Other contributors, I believe, are the times you asserted conclusions without first checking that you had all the relevant information. On the one hand, tou did handle such checking quite appropriately some times, and the conclusions that followed those were successful. However, there were also several times that you did not look both ways before crossing the street, and each one of those leaves any person who has not yet spoken feeling unheard. (People tend to remember instances of feeling unheard, not overall proportions of being heard or unheard.) You have had to back out of assertions you made after receiving more information, each one being an indicator that the checking step was missing.

I apologize for that. This issue involves a very steep learning curve for me, so I don't always catch the significance of an issue the first time it's raised. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Also adding to the impression that some had of not being heard, in my opinion, is how easily you would disagree with consensuses of other neutral editors, even very many such editors. Ironically, I am more than sympathetic to disagreeing with a group when the group strays from rules or evidence. (Such disagreements are the engine that drives the progress of science). However, if I were a new mediator, brand new to an obviously complicated set of issues, and I found myself disagreeing with multiple consensuses, the logical thing for me would be to act particularly slowly and ask even more questions to find out why I saw things differently from everybody else.

As I said on the mediation page, my starting point is the content policies. If we simply stick to those, no matter who has said what in the past, we can look at the disputed content with fresh eyes. Had there been a genuine consensus regarding those issues, we wouldn't have needed mediation. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments, however, did not include much of that fact-finding step. For example, you said that the folks at RS/N could have gotten the rules wrong or have been speaking from inexperience–-not that they did–-but that they could have. That suggests, of course, that you didn’t actually read the RS/N discussions you were disagreeing with. In fact, when WhatamIdoing asked you directly if you had read the RS/N discussions here, you responded essentially that the contents of the RS/N discussions were simply irrelevant here. Despite referring to the possibility of those discussions being improper somehow, you did not refer to any specific arguments from RS/N that you thought were wrong (or why). You did not refer to any particular editor unfamiliar with policy. You simply dismissed their conclusions without reviewing them, doing so over the clear and repeated objections of several of the editors involved. Although you might even have been right that three separate sets of discussions were wrong, of course, but it does not leave a disputant with the impression of being heard out.

I did read the RS noticeboard, but again, my starting point is the content policies themselves. One of the editors involved in the RS/noticeboard discussion has confirmed that there wasn't really consensus, so my suggestion is to forget what was said before, and to deal with the here and now: the current policies, the current parties, the actual content disputes. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The same is true regarding the feminine essence page: multiple consensuses from multiple neutral editors in multiple forums, all unanimously came to the same conclusion supporting the page. It is possible, of course, that after only very short time of looking at the issue that you saw something that escaped everyone else, something that made you “a bit concerned.” But it is also possible that the people in those discussions were more familiar with it. Expressing your feeling of concern without first checking that the disputants themselves thought you had all the information can again lead to disputants feeling unheard.

There was an AfD regarding that page, which voted to keep it, so that issue is a moot point. My only point was that I can certainly understand why someone would be concerned about it — someone who was very familiar with the material, that is, and with the way clinical and academic ideas are promoted and opposed. But it's water under the bridge. What I was asking of you, and I still ask it, is that you bend over backwards to be neutral, because of the perception (right or wrong) of POV and COI. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Before burning what’s left of TLDR, a final example of what might leave at least some people with a feeling of being unheard: In this example, you are telling editors what you should be asking editors. Here you are telling a disputant what the intent was behind the mediation issues list…when it was, of course, the disputants who came up with that mediation issues list. The reason that the issues list did not accurately describe the needs of this mediation is because Cerejota, and not one the actual disputants here, filed for this mediation. Although I believe Cerejota was being sincere in trying help, he became involved in this disagreement only briefly and tangentially; he was not aware of its very complicated nature, as has now been demonstrated by his getting even the basic facts of this case wrong. It is both possible and appropriate for a mediator to clarify the questions for the mediation, but that cannot happen when the mediator tells rather than asks the disputants.

I was telling you what the mediation page said, James. I'm not psychic. I can only go by what the page says, and you did sign up for it in that form. Others want to discuss content issues, and so we're discussing them. If you'd rather not take part in that aspect of the mediation, that's fine. You can stick to commenting on the COI and behavioral issues. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would never presume to assert that you were not listening to people. But I hope that putting the above examples together in one place might help you see how that impression might have been formed. If you believe, now having been immersed a bit in the issues, that these problems belong in arbitration instead of mediation, then I believe it wise to recommend that instead of essentially pushing a square peg into a round hole. For all I/we know, ArbCom might respond differently to an honest opinion from a mediator than to the participants themselves.

You may be right that arbitration would be better, but I'd like to give the mediation a fair try first of all, and I very much hope you'll help with that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I have two recommendations. First, because Jokestress and I have agreed not to edit the main pages here, I do not think it is appropriate for her or me to participate in the mediated content discussions. You might notice that I have not edited the mediated content discussion page at all. ProudAGP made a similar comment about Jokestress' participation there, and I remain disappointed that you did not respond to that comment. Jokestress' and my presence is clearly disruptive to such discussions, and WP is not well served by our staying there. For all the self-descriptions of doing what is best for WP whereas I somehow typify COI, the only person who has actually, willingly, and consistently refrained from disturbing these pages is me.

I believe Dicklyon’s presence is also disruptive, perhaps even more so. I do not have any reason to believe that you have any bias here, but I do believe it is fair for me to ask why you would ask me to refrain edit these pages, but not Dicklyon. In your view, we both lack a COI and there is concern from other editors about both of us. In my view, his wholesale unwillingness to leave any portion of the page, his unwillingness to stick to his prior agreement to leave the main pages, and his belief that he alone is neutral in a sea of biased editors is perhaps the strongest possible indicator that he should not be editing the pages at all. (If memory serves, you are the only editor ever who did not share the opinion of his COI; you might want to explore whether there is some aspect you are not yet appreciating before re-asserting your conclusion.)

Dicklyon's involvement is simply that he knows one of the principals. Your involvement is that you work closely with one of them, and that you reviewed the book. Look, James, this detailed back and forth is what has kept the dispute going. It's not what is going to solve it. What will solve it is if the parties step back, take a deep breath, and look at the forest instead of the trees. You all want to see comprehensive articles, I take it, giving all sides of the dispute. None of you are censors. You all mean to do well by the transsexual community — you differ about methods, but you all want to produce something positive and helpful — and you want to help Wikipedia readers. So you actually have a lot in common. If you would focus on those common interests, instead of the differences, we'd make a lot of progress.
As for you, Dick, and Jokestress taking part in the content discussions, it'd be almost pointless without the three of you, as you're three of the key players. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Second, Jokestress and I (and Dicklyon, in my view) need a “contract.” There is no point to debating trustworthiness, but I think the only viable agreement is one that is explicit, specific, and without room for interpretation. It should be a description sufficient for one of us to quote to the other if and when necessary and self-explanatory enough so that any outside party can look at it and conclude reliably whether the agreement had indeed been violated.

Without such an intervention, none the content discussions matter. The results of all such content decisions will erode very quickly after the mediation is over.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

By all means suggest some wording for a contract. It's a good idea. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
If the proposal would include the recognition that our interests differ but that we nevertheless agree to include all viewpoints when we mention controversial actions and interpretations, then we might have something we could move forward with. The tactics of wikilawyering to exclude one side of the arguments is what we need to put behind us. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen

Hello. Please see the above page as there has been a change in mediator and state whether or not you accept the new mediator. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you! That means a lot. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi James

On the list of Paraphilias article, I noticed that around 30 of the footnotes are to a couple of works by John Money. Some of the terms appear to be neologisms only used by him. For example, Chremastistophilia shows no hits on either Google Scholar or Google Books.

Do you consider those kinds of terms useful for a list like that? It seems to me that presenting terms as if they have wide scientific usage when actually they are recently coined and used by only one or two authors could be misleading.

I wonder if they should either be omitted, or perhaps split-off into a section of the list identified as recently-coined terms used by specific authors, with identification of the authors (and only for notable authors, of course).

Aside from that question, I wanted to ask you about Money's Lovemap work. I know the term is notable, but I don't know if it's it accepted in academic circles or is considered mostly as his unique view. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Second question first: Money's lovemap writings are pretty unique to him. No one has ever produced much data in support of it, in my opinion. But because there was so little else to go on at the time, however, the lovemap idea become widely discussed (cited) for time. Now, they are mainly mentioned when giving a history of the field.

First question is tougher: I've often found myself going back and forth about whether those terms are neologisms. It is entirely true that, among sexologists, many of them were unique to him. However, the advent of the internet has given a place for people >with< those paraphilias opportunities to interact, and now they all, of course, include on their websites the "medical" or "technical" name for their interest. So, although you won't find those terms in much scientific writing anymore, I can most certainly imagine people using WP to look up the definition of an oscure sexual interest. I'll bet that if you surveyed random list readers, they will spend more time reading that list than any other. (A whole article on each term might be excessive, but I think a list entry is reasonable.)

Did that get at what you were asking?
— James Cantor (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. -- What do you think of reorganizing the list a bit, to clarify which terms are in academic or diagnostic use, and separate the ones that are more "cultural"? I don't think we need to remove the non-diagnostic terms, but I do have a concern that we not give the wrong impression, implying that all the terms in that list are "official" or "scientific".
Perhaps we could create a top section for terms used in the DSM and/or regularly used in academic journals, and a second section for terms (coined by noted writers) that are used culturally. For example, as you mentioned, Money's lovemap terms aren't used technically, but they are notable, so they should not be omitted, but it might be a good idea to differentiate. I'm not familiar enough with the usage of the terms to make that separation myself, but it does seem to me that there's a difference between the diagnoses or academic definitions, and the cultural ones, and as it is now, the article implies that they are all part of one list. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can divide the list into commonly-used versus uncommonly-used without much trouble, but it would be rather OR on my part. That is, the RS's (including the recent one I published for Oxford) tend to cluster paraphilias according to some taxonomic theory instead of commonality of use. So, I can divide the lists in a way that topic experts would see the logic to, but there would be very little WP-basis for backing it up when (or if) other editors believe that any particular paraphilia belongs in the other list. I can email you the Oxford chapter, if you like.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand. There may still be a way to do it without OR, but as you say, that's not clear at this point. Thanks for the offer of emailing the text of that chapter. I've sent you an email through Wikipedia so you have my email address to send the chapter. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Chapter is sent; I hope you find it interesting. You might also be interested in a new book just out by a NYTimes writer, Daniel Bergner: The other side of desire: Four journeys into the far realms of lust and longing. (In the interests of disclosure: I didn't have anything to do with the production of that book, except for being interviewed by the author.)
— James Cantor (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment removal

Please remove this comment in its entirety. Jokestress (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear to me whether you are asking that I do so out of courtesy or because you believe that the comment violates a WP policy.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not an either/or situation. I am asking a second time that you remove your comment in its entirety. Jokestress (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that you feel I should remove my comment out of courtesy, I do not feel obligated. To the extent that you believe my comment reflects a policy violation, it is quite reasonable for me to ask what that policy is. One possible explanation for your indicating no policy violation in either of your requests is that there isn't one.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Final request. Jokestress (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NPA says “discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page…” which my comment clearly fits.
WP:NPA also says “The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.” Because nothing in your request refers to content at all, and because my comment was made several weeks ago (with your prior references to it demonstrating your awareness of it), and because this accusation from you accompanies off-wiki attacks by your associates against me and Hfarmer, it is not difficult for any neutral to see that it is your request that is the personal attack here.
Also from WP:NPA: “Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.”
The one potential ambiguity is the rule that “Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.” My comment was entirely explicit in indicating that I had no knowledge of whether the claims made against you in that link were true, noting only that my personal observations of your on-wiki behavior matched those described in that link.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh please she's one to moan about personal attacks. :Roll eyes: Especially something that is nothing more than valid criticism of her editing. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
No one is more attuned than I to the irony of Jokestress' request; nonetheless, editors do not forgo their wiki-right to be free from personal attack because they engage (or are accused of engaging) in them.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to remove the comment, not strike through it. Your narrow focus on the letter of Wikipedia policy instead of the spirit in which policy is determined on Wikipedia is not only unfortunate, but disruptive. Please remove this personal attack in its entirety. Jokestress (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The spirit of the policy is neither to strike-through nor to delete. Moreover, your having delayed your request until it coincided with off-wiki attacks demonstrates that it is your accusations that violate WP:NPA.
— James Cantor (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

HSTS Talk page

17:50 Homosexual transsexual‎ (diff; hist) . . (-11,853) . . Hfarmer (Talk | contribs) (There now every god damm thing that made this about a phenomena is gone. No more Npov based on that since that was your only gripe now. Let it lie.)

My comment wasn't incivil... it was an honest inquiry into her behavior. --Puellanivis (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, your (rhetorical) question to user:Hfarmer ("Can you be a rational person, or do you always need to fly into a tizzy over every disagreement someone has with you?"[7]) violated WP:civil very clearly. Moreover, your comment violates WP:NPA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (emphasis in original).
If you do not agree with my own assessment of your behavior as incivil, I suggest posing the question to Wikiquette alerts to receive an opinion from an outside party.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

homosexual transsexual

I just started the official GA review. Please visit the talkpage of homosexual transsexual. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.— James Cantor (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back to the mad house. :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you satisfied with the current article structure and content or do you intend to make changes to it. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I intend not to make any changes to the page. In fact, to forstall any potential perceptions of COI, I've pledged on my user page never to edit that family of pages all. Jokestress made the same statement here because of her own COI, but continues tagging the page nonetheless ( [8], [9], [10] ).
— James Cantor (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I try not to but it's hard. It frustrates me so much how she can spin verification of somone's existence into "proof" of their fakeness, and have alarmingly large numbers believe her.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well; she can try. Most WP folks appear to see through her more easily than off-wiki. Letting her bait sit alone on the floor helps her posturing to back-fire.— James Cantor (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

sexual addiction - external links

1) Any reason to remove website as a external website link on 'sexual addiction' page?

2) What would be an appropriate web site to add to 'sexual addiction' page? I guess as long as it is non-commercial (no advertising) - just quality information, it should be OK - right?

Saaraleigh (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that is quality information. It is a series of statements by (non-expert) advocates of a specific POV about what sexual addiction is (rightly or wrongly). Sexual addiction (under various names) is hotly debated among sexologists, and there is still no consensus even among professionals over whether the entity even exists, never mind its other aspects. Thus, I do not believe that it is encyclopedic to direct readers to Because intelligent people can disagree over this, I think it would be appropriate to have this discussion on the sexual addiction talk page to see if a consensus can be reached by interested editors.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth reading the detailed guidelines, too, which don't actually care whether a site is for-profit or has a small amount of advertising, so long as the content is excellent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Double check

I just wanted to make sure that this change didn't go unnoticed. If it's wrong, would you squawk on the talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The basic content of that edit is correct; the BNSTc is reported by that paper to be larger in men than in women. IMO, the citation is not as good, however: Zhou (1997) and Zhou (1995) are the same paper; the earlier article, published in Nature, was republished in 1997 in the International Journal of Transgenderism. Personally, I'd have stuck to the orginal version for clarity, but the text itself is correct.
Apropos, the following article has just become available:
Luders E, Sánchez FJ, Gaser C, Toga AW, Narr KL, Hamilton LS, Vilain E.
Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism.
Neuroimage. 2009 Mar 30. [Epub ahead of print]
ABSTRACT: Gender identity-one's sense of being a man or a woman-is a fundamental perception experienced by all individuals that extends beyond biological sex. Yet, what contributes to our sense of gender remains uncertain. Since individuals who identify as transsexual report strong feelings of being the opposite sex and a belief that their sexual characteristics do not reflect their true gender, they constitute an invaluable model to understand the biological underpinnings of gender identity. We analyzed MRI data of 24 male-to-female (MTF) transsexuals not yet treated with cross-sex hormones in order to determine whether gray matter volumes in MTF transsexuals more closely resemble people who share their biological sex (30 control men), or people who share their gender identity (30 control women). Results revealed that regional gray matter variation in MTF transsexuals is more similar to the pattern found in men than in women. However, MTF transsexuals show a significantly larger volume of regional gray matter in the right putamen compared to men. These findings provide new evidence that transsexualism is associated with distinct cerebral pattern, which supports the assumption that brain anatomy plays a role in gender identity.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies

Would you categorise this as a Sexology Journal? There's a minor discussion of the point, and I figure you may have an informed opinion. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no real consensus on exactly where the boundaries of "sexology" are, so I (personally) would take a pragmatic approach: That journal comments on many findings that are clearly sexological, so someone interested in sexology would likely want to know about the journal and its contents. That is, barring any firm statement that it is a sexology journal, I would probably treat it as one anyway, for most purposes. I know that that's probably not much of an answer; I think intelligent people can have a fair disagreement over that one. Where's the discussion? — James Cantor (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to provide that analysis. There's no discussion beyond a one line Q&A on my talk page [11] and response on that of Zigzig20s [12]). I'll leave the article tagged as such a journal. best wishes, --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Talk:Homosexual_transsexual#Homosexual_transsexual_.22Used_in_psychology.22.3F It it pleases you could you please give your input on this request for comment. The issue of which is homosexual transsexual used in psychology. Thankyou.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

James Cantor

Dear Mr. Cantor:

This a comment made by someone who first saw some of the edits you made to wikipedia over a year now. I was surprised by your persistence to the point of aggression, logic that was at times *somewhat* twisted, very POV, very original research, and supporting of a very small number of (fringe? unethical? incompetent?) researchers on certain subjects. If I could be surprised - and saddened to see wikipedia twisted from its informative purpose by this - if you were just an average user, I was all the more when I learned who you are in real life. This behavior, which you have somehow refined overtime, but not given up at all, is wholly unbecoming of a serious professional. It also suggests there might be some desperation on the part of a few people regarding the increasing popular perception of the lack of seriouness in their own ideias, that they should have to offend, brawl and intimidate in an online encyclopedia so these... ideias... meet with some kind of vindication. I think a number of people, and mostly Jokestress, deserve my admiration for putting up with you for so long. You, Sir, are a cur. Have a good day. (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks of this nature are not allowed on wikipedia WP:NPA. I would redact this myself but it ain't my talk page. You may find yourself ip blocked if you persist. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If I were just an average user? I think I'm oddly flattered.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hfarmer, I understand you know something about blocks, as does mr. Cantor - and sockpuppets as well. Oh, I did not mean to flatter you, incidentally. (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Androphilia gynephilia VfD

You have to consider that if we propose this we may get push back just because of who we are. Being that we are both, according to enough people, members of the mythical Clark-Northwestern clique. (By the way will you be able to make it to the annual clique bar-b-que this Monday? :roll: J-k)

From a completely objective standpoint, the article is more like an extended dictionary definition than an article. The subject matter that it contains is covered in so many ways in articles about transgender sexuality, or articles about homosexuality and heterosexuality etc. There is a good argument for deletion of that article. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that this Monday?!? I haven't a thing to wear... — James Cantor (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that you are at 4RR on Paraphilic infantilism

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

3RR comes in to play after more than three actions on the same text. You are now in violation of it with your fourth action[13][14][15][16]. BitterGrey (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Reported: [17] BitterGrey (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi, you uploaded this photo last year and the license says it's in the public domain. But you're not the copyright owner: that's either Ray Blanchard or (more likely) Maxine Petersen. You need to get the copyright owner to email permission to say that it's actually licensed. Otherwise the image may have to be deleted. I believe the email address is .

There's a sample email at Commons:Commons:Email templates, though that is worded for copyleft licenses which are much more restrictive than a release to PD. (Though even with that, Blanchard's personality rights remain unaffected.)

The email should generate an OTRS ticket which a volunteer will note on the image description. I want to get the image moved to Wikimedia Commons, which is the proper place for all freely licensed Wikipedia images and where it will be available for other Wiki projects, such as the foreign language Wikipedias. Thanks for your efforts. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'll get to it.— James Cantor (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Done.[18] Thanks again for the notice.— James Cantor (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The psychoanalysis of research focus

Psychologist with over 30 years of practice questions motivation of “professional” gutter diver.


'I do not think that it is outside the right of the public to need to understand the motivations of those who study deviant issues, particularly ones for which the results could have public policy implications.

For instance, it may appear impolite to question a person's motivation for wanting to study the biology and neurology of child sexual criminals; but if the hypothesized result is to have these abusers of children moved into the realm of the diseased as opposed to the realm of the depraved, it is a right for us to know just who are the people who are so interested in accomplishing these changes to our perspectives. It is, after all, our inner motivations which direct our thoughts and actions. No psychologist I know simply decided one day that psychology would offer a good living and a modicum of status; no, they (we) were driven to become psychologists through inner needs and strivings. I, for one, remember the elation I felt when reading, at age 17, of the defense mechanisms. How much they explained about conundrums of why people said one thing and did another! How exciting to understand these inner forces that determined so much of human behaviour!

There is no defamation of the unconscious because the unconscious is primitive and contains primitive urges and complexes. It makes a difference whether a male psychologist, for instance, lacked a father figure in his life. If he lacked a father figure, he did not have someone to modify his narcissism. Instead of identifying with his father and his father's penis, he identifies with his own, making it into a phallic god, a fecal stick that creates anal children, a Beelzebub, Lord of the flies.

A behavioural scientist who has been fascinated with comparing his penis to those of other men through measuring penises, testing their engorgement could come from a situation in which he never had to accept that he had a father who had a larger penis than his. He inherently fears that his is inadequate, but as long as he can continue to find more inadequate phalluses, he is reassured about his own. It is a psychoanalytic truism that men as a result of focus on their phalluses and their castration fears have been driven to colonizing women. However, now with the legitimization of the homosexual lifestyle, homosexual men have taken to colonizing other men, placing them in categories of less adequate phallic status than their own.

Through psychoanalytic insight, a person can come to realize how they are acting out their neuroses within the world and become more insightful and more humane and learn how to sublimate these drives. Without such insight, the individual, especially those within research, education and treatment occupations will continue compulsively to re-enact their primal castration fears, projecting their feelings of inadequacy onto convenient groups of people.'

-- (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ego-dystonic sexual orientation

Hi, I know a couple of your colleagues have worked on Conversion therapy (even read them) - I wondered if you could have a look at this article, I'd be interested in how you see what has been done with this. Mish (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. I'm not sure if you mean that editors I have previously interacted with have been working on the Conversion therapy or that real-world colleagues of mine have been publishing on that topic. (Only the former is true.)
I haven't been following that page, but I do have to say that I am impressed with how NPOV it is. My personal opinion is that conversion therapies have no scientific basis to them and that attempts are religiously motivated. I am pleasantly surprised that the page reads quite logically instead of being a wasteland of edit-war scars. Is there something specific you wanted my input on?
— James Cantor (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I mis-stated what I meant - I was referring to Drescher etc., who have written on the topic (critically). My views on conversion therapy are about the same as yours. My concern with the Ego-dystonic article was that it goes into some detail on the non-professional approaches, and I wasn't sure that an article about a diagnosis needed to go into such detail on treatments purporting to address the orientation (which is not a mental-health issue) rather than the inability to deal with the orientation (which is a health issue). I thought you might know more about that. There is already an article that deals with treatment (conversion therapy). If you feel it is OK the way it is, then that really answers my question. I just wanted you to look at it as you are not involved (and more knowledgeable than I) to see what you thought. Thanks. You might want to look at Conversion therapy as well, and see what you think about that. I have problems with some aspects of it, but have had to refrain from trying to change it, as it was quite frustrating. Mish (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Journal of Sex Research

My WP answer is that there are RS's that use one name, and there are RS's that use the other. My real-life answer is that Betsy Allgeier, who was the Editor-in-Chief when I first started working with that journal, told me that the title included the "the." So, although I can imagine there being some debate for WP purposes, I personally would not contest the move. I hope that's a help.
— James Cantor (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirection of autosexuality to masturbation has already been properly concluded (22 January 2008).

1 There is a complete lack of any mention of this term in any standard medical dictionary or encyclopaedia, eg, those provided by the National Institutes of Health. 2 The term is used solely as a euphemism for masturbation in three Pubmed journals that I properly cited (therefore, this is not a point of view; it is exactly as I have describe, a euphemism). 3 There exists not one scientific study on the phenomenon described here as a sexual orientation toward the self, as a sexual preference over partnered sex.

Until such publication exists, giving readers something properly cited, that this is a condition or pathology or however one might describe this, the term remains nothing but an unscientific word describing, as has been concluded before, masturbation. When such publication exists, I welcome Wiki contributors to add this term to this encyclopaedia.

My change has nothing to do with a "point of view". I have properly cited how this term has been used, and as there is a complete lack of any authoritative definition otherwise, please accept this as the proper conclusion to this discussion. doyleb23 (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no opposition to the redirection of the page. My opposition (and revert) was aimed towards the material you added.— James Cantor (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Original research in Ephebophilia article?

Hey, James. What did you find to be original research in AleBZ's addition or the previous state of that part of the section (which Legitimus expanded)? The previous addition has been there for months now, and was discussed on the talk page when tweaking part of it. Did you just now see something you feel is OR-sh about it? Or was it just AleBZ's addition that caused you to remove all of that part of the section? I certainly do not feel that all of it should be removed, which is why I restored it to its previous version. I am willing to tweak anything you feel needs tweaking on that part of the article. Or you can tweak it, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer. I can't say I have a strong opinion, but (to my eyes) the entire paragraph was a string of statements aimed, not at summarizing what any RS said about whether ephebophilia counts as "normal," but at creating a novel argument that ephebophilia counts as "normal." I believe that that argument has merit and, to the best of my knowledge, the individual statements in that paragraph were correct and well-sourced; however, the argument is not one that appears in any of the cites given. Rather, the argument emerges from the succession of unrelated sources, which is OR (more specifically, WP:SYNTH).
For example, it is true that the DSM does not include ephebophilia as a diagnosis. But, in the context of that page, the statement was made in order to get the page to seem to say that ephophilia is not abormal, which is WP:SYNTH; the DSM doesn't actually say such a thing.
However, as I said, I do not feel this very strongly, and I do not intend to re-delete the section...but I do hope that this expalins why I deleted it, and if I have convinced you, why I think it should re-deleted.
— James Cantor (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Do you think it cannot be tweaked as to not lean toward any POV? I have to say that I cannot see any real POV in the paragraph that is there now. I mean, the paragraph states that ephebophilia is not generally considered a pathology by psychologists, with reference to the DSM, and then concludes that it can, however, be classified as a mental disorder in certain circumstances. Right now, it says:

Such a distinct preference for individuals in mid or late adolescence is not generally regarded by psychologists as a pathology when it does not interfere with other major areas of one's life. Ephebophilia is not listed by name as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), or the ICD-10, nor is it listed as a paraphilia. This is as opposed to pedophilia, which is categorized as a specific disorder in those systems with its own diagnostic criteria. However, ephebophilia can sometimes be diagnosed as a disorder if it results in dysfunction or exploitative behavior, either under the DSM specification 309.2, "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified", or under the ICD-10 F65.8 "Other disorders of sexual preference".[10][11]

This is all true. You, as a sex researcher, are very familiar with this. How is this advancing any certain position? For example, ephebophilia in regards to late teenagers (let's say 17 to 19) is never considered a mental disorder by experts in this field (well, not when at least 18, anyway)...unless the ephebophile's sexual attraction has severely interfered with his (or her, to be fair) life, like having become a major obsession; but even then, it is sketchy; if it is a 17-year-old, it may be called pedophilia by some of society simply because the 17-year-old is underage. But should we not note that adult sexual attraction to teenagers of these ages is not necessarily abnormal (as that section starts off with)? Older men, for example, often find 18-year-old women sexually attractive. From my experience, here in America, it is when the older man, let's say a 30-year-old, dates the 18-year-old that a lot of society finds it abnormal. But since she is 18, a legal adult, they do not typically find his sexual attraction to her abnormal. Whether or not continually going after this age group, like Hugh Hefner (as I often like to use as an example), could be considered a true mental disorder...I am highly skeptical of (considering how easily a lot of mid and late teenagers look as though they are in their early 20s) unless in the general case of teenage males under 16 and sometimes under 17 since adolescent/teenage males mature physically slower than adolescent/teenage females. No matter what, ephebophilia is the sexual preference for this age group; Hefner may not have a sexual preference for late teenagers and rather just often likes dating them.
Either way, surely, the above blockquoted paragraph can be tweaked to where you would be more accepting of it. The information you gave me to add to that part of the article even notes that experts in this field are very uncomfortable with labeling ephebophilia as a psychopathology. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you entire that ephebophilia is not a paraphilia; my only point is that, of the citations on that page, there is no RS that says that ephebophilia is not a paraphilia. The argument for the non-paraphilia status of ephebophilia is made by the string of citations that does appear in that paragraph, but none of which contains the conclusion that is made on the ephebophilia page...That, to my eye, is WP:OR. As I said, I believe the actual statement itself is true, so I don't find this a particularly egregious problem, but the WP thing to do is to remove the paragraph or to find an RS that itself makes the point (and the existing text and its citations could then be included as just expanding on the already RS'ed point).
— James Cantor (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. But I was pointing out that the section is saying that ephebophilia "is not listed by name as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), or the ICD-10, nor is it listed as a paraphilia." It does not say that ephebophilia is not a paraphilia...but rather that it is not listed as one in those cases. And, of course, it goes on to state that it can be diagnosed as a disorder in the DSM or ICD-10 in certain circumstances. I will take this to Legitimus, since he formatted most of that paragraph, and see if there is anything he can do to tackle your concerns. He may leave it as it is, though, since, as I stated, it is not directly saying "ephebophilia is not a paraphilia." Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Adolescence and serial killer articles

Talking about adolescents above got me thinking that, with your research experience, you could be very helpful to the Adolescence article. Likewise, I have for some time been meaning to contact you about helping out with the Serial killer article; I believe you are familiar with the book Psychopathia Sexualis. I have a question about this book in regards to a part in the Serial killer article, seen at Talk:Serial killer#Sourcing the rest. Any help you can provide with these two articles would be much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Scientific journal

Hi, because "Sexualogy journals" and "Medical journals" are both subcategories of "Scientific journals", it is not necessary to categorize articles in the latter category of either one or both of the former apply. Cheers! --Crusio (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for letting me know. Btw, I liked very much the format you used in New Phytologist and have adopted it in creating the sexology journals' pages.— James Cantor (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you liked it. Here's another link with some editing tips for journal articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide --Crusio (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the barnstar! It's my first! Clifflandis (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy to send it; well-earned. — James Cantor (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sex Roles (journal)

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Sex Roles (journal) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Gershon Legman as sexologist

Internet refernces :

“sexologist ... Gershon Legman.” 

“Gershon Legman (11/02/1917 – 02/23/1999) US sexologist”

“Gershon Legman, exiled author, publisher, and sexologist, Alfred Kinsey's first bibliographer”

“Legman started as a library research assistant, but he quickly impressed Dickinson with his bibliographic skills and persuaded him to fund a major ... project ... of sexology”

“sexologist Gershon Legman”

“sexologist Gershon Legman”

“sexologist Gershon Legman” 0XQ (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseasesnews, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 07:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sexologies: European Journal of Sexual Health (Revue Européenne de Santé Sexuelle)

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Sexologies: European Journal of Sexual Health (Revue Européenne de Santé Sexuelle) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources for notability by either the English or French title.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 07:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Dr.Collins 2009 001.jpg


Thanks for uploading File:Dr.Collins 2009 001.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ephebophilia#Various term meanings

Hey, James. Your thoughts are needed on this matter. The discussion also focuses on your research. Flyer22 (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia article about you

James, you seem notable enough to have a Wikipedia article created about you. But I need to know if you feel there are enough reliable sources about you for this to be done and whether or not you would be okay with me creating it. I realize that WP:Conflict of interest is typically against editors creating or editing articles about themselves, so I am volunteering to create an article about you and significantly edit it. I am not sure if WP:Conflict of interest would advise you not to help me with sources or in outlining it, though.

If you would like, you can also reach me by e-mail. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer22. I am flattered. As you know, I study some very controversial issues, and my work automatically gathers some strong opinions. I've reread WP:COI to check, and I don't believe that there is any problem with me pointing out RS's for you (or anyone else) to use. However, I think I should post them here or other freely accessible places to prevent any accusations of meatpuppetry.
On my university website (, I have a page with links to some of the RS's about me or my work ( The most bibliographic of them are from Canadian Psychiatry Aujourd’hui and the APA Monitor.
I am purposefully not answering your question about whether I believe there are enough RS's about me to make me notable. Again, to keep my head as high on the moral ground as possible, I think that that specific conclusion should be made without my direct input. I'd point out, however, that last month I become Editor-in-Chief of Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. The journal's websites haven't been updated yet, but this notability guideline is relevant: WP:Notability_(academics)#Criteria (see #8).
Thanks again, and I hope that isn't too empty a response.— James Cantor (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
No, that's a good enough response, James. Thank you. I am not sure when I will create this article, since I have so many other things I need to do on and off Wikipedia, but I am definitely going to create it. I just hope that you approve when I do. I will do my best to make sure everything is accurate, and will alert you of its creation. You are certainly allowed to point me to any flaws regarding it. Talk with you later, and have a good day. Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer. I have added a more complete list of media clippings to my faculty website, in case that is helpful to you (or anyone else) looking for documentation.— James Cantor (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know that your article will soon be up. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll help with it when I can. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Your article is finally up, created by Crusio. Flyer22 (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
How wonderful! Thanks to you both. (I should arrange for a photo before it gets too cold outside...)
— James Cantor (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pedophilia#Nature vs. self-reinforced

As always for important discussions regarding this topic, your thoughts on this matter are needed. If you are too busy to comment, I understand. Flyer22 (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit reviewing tool

Hi James

I hope you don't mind, I added your name to this list:

User talk:Risker#Editors who should have Autoreviewer/Edit reviewer activated ASAP

It looks like your reviewer status was activated today.

(User rights log); 16:46 . . Amalthea (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:James Cantor from (none) to Reviewers (trusted user)

The trial of the reviewing feature is just getting started. It might not apply to articles you're working on, but in case something comes up you'll have the needed tool.

More info here: Wikipedia:Reviewing

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarify, maybe?

Hey, James. Would you mind answering this question? If you would rather not answer on the Pedophilia talk page, because you fear the discussion will advance too far into personal opinion or for some other reason, I am okay with you answering it on your talk page. I am just trying to see where you are coming from on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy to give my input. I'm sorry for missing your question earlier.— James Cantor (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sex research papers in Catholic sex abuse cases

Seeing that you are an expert in this field I was wondering if you would like to comment on [19]. Seems someone did insert the paper specifically to make an abhorrent misrepresentation of it (see [20]). Do you see any value in having it referenced at all from the article? Richiez (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'm happy to comment.
I don't have much of an opinion over what any specific editor's motives are, but I do believe there is an NPOV way to say that the priests in the JJ study consisted of X% pedophiles, Y% hebephiles, etc. I can imagine it useful to make a chart with that and to include a column with the definition/age-range for those unfamiliar. The terms could be wiki-linked to the relevant WP articles. I edit each of those WP articles, and the stable consensus on each of them is for the definitions I listed on Talk:Catholic_sex_abuse_cases.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pedophilia#Blatant Bias

James, if you have been following this discussion, will you weigh in? We have it handled, but we still somehow need like "the final voice" or something. Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer. I just got back into town after a week away and will check in at that page. (I wouldn't refer to myself as a final voice, but I am happy to provide input.) — James Cantor (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your message regarding Andrea James. Very interesting. I am looking into some of this, but I can only do so much. My only real interest is pedophilia, and I don't have an academic background, I mostly just chase off trolls and out-and-out pedophiles and enablers advancing (usually) pretty transparent arguments.

However, I did find this statement interesting: "She's posted on the Internet photos of researchers’ children.". Do you have any links or more information this? Herostratus (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. It was even reported in the New York Times:
The site also included a link to the Web page of another critic of Dr. Bailey’s book, Andrea James, a Los Angeles-based transgender advocate and consultant. Ms. James downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided. (Dr. Bailey is a divorced father of two.) Ms. James said in an e-mail message that Dr. Bailey’s work exploited vulnerable people, especially children, and that her response echoed his disrespect.
Just to be clear, I have no reason to think that AJ's POV about the pedophilia-related pages is the same as that of the people you describe, but I do believe that it is just as disruptive.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate changing of vote


Changing Destinero's vote, especially on a article on which you have a conflict with the prime author, is really not done. You are now definitely getting in the WP:COI arena. If it would have been a crucial vote, you could have asked someone else to do it, or add a note or something about it, but changing the text of someone's else vote is not appropriate. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote on page to Destinero when I did it, I am happy to revert it or have it reverted, if the change did not reflect what he said. If you think it more appropriate, I have no trouble at all reverting myself and letting you, him, or someone else update it instead...or to let it remain what he said before he changed his mind. — James Cantor (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On the proposed merger of Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, and BBL theory

The actively interested editors of the pages on Autogynephilia, homosexual transsexual, and BBL theory have been discussing a merger. You are an editor that was deeply interested and involved in the past. straw Poll on the merger proposals. I am notifying you of this poll as a courtesy. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your thoughts on terminology


I appreciate you weighing in over on Talk:Autogynephilia. You raised something that I had actually been mulling over as well. If there's going to be a reorganization -- I know you would prefer to see a large number of articles, while I see that as WP:UNDUE and leading to an awful lot of redundancy and confusion -- I think that'd be a good time to deal with terminology.

You noted that "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory" is malformed. I agree. Moser (2010) calls it "BAT theory", if I recall correctly, and I've seen "Blanchard's theories" or "Blanchardian theory" elsewhere. As someone who has worked with Blanchard, do you know if there is a preferred wording for the theory?

I'm also curious as to your thoughts on structure. Rather than pairing up each claim with each counterclaim, I was thinking on having all of the supporting evidence for the theory in one section, then the criticism in a separate section. I think that could help reduce contentious editing in the article, since each side has their own respective sections (only properly weighted balance would need to be retained). What are your thoughts on that?

Concerning the criticism, I was thinking that Moser(2010) is probably the best source and should get the most space, since it's largely a secondary source (a review of existing literature rather than new research). Are there any similar papers that you're aware of for the supportive side? Since there seems to be more papers in favor of the theory than opposed to it, and probably at least as many authors supportive as opposed, I'd like to give support for the theory a larger chunk of space than opposition -- so long as both sides are well represented. -- (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy to. I do my best to respond to requests for input.
I am not clear, however, on what I said that gave the impression that I would prefer a larger over a smaller number of articles. Actually, I strongly support your observation that this family of pages includes a large number of low quality pages that should be deleted or merged into a smaller number of higher quality pages.
I recognize that you have already proposed merging autogynephilia, homosexual transsexual, and BBL, but I think that that might have skipped the step of discussing which of the larger family of pages should be collapsed into which. I think that the above three should be the main articles into which the others should be merged, such as Benjamin scale, Classification of transsexuals, Androphilia and gynephilia, Etiology of transsexualism, and so on.
There really is no official name to Blanchard’s ideas on this, and various authors refer simply to whichever aspects they are discussing. Typically, this would be something like “the taxonomy of transsexuality,” but there is nothing that in any official way names the set of ideas after Blanchard or anyone else. For emphasis, I’d repeat what I said at the autogynephilia talkpage: Many folks erroneously say that Blanchard divided transsexuality into subtypes; in actually, Blanchard collapsed transsexuality into fewer types than had already been under discussion among writers (including Harry Benjamin) for many decades.
I believe the evidence in one section and criticisms in another is perfectly appropriate. I am pessimistic that that will reduce the contentiousness, but I think that form is certainly a good one.
There is nothing wrong with using Moser, but one would probably want to avoid the easy mistake of giving WP:UNDUE weight simply because it is one of the only peer-reviewed papers on the topic. Moser is rather an extremist within sexology (he believes that even pedophilia should be removed from the DSM, for example), and the journal that published his article is about as low an impact as a journal gets. You might also want to read Anne Lawrence’s response to Moser:
Lawrence, A. A. (2010). Something resembling autogynephilia in women: Comment on Moser (2009) [Letter to the editor]. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 1-4.
I hope that’s a help.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, James. For now, I've merged into the old BBL theory article, but if there are ever any proposals to rename it to anything that emphasizes that it's really Blanchard's theories, I'll definitely support them. I think this will do for now. I made sure in the merger and the focus on history to keep the part about how Blanchard was originally studying four groups (androphilic, gynephilic, bisexual, and asexual), and found that the latter three seemed similar while the former was different. If you have any comments on the wording, I would appreciate them.
I hadn't run into some of the lesser wikipedia articles you mentioned. There definitely could be some merit to their merger. The biggest thing I want is for people to be able to get to Wikipedia, find the article easily, understand immediately what the taxonomy is about, and then be able to see the research on the subject. I know very well that many people will jump right over the "pro" side and straight to the critciism, while many others will skip the criticism and only read the pro side. But so long as it's clear and it's all there, I think that's a good direction to head.
Re, Moser -- I was referring to Moser 2010 ("Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory: A Critique"), not Moser (2009). IMHO, Moser (2009) wasn't very strong, and I made sure to cite Lawrence's response (and Moser's counter-response) in the criticism section (that kind of breaks my arrangement, putting some "pro" (Lawrence) in the criticism section, but I felt it to be important). In the section on Autogynephilia, I made a brief mention that Veale (2008) and Moser (2009) found autogynephilia in natal women, but that this is controversial (then cited the rejoinders).
(Re, Moser 2009: I have to agree with Lawrence that he did extend Blanchard's questionairre in a manner that makes it more likely for natal women to answer affirmatively to his questions. At the same time, I have to agree with Moser that his lowest affirmative category (after "never") is equivalent to Blanchard's, and that the rewording criticism only applies to some of the questions. So I think the reality is probably somewhere in between the two extremes. Of course, this is all a side note, since all that matters as far as Wikipedia is concerned is what's in the papers, and what I think doesn't really matter.  :) )
I really wouldn't want to get too into extreme positions -- because while Moser is indeed extreme in some of his views (no question there), one could make the same argument about Bailey (I wouldn't say the same about Blanchard) -- for example, Bailey's contention that bisexuality doesn't really exist and that women don't have a sexuality. But they're all peer-reviewed, so as far as Wikipedia is concerned, they're all the same. And just because a person takes some extreme positions, that doesn't mean that all their views on all subjects aren't worth merit (re, both Moser and Bailey). Even if Wikipedia's standards didn't require their inclusion, subject to the limits of WP:UNDUE, I'd still think both of their work should be included.
If you come up with some good "review of the literature" type papers for the pro side, I'd definitely like to include them and give them prominence. The "Pro" side is currently a bunch of random observations, and I'd like to help give it more organization.
Also -- and this is pure curiosity on my part -- do you know if anyone is doing any research on "autoandrophobia"? I ran into the concept in Moser (2010), and found it rather interesting. It seems odd that nobody would have studied it thusfar. From my experience with gynephilic pre-op M2Fs, for example, most of them would gladly accept an orchiectomy if offered to them, and be very happy about it (while most cross-dressers would not). I find that hard to make sense of from the concept of autogynephilia, since it wouldn't make them any more feminine, but easy to understand from the concept of autoandrophobia. It's more of a curiosity on my part, but I figured due to your connections, you might have more info (if there is any) on the subject.
Again, I appreciate your insights. Even with your COI, I think you're a good asset for the subject. -- (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)



I know you mean well, but I feel I have to give you an official warning because you are going over the acceptable with self-promotion. I think that as a rule, if you think an external link concerning yourself would be a good idea for a page, never ever add it to the page yourself but always suggest it at the talk page. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification, is there any link I have added that you think was not appropriate to the given page?— James Cantor (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Research on female pedophiles

I'm curious if there's any research on female pedophiles which would support (or refute) similar conclusions to what you have already found on male pedophiles (specifically: lower mean IQs, higher odds of being left-handed, higher odds of head injury and deficits in height). If such research hasn't been done, I'm interested whether you personally think these findings would be present in female pedophile populations and any reasons you might have for your opinion. I'm not trying to support any personal opinions of my own (I know next to nothing about this subject) and I'm not going to quote you. Thanks, Kimmo Johan Alm (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm just interested for informational purposes only; not to use this on Wikipedia or elsewhere. I can understand if you don't respond to this or if you prefer to respond anonymously. Kimmo Johan Alm (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem answering here: There isn't any research of that type published, no. The findings my team and I (and other groups) have published require moderate to large samples for analysis. Female pedophiles are extremely rare (and there is debate over whether female pedophiles, as opposed to female child molesters, exist at all). I am not aware of any clinical or research facility that sees enough potential cases to conduct the parallel analysis.
Because there is so little to go on, I am neutral about what such a study might reveal. It is certainly plausible that what my team found in men is also true in women, and it is also very plausible that the structure of female sexual interests (including any pedophilia) is entrely different in women.
I hope that's a help.
— James Cantor (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the informative and quick reply! Kimmo Johan Alm (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pedophilia#Proposals for new lead

As one of the designers of the previous lead, your take on this matter is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy to.— James Cantor (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry advocates busy at work here

I know you probably don't like Robert Spitzer much, but his page here was downright ridiculous. Based on that version: he totally disavows the DSM, and all his works are incomplete, except "Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness", (for which wrote only the preface, IIRC). We have a fan of Robert Whitaker changing various pages here; she's responsible for most of the "improvements" to Spitzer's bio. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that I'm "pro-psychiatry" either. That is, there certainly exists room for criticism of the field, of various professional associations, or of individual psychiatrists or ideas. I've watchlisted them, and will keep an eye for any of it getting WP:UNDUE. Thanks for the heads up.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Poor quality articles to keep an eye on

A certain editor, who I won't name but you'll easily be able to identify, supports the existence of poor quality articles like this version of autoandrophilia and the current version of sissy (transgender). Tijfo098 (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

He also creates WP:DICTDEF stubs like gynemimetophilia and andromimetophilia, concepts for which there are little if any scientific studies. It seems more appropriate to redirect such stubs to the related sexual activity, if one can be found, e.g. I've done that with sthenolagnia (a term which has more coverage in the tabloids and Internet forums than in science publications), or just move them to Wiktionary. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


As a practitioner of "blobology", what do you think of Delusions of Gender [21]? Tijfo098 (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

On the basic tenet (that some very naive authors have wildly overinterpreted their data), I strongly agree with Fine (the author of Delusions of gender). I have not read the book itself, but on the basis of descriptions of the book, Fine seems to go rather overboard, however. That is, despite that there are many poor studies, I don't (personally) perceive any pattern that researchers of sex differences are any more given to those kinds of error than are people researching other issues. (Rather, I think the media are more likely to hyperpublicize such studies.)
I believe a greater contribution would be made by demonstrating how to distinguish high from low quality fMRI studies, not by throwing out the bathwater and casting doubt on the baby. Readers should not be left with the feeling that fMRI studies are problematic by virtue of their being fMRI studies. As Henri Poincare said, "Doubt everything or believe everything. These are two equally convenient strategies. With either, we dispense with the need for reflection."
— James Cantor (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


Since you insist we discuss it there, I started a thread. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


You should refrain from editing the following areticles: pedophilia, hebephilia, and Karen Franklin. You should construe this as a general injunction to avoid editing articles where you have a vested interest. You may comment on the talk pages, proposing specific changes, but should respect the consensus if and when it goes against you. If you continue to edit these articles in violation of our conflict of interest guidelines you may be blocked or banned from editing. Guy (Help!) 01:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Guy: With all due respect, I cannot promise to heed your warning. I believe you have made a snap judgment.
I have not edited any of those pages in a long while before your warning, and I have no edits in mind for those pages for the near future--I note my dissent because, should I later decide to edit there, I do not want it to seem that I was ignoring the warning. Rather, I contest the warning itself, in the absence of any content dispute at all.
I do not easily say that you have made a snap judgment. However, you will notice that you provided your warning before roughly 80% of the actual discussion at COIN. Although you refer to my editing against consensus, I have never once done so (and you provided no example of my doing so). You will also notice that the "party lines", without exception, merely reflect prior content disputes. (E.g., user:Jokestress maintains off-wiki attack sites against me and my colleagues; user:Bittergrey seeks retribution for my saying that his off-wiki infantilism fansite is not an RS; etc.) Of course, editors having prior disagreements with me does not disqualify them from calling me out on anything inappropriate I might have done, but a decision from an admin made without due diligence is, as I say, a snap decision.
Finally, a read of my userpage will reveal that I take WP:COI very seriously, and a read of my edit history will reveal that I had already ceased editing those pages, on my own accord, before any warning, and in the absence of any accusation or content dispute.
So, although I believe you issued your warning in good faith, I believe it was premature and without all the relevant information. My being an expert on those topics does not disqualify me from editing them. Although you are certainly free to disagree with WP:expert retention, I do not believe it is appropriate to express that dissent by issuing warnings to experts solely for editing pages on the topic of their expertise. So, although I have no plans at the moment to edit those pages, it is conceivable that I will, and I am afraid that a more full discussion at AN/I or other appropriate forum, with all of the relevant information, would have to be had.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pedohebephilic disorder

Hey, James. I hope you are still keeping tabs on the Pedophilia and Hebephilia articles. I want you to know that no matter what, your expertise in these fields have been greatly appreciated (especially by me). As far as I'm concerned, we need more experts here at Wikipedia editing the article topics they are experts on. For one, we wouldn't have so many "Expert needed" tags on Wikipedia articles, now would we?

Anyway, I'm wondering about pedohebephilic disorder. If the new proposals are accepted, how would you start the lead-in of the Pedophilia article? How would you layout the rest of the lead? I mean, even with pedophilia and hebephilia being merged (in the new proposal), it doesn't suddenly make pedophilia and hebephilia the same thing (which is something you mentioned before). Should we really start the Pedophilia article out as saying pedophilia means a sexual preference for both prepubescents and early pubescents? Or should we go with the traditional definition first (prepubescents), then lead in with the ICD-10 and DSM "early pubertal" definitions, like we already do for the ICD-10? After all, the DSM would not be erasing pedophilia (people with a primary sexual interest in prepubescents). And though the DSM is authoritative, it doesn't erase the typical way the term is defined by experts. I also doubt that we will be renaming the Pedophilia article to Pedohebephilic disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer. I'm very sorry for my delay. Things have been very busy in my real-world professional life, so WP has had to take a back seat for a while.
I agree indeed that more topic experts would be great for WP. My experience with the tagging is that "expert" often means "expert who agrees with me".
As for how to begin the pedophilia and related articles, my suggestion is to conceptually separate pedophilia-the-phenomenon from pedohebephilia-the-formal-DSM-diagnosis, even with different pages. Most readers, I believe, are much more interested in the phenomenon than on technical details (except for editors who want to use DSM status to make a political point, which my suggestion would discourage rightly, I think). An actual pedohebephilic disorder page (not just a redirect) would contain all the DSM details, debates over diagnosis, strengths and weaknesses of diagnosis, etc., and would refer readers to the pedophilia, hebephilia, and child molestation pages for the rest. Issues about pedophilia-the-phenomenon and hebephilia-the-phenomenon (such as etiology, human rights, history, etc.) would appear on pedophilia and hebephilia.
I have no reading on how easily such an idea would be accepted by editors, but I believe that it would reasonably satisfy the major points of view, avoid having one aspect confuse the other aspects, and be the most informative for readers.
I hope that's a help.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for relaying your thoughts. I understand being busy in real-life, of course.
Hmm. Are you saying that all the DSM material about pedophilia should stay out of the Pedophilia article if we have a Pedohebephilic disorder article? If so, then what about mentioning how pedophilia is defined by the DSM? I mean, even with it combined with hebephilia to create Pedohebephilic disorder, pedophilia by itself would still be defined by the DSM, wouldn't it, as pedophilia and hebephilia are not the same thing? In the proposal, I see how it still distinguishes between pedophilic type and hebephilic type, and only combines the two when the individual has a strong attraction to both prepubescents and early pubescents. Thus, it makes me wonder why the proposal wasn't simply to create this new category -- Pedohebephilic disorder -- and leave the Pedophilia definition in by itself.
Also, just to be clear, because sometimes replies aren't as clear for me, you're not saying that all the medical information on Pedophilia should be moved to the Pedohebephilic disorder article instead, are you? Because, as I stated above, pedophilia is still a separate entity. And without all the medical information on it present within its own article, that would leave the Pedophilia article with only inaccurate definitions of the term -- the ones applying to any minor under 18. As "pedophilia" will continue to be a popular term and the most likely name people will search for the disorder under, it seems pretty clear to me that the article should still define the term medically first and foremost. That said, it seems you're saying we can still define it medically, but to keep the DSM definition out. I state that if we cover the history of the term, as the article currently does, the DSM will have to be mentioned. And by "human rights," I take it you mean child molestation and pedophiles' perception of it, as is already in the article?
And, finally, for the Hebephilia article, it's already pretty small. I'm guessing you mean it should stay as it is, but without the DSM debate included there, rather just leave it to the mention in the lead? Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for asking so many questions above, which may be why you haven't answered yet. I was just looking for clarity. A similar discussion has come up on the Pedophilia talk page: Talk:Pedophilia#Previous definitions of the cut-off age. Not sure if you're interested in weighing in, but I decided I would let you know...if you aren't already still watching that article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hiya. It's no problem at all to ask me whatever you like. I regret mostly that I have not lately been able to give your questions as much thought as they deserve as quickly as I would like. That said:
I'm not saying so much that DSM material should be relocated from Pedophilia to Pedohebephilic disorder, as I am saying that editors should be careful not to mistake discussion/criticism of pedophilia from discussion/criticism of the DSM definition of pedophilia. The DSM does not actually define pedophilia (or anything else); rather, it provides criteria for assigning the diagnosis, which is an approximation of the definition. That is, the diagnosis is meant to conceptually capture the definition as well as possible, but it is still only an operationalization menat for real-world, clinical situations. For example, there is nothing in the definition of pedophilia that requires the person be 18 years old: One does not become a pedophile on one's birthday; rather, one merely meets the diagnostic criteria on that day. In assigning diagnoses in the real-world, however, we have to include such criteria to prevent over-diagnosing youths attracted to their peers.
As an example/analogy for how information might be divided, I have created a Hypersexual disorder page which gives information about the (proposed) formal diagnosis, whereas I expanded the Hypersexuality page for the phenomenon itself. Although their content overlaps, it keeps the coverage of one aspect from overrunning the other...and prevents overly long pages.
I hope that's a help.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for replying again. As for the DSM rather having criteria for pedophilia than a definition, that has been discussed on the talk page before, but their description of pedophilia is still seen as a definition. That's what I mean by "the DSM defining pedophilia." As for 18... Well, as you know, a person can be diagnosed as early as 16 (16 is the earliest they'll allow someone to be diagnosed as a pedophile). They stop at 16 because of what you mentioned about youths being attracted to/preferring their peers. But even for 16, there are specifications. "At least five years younger" and "ongoing sexual relationships between a 12-13 year old and a late adolescent are advised to be excluded."
Anyway, thanks for answering. With the pedohebephilic disorder proposal, you stated before that pedophilia would remain distinguished from hebephilia (rather that the DSM is not saying that they are the same thing). But now I'm not so sure what is meant by the pedohebephilic disorder proposal...other than it combining pedophilia and hebephilia and taking care of the partial overlap. I mean, what about the people who are only pedophiles -- no sexual interest in pubescent-aged individuals? Are they called pedohebephiles due to this new category? Is the pedophile aspect by itself erased from the DSM completely, even though the proposal still distinguishes from the pedophilic type and the hebephilic type? That's basically what I meant by my earlier questions on this. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, James

Tim Perper here. I didn't know you were an editor here. That's good to hear. Check my user page for more details about me. Right now, I'm helping revise the Lolicon article, which was one of the articles Sanger used to attack Wiki for promoting and/or disseminating pedophilic material. There is, of course, much anger centering on the issue, especially around Wikipetan. I am working uphill to add reliable sources to the article, and to remove subtle and not-so-subtle POV material from the article. I think it is a very good idea to encourage academics to intervene in the editing and writing of Wikipedia. We can, with some hard work, make a real contribution. I've added your page to my watchlist. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your supportative comment. I genuinely appreciate it. Timothy Perper (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Always happy to add references!— James Cantor (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


Hey James - you're right, I really shouldn't have changed the language on your user page. I apologize for doing that, it was bad judgment. I hope you can understand from working on several Wikipedia articles that you have a professional interest in, have done a lot of research for, and made a genuine and honest effort to make them as neutral, accurate, and encyclopedic as possible--requiring, literally, hundreds of hours of work--it can really be frustrating you're trying to communicate your intentions to other editors working on the article when for whatever reason you just can't get on the same wavelength. Have a good day, my friend. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Scarpy. I have entered Resolved on the AN/I entry.— James Cantor (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I only encountered this because I have the AN/I page on my watch list. James, what you have on your user page is up to you, but please consider reverting back to something similar to the wording inserted by Scarpy, as it is rather witty.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny you should say that. In my real-life, I'm generally known as being very funny. But because sex research already causes so many giggles and because my work is on the most controversial parts of the field, I err on the side of sober when writing about the science. My using humor can easily be mistaken by many as disrespect. Point taken, nonetheless.— James Cantor (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Compulsive versus Addicted versus Impulsive; CSA

Hello Dr Cantor,

I have two inquiries which stem from curiosity rather than any particular purpose. If you have the time and inclination to respond I'd appreciate it.

Firstly, I noted that in your call for input to the Sexual Compulsives Anonymous at Wikiproject Medicine that you distinguished between compulsive, addictive and impulsive behaviours. Could you elaborate on the difference between these conceptions?

The other item which I would really be interested is your take on "sexual addiction" as a social phenomenon.

Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Fiachra (and "James" is fine with me). Unfortunately, those terms are used very loosely, and there are many sloppy researchers who use them nearly interchangeably.
In general, addictions refer to situations involving substances, where the substance "short circuits" the brain's reward system--they are so pleasureable that the person (or experimental animal) will forgo many or all basic survival behaviours in order to get more of the substance. The main signs are tolerance and withdrawal: The person, over time, requires more of the substance in order to attain the same effect, and if the person fails to get more, then the person undergoes very unpleasant side effects, which can include seizures and death. Substances differ in their addictive potential, and people differ in their sensitivity to them.
Compulsions are behaviours that lack any inherent reward (like handwashing or door-checking), but that the person uses to protect him- or herself from some imagined (usually rather irrational) problem. For example, people with an irrational fear of germs use handwashing to reduce (temporarily) the fear of becoming infected and door-checking to protect themselves from danger.
Impulsions are urges to engage in a behavior that is naturally pleasurable and reduces a feeling of general tension, but not for protection from some specific fear.
Because each of these situations all seem to refer to behavior this is somehow "out of control," many people mistake one of these for another and assert broader and vaguer definitions of each one until they're all just a pile of jargon.
As for sexual addiction as a social phenomenon, I think a lot of people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There certainly exist socially conservative authors who assert that everything outside a heterosexual, monogamous relationship is a problem. There also certainly exist people who use the word "addiction" in order to garner sympathy or patience from family members (or from the public, in the case of celebrity cases). However, it would be an error, in my opinion, to generalize from these kinds of cases to all cases. The people who come into my office (I have not done any research of my own on this yet) are very diverse, and use the same words, but to mean very different things.
So, for me, the biggest intellectual problem is that very many people are using a "one size fits all" approach to the problem, saying it is this or it is that. Instead, I believe we are talking about a they.
I hope that's a help.
— James Cantor (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
That is very helpful and thank you for your lucid reply. In regards to sexual compulsion as a social phenomenon what I guess I meant was a) the appropriation of a medical language by lay people to legitimise their various self-help entreprises and b) whatever institutional architecture is supporting this (clinics for the sexual compulsion, etc) and how they interact with their client base (or, how they construct each other and in what manner does the power flow). I was struck during the CSA discussion at the array of 12 step organisations that currently exist (Overeaters Anonymous, Debtors Anonymous, Workaholics Anonymous, Reentry Anonymous, etc.), all, apparently, self-constructing their behaviours, partly at least, as forms of pathology. It is, I think, an interesting popularlization of the disease model into forms of everyday life. They're obviously not only or even predominantly using medical or psychological models for their behavioural problems as many also use religious, moral or spiritual frames of thought (and one, at least, seems to draw upon evolutionary-psychology).FiachraByrne (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah. That's a much harder question, and one that's outside my expertise. I've never studied self-help groups as a phenomenon unto itself. I think it would be fair to say, however, that they developed and that people join them for any of several reasons, some good and some bad. Many have very strong ideologies which can be anti-scientific or (superficially) anti-establishment. Others serve very positive functions, even when it's only to provide social support. So, I don't think any global statements can be made, and that it's fair only to evaluate each claim and each possibility by itself. It is a very interesting question, however. If you run into any good information about it, I'd enjoy hearing about it myself.
— James Cantor (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

More on the Lolicon article

Hi, James,

I'm running into a problem for which your input may be very valuable. It's not a matter of details about the manga and anime, but about some basic definitions and scope-of-article issues. This is in #20 of the Lolicon talk page, titled "A larger issue for the article." In a nutshell, many manga and anime portray very cute and/or pretty girls falling in love with older men, the girls ranging from prepubescent to pubescent -- and it's all depicted as quite normal, nothing sexually explicit, just old-fashioned love and attraction. And the girls all fall into the age range that the article deals with, which deeply outrages some, not all, but some Westerners. My impression is this: the traditional Japanese view is that the age of consent for a girl is around 14, and that emotional yearnings and desires appear in much younger girls. These manga and anime are about such girls and the men they like -- NOT sexually, but emotionally, often with the promise of marriage when she is old enough. So we have a cultural border here. So if you have some words of wisdom -- or references!! -- it'd be a big help. Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

DSM - Paraphilias / homosexuality

Hello James I thought that you might like to look at this recent edit of the DSM page. I'd try and sort it out myself but, to be honest, trying to make sense of it is wrecking my head. FiachraByrne 09:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Fiachra. I'm very sorry for my delay.
From my point of view, much of the intellectual merit in the (public) discussions surrounding the DSM-5 has been shockingly low. For example, I have attended or read debates by people whom I otherwise respect only to discover that their criticisms were really expressions of feeling insulted for not being selected for one of the prestigious committees, expressions of defensiveness for when a decision they made on a previous committee was getting overturned, or a reflection of a fear of loss of income (such as the fear that a given change would interfere with "expert testimony" or other commodity that the persons sells).
For the record: I agree with some proposed changes, and I disagree with some others. So, I don't think I can be said to be either pro- or anti- DSM5. I am, however, very disappointed with how much politic and how little science is being discussed in considering the proposals.
The scientific discussion of the sexual disorders appears to be even more overrun by politics than are most other categories. Because sex is such an attention-getting issue, it is often perceived as bigger than it is. There really isn't much of any debate (never mind controversy) over whether to retain the paraphilias in the DSM. There is a physician in San Francisco, Charles Moser, who frequently writes essays or letters-to-the-editor expressing his view on the topic, but that's about it. His writings give other community advocates something to help legitimize their view (which is perfectly fine), but the idea itself has no real traction nor has caused any meaningful "controversy" that I am aware of.
On the opposite end of the political spectrum are Yarhouse and other "reparative therapists" who, essentially, want homosexuality re-added to the DSM system, to legitimize their view that homosexuality should be resisted/abolished/cured/whatever. Using similar rhetoric as Moser (exaggerating the existance of dissent with what is actually the widely predominant view), Yarhouse et al. seek to make their desired change seem less fringe.
Is that a help?
— James Cantor (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the reply James. As to its usefulness in terms of the wiki article I'm not really sure as having reread this edit I'm not sure what was the problem that I had with it in the first place. It seems quite balanced now actually.
However, your insights into the processes governing the construction of the latest edition of the DSM is very interesting to me. Thanks again. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


This edit is correct? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

:Yes. I'm happy to email you the reprints.— James Cantor (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Really. Anyway, got them already. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, no. There are two Rematti articles; I pasted in the other one.— James Cantor (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


You have made it clear both by your words and by your actions that you have no intention of respecting Wikipedia's position on conflicted editing, including on biographies of living people. This first block is for 48 hours, a cautionary period. I strongly suggest that you use this time to read around our policies on conflicted editing and understand why, in such cases, you must restrict yourself to proposing changes via the talk page. If you thikn about it for a while you will realise that this is for the protection of all parties concerned: Wikipedia, which must follow the neutral point of view, something that is jeopardised by conflicted editing; the subjects of the articles; and yourself. There have been several cases where activists in a certain field have edited biographies of those in the opposing camp, or with whom they have direct external conflicts, and this has blown up in their face. It is a bad idea on a number of levels. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

James Cantor (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

The blocking admin provided no warning about a problem on this page, has misinterpreted (violated?) the actual COI guideline, did not respond to my prior attempt to solve/discuss the overall (and only alleged) problem [22], and enacted this block simply at the instigation of another editor [23] who was on the minority end of a content dispute on the page[24]. As I said in my prior (and unanswered) comment to this admin, I take very seriously the COI guideline, as demonstrated by my very long-standing (2+ years!) pledge on my userpage not to edit problematic pages [25][26]. The blocking admin has not said what edit(s) might be the problematic one(s), what page the alleged problems were about, nor what part of the policies/guidelines I am alleged to have violated.

Despite the blocking admin's claim, WP:COI says that "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested....When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." I have obeyed even the optional portions of WP:COI, but the blocking admin appears to have done exactly what WP:COI says not to do and has used my own optional disclosure against me.
Everything I've added to the biography is very well-sourced (e.g., [27]), and I would never want to have anything misrepresented about a person. The dispute is merely over the order in which undisputed facts are mentioned, not over whether they are accurate or appropriate.

(As as side note, I believe it would have been more appropriate for the admin to have included on my userpage that I could appeal the admin's decision and the instructions for doing so. WP:APPEAL indicated that I would receive such instructions, but I did not.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: block has expired. Favonian (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

  • It is not true that there was no warning. Indeed, the whole point is that when you were warned, your response was to repudiate the basis of the warning. I have no dog in this fight. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps no warning is a slight overstatement. No clear warning would be more accurate—You did not mention the Charles Allen Moser page, I do not have a COI for the Charles Allen Moser page, and I have very long-standing history of simply volunteering on my userpage where I do think a COI could be a problem.
Regarding the 'whole point', I must respectfully disagree. Admin's are human and make mistakes. When a user believes an admin has made a mistake, the correct thing for the user to do is, of course, to express why, in an appropriate place, in a civil manner...which is exactly what I did. In a perfect world, the admin would then correct him/herself or explain why the user was incorrect. But instead of any response or explanation at all, you just blocked me. Teaching users what is expected on WP comes from responding to users' questions about the rules. Your approach leaves users no method of recourse at all; it's just "I'm the admin, you're the user, so do what I say without question or get blocked."
That pointed out, you still have not responded to my pointing out that you are mis-applying WP:COI. You are treating the guideline (not policy) as if it says that users may not edit the relevant pages, which it does not. The guideline is that users ought to be open about potential conflicts, and if there is any user anywhere on WP who has been more open, I have not seen it.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • JC asked me to comment. This appears as if it might be a block with a background in a long-standing general matter, and I think that factor has been allowed to excessively influence the decision to block. I have reviewed the edits on the Moser page--The first edit is a reasonable expansion of the lede, though another editor equally reasonably moved it to the main text. I have some doubt about the changing of "specializing"-- to say a physician specializes in something does not necessarily mean he holds a formal qualification, when it's a field that has none (one could appropriately say that , for example, some particular orthopedist is a specialist in shoulder disorders). It is however possible that the specification of specializing in internal medicine might lead the reader to think he has a formal speciality in the more general formally recognized fields of psychiatry or urology or gynecology, none of which he has--he's an internist, so I do not really object to changing it. The notability tag is in my opinion not justified--I think the notability as an academic and an author is pretty clear. But I can not say that any of these edits is disruptive. Consequently, I suggest unblocking. I think the editor has been exceptionally forthcoming about possible COI and biases in a topic where many people prefer to operate by some degree of subterfuge, and I agree with the logic that it is unfair for this to result in a greater susceptibility to sanctions. Saying he has COI on this article amounts to a subject ban on the field of Cantor's particular expertise, and I doubt we would obtain consensus for that. I've done too much work trying to mediate articles in this field to feel comfortable with doing the actual unblock myself. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It is rather more likely, however, that consensus would be reached for a ban on WP:BLP articles in the field, given his numerous documented real-world disputes. That is the issue here. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
First, I must contest the unsupported nature of Guy's comment. Where is the evidence I have a real-world dispute with Moser? (As with everyone else, I agree with him on some issues and disagree on others.) There does not exist any scientist in any field who unanimously agrees with every other scientist in his/her field. Guy's logic (regardless of whether he realizes it) says that no experts can edit on topics of their expertise, as there necessarily exist disagreements between scientists within fields. (That is the nature of science.) WP:COI, however, says exactly the opposite of Guy: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." In fact, WP:COI goes even further: "An expert on a given subject is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject" (emphasis added).
As a sexologist, I deal professionally with some very controversial issues on a daily basis—no matter what opinion I hold on one issue or another, there will always be very vocal people on other sides. That is the nature of my field. However, I was not selected to be a journal editor because I am a source of dispute—The truth is exactly the opposite; I was selected (in part) because within this complicated field, I have a reputation for neutrality in the evaluation of other people's work, no matter what side(s) they are on. I do not know what stronger evidence could ever exist than having the general support from a field so ripe with strong and differing opinions. Debates are a natural and necessary part of science, and it is an error to use participation in them as evidence of an inability to remain neutral.
Again with all due respect, Guy is applying a standard in direct opposition to WP guidelines.
— James Cantor (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The real-world conflict is actually hard to miss: Moser and others like him are a threat to the adoption of the diagnosis that Cantor co-coined. Per the Charles Allen Moser article; "The specific paraphilias [Moser] has questioned as mental illnesses include pedophilia[18], hebephilia [19]..." and "[Moser] and Peggy Kleinplatz have criticized aspects of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, arguing for the removal of paraphilias." Per the James Cantor article "Cantor is one of the co-authors of a 2008 paper by Ray Blanchard, which shaped the DSM-5 proposal of replacing the pedophilia diagnosis with pedohebophilic disorder,[7] adding hebephilia as part of the definition..." Since the ICD simply changed the age ranges of pedophilia instead of adopting Blanchard & Cantor's terminology, the paraphilias section of the DSM is the only place where the neologisms might be officially adopted. Still, this might be the biggest prize Cantor will ever have a chance at.
The mention of Klein in the Moser article reminded me of a less clear example. Some time ago Cantor downplayed the notability[28] of the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid while promoting Blanchard's paper on the Kurt Freund Paraphilia Scales[29]. The close relationship between Moser and Klein is clear(e.g. [30]), as is that of Cantor/Blanchard/Freund. BitterGrey (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe Bittergrey inadvertently supports my point in his confusion between real-world and wiki-world disputes.— James Cantor (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
JzG, the actual edits in question were not by any stretch of the imagination BLP violations, so I do not see why you thought the suggestion in your response pertinent. The only way to avoid controversy on controversial subjects is not to include them in the encyclopedia, which is of course opposed to our basic principals and would make us pretty worthless. Anyone engaged substantially in edited a subject that is disputed or that engages emotions will develop views about the subject that are truly free of COI, even if they had no knowledge or concern at all initially. we rely therefore on crowdsourcing, on people cooperatively correcting each other. I regard the latest edits discussed here by JC on this article and the subsequent good edits by Jokestress as a positive illustration of improving an article in response to challenge--a relatively rare positive illustration, and certainly not one that should have led to sanctions.
On the other hand, I regard the last sentence in the first paragraph of the above comment by Bittergrey as a BLP violation even on a talk page. It is not acceptable to denigrate the subject of an article anywhere in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
It is also a figment of imagination. There is no researcher anywhere who is famous for getting something into or out of the DSM, and there is no diagnosis in the DSM that is somehow viewed as a success of any person.— James Cantor (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd also like to comment regarding the block. The block looks like it was done because of a conflict of interest. The block log has the ambiguous "disruptive editing" rationale, and the explanation above is that James Cantor has violated our conflict of interest guideline. Yet to my knowledge we simply don't block people for a COI. And in my opinion we never should. We have many very constructive contributors who have conflicts of interest in regards to the subjects they edit, which warrants added scrutiny toward their edits but that's it. When a person who has a COI is being disruptive in another way, of course they can be blocked, and the COI might exacerbate the situation. That may be the case here, though I don't see it myself (and I've reviewed James Cantor's edit history just before the block as well). Also, the community can choose to ban a person because of their COI, and in such cases a violation of the ban can lead to a block, but that's the case for any ban. I just admit to a bit of confusion here. -- Atama 22:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

James Cantor (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Favonian indicated that the block has expired; however, it has not.

Accept reason:

You should be good, now. –MuZemike 22:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful edit to the new article I created about the book, The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant. You may be interested in quality improvement work I have done recently on Wikipedia on other books by the same author: Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist and Skipping Towards Gomorrah. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just some minor copy-editing; happy to do it. Nice article.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words about my work on the article. I really appreciate that. A lot. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again

And thanks again, for your helpful copyedits, at the new article I created, It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


I have warned her in the following terms " pursuant to the discussion there [BLPN], in agreement with off2rio bob, I warn you that if you should make edits referring to James Cantor again, I shall topic-ban you, and block if it should continue beyond that. Naturally the same goes for his making edits referring to you. " DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 15:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I am very happy to agree to that.— James Cantor (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

James, don't rise to the bait. I suggest you keep any discussion with the user to a complete minimum. If the user violates the condition set by User:DGG please inform me or him at the earlier convenience. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Because this newest misstatement about my career pubs was on a talkpage instead of a mainpage, I didn't think I could do anything.— James Cantor (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes correct unless the attention gets aggressive or attacking. It might be a reaction to the editing restriction that the talkpage activity related to you increases. I recommend you just do not discuss with them at all as the best solution for yourself. If the users misrepresents you keep a record with diffs, and if such behavior continues it can be reported to ANI. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks, again.— James Cantor (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, as always.— James Cantor (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Along the same lines I will remind you not to make edits to WP:BLP articles on people in your field. You have a self-evident conflict of interest. When I look at your edits to Peggy Kleinplatz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I see a subtle recasting which downplays the academic reputation of the subject and increases the perception of "activism". It is a small enough field that few if any active within it will not be personally known to you, and in fact your dispute with Kleinplatz is documented above and not in any way disputed by you. Please leave these biographies alone. I will not warn you again. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
If that is your ruling, then that is your ruling. But I have to ask of you the same I asked of Jokestress. How is it even conceivable that I was belittling the reputation of the subject when I was making changes at the request of the subject?— James Cantor (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
This is nonsense. Guy, you are the one who's downplaying Kleinplatz's academic reputation, and there's nothing subtle about it at all: your edit "demoted" her from full professor to mere "lecturer" and "associate professor". If I were Kleinplatz, I wouldn't be upset with James Cantor, but I might have many strong words to say to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
JzG, of course he may edit in his field, but is is advised to avoid close associates or opponents. I have not however looked at the particular editing in question
WhatamIdoing, giving someone their proper rank is not downplaying their importance, but giving them the correct importance. Describing an adjunct associate professor as a professor without qualifications is exaggerated and misleading.
James, please do not even mention Jokestress in any comment. You should know by now what it would lead to. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I have not initiated any such mention. If Jokestress' mentions of me were monitored, I would have no need to respond to them. If you mean this as a general "Just let me know, instead", I would be happy to do so.
With all due respect, I believe you understand WhatamIdoing backwards. Kleinplatz' correct rank is Full professor. Every edit I made was correcting a BLP error. JzG has returned several BLP errors to the page. One of my other wiki-hounders, user:Bittergrey has already emailed Kleinplatz, who verified everything I have said. Right, Bittergrey?
— James Cantor (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I seem to have gotten Dr. K backwards--I should have looked it up myself before commenting. My apologies to her. But the idea between JS and you is supposed to be that neither of you will comment on each other no matter what the other person says. Otherwise it's an endless cycle. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
So long as there is some way for me to deal with Jokestress' BLP violations of me (indeed the very title, "James Cantor negatively editing a rival's biography again)" is a BLP violation), I am happy to follow it. In the present case, I made clearly appropriate edits, she did was she might be expected to do, and I responded. I don't think that "just take her BLP violations of you" while she flouts the rule is a reasonable request of me. If this is an open "just let me know about it instead," I am happy to do so. Thus far, it is my edits that were clearly correct, her accusations that were clearly incorrect, but we are discussing my reactions to her misdeads rather than about her misdeads. The solution is the cut the attacks off at their source, not at their target for defending itself.— James Cantor (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Kleinplatz sent the following email to andd cc'ed me. It seemed relevant here, and I don't think she would mind if I posted it.

From: Peggy Kleinplatz []
Sent: August 4, 2011 9:51 PM
Cc: James Cantor
Subject: Problem in an article about me

Dear Editors,

I have just received the email message below which includes links for
your information. I did not know if it was legitimate so I am
contacting you directly. The message from "Grey" asks if I had
contacted Dr. James Cantor to ask him to make edits to the Wikipedia
page about me. Yes, I did contact him. There had been errors of fact
about me in the existing article. For example, I was listed as an
Associate Professor whereas I am actually a full Professor.

I have a permanent hand injury which makes all computer use
prohibitively painful for me. Dr. Cantor was willing to fix the
errors as a favour to me. Please allow his edits to stand, with my
appreciation. His edits in no way "belittle" me. There is no conflict
of interest.

Peggy J. Kleinplatz, Ph.D.

Faculty of Medicine
Clinical Professor
School of Psychology
University of Ottawa

>From: grey <>
>Subject: Are you requesting edits to your Wikipedia page?
>Dear Dr. Kleinplatz,
>Sorry to bother you, but I was hoping to check something.
>Recently, James Cantor has made some edits to your biography on
>Wikipedia[1]. He has a long history of using Wikipedia to promote
>his own interests and those of his colleagues, as well as to demote
>competitors and competing views. Another editor quickly reverted
>the changes, noting that "The changes appear to belittle the
>subject. The editor has a [conflict of interest] in this area."
>James Cantor is claiming that you called him and requested those
>changes[2]. Given what he has tried to pull in the past on
>Wikipedia, few trust him. I was hoping to check with you and find
>out the truth.
— James Cantor (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

While I'm typing, I do believe it is a terrible shame that the ongoing hounding by user:Jokestress, user:Bittergrey, and other identity advocates prevents granting even the above request from the subject of a page. Nonetheless, by reversing my edits, there are now BLP violations on the page, as reported by the subject of the page.
So, if I were unable to edit this page, it would continue to have BLP errors. If Jokestress were unable to edit this page, the BLP errors would have been corrected . If Bittergrey were unable to able to edit, then subjects of pages would not be getting hounded.
— James Cantor (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
There. It would have been easy for anyone concerned with the quality of that article to have checked that information.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Fiachra. Yes, you are entirely correct.
The tendentious reversions served absoltely no purpose other than to be clearly disruptive, with no benefit at all the page.
The long-standing vandetta against me (and other researchers) is well-known on WP, and user:Guy was previously excoriated by multiple admins for topic-blocking, but he does it again here...once again based on a complete error on his part.
Moreover, if I can ask you to look over the other changes that they reverted, you will find that they also need to reinstated. (A double period needs to be fixed, etc.) I suppose I could do it myself, but I would prefer it be someone else.
— James Cantor (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, this seems a typical example of the rather inane manner in which concerns over COI are frequently pursued here (that is in manner which is arse over tit). COI should only be brought into a discussion as a concern based upon the actual content of the contributions to an article. The public position, status and relationships of a poster should not be assumed to determine a non-NPOV in terms of their contributions to a given subject. Content should be king and as long as contributors make reasonable attempts to improve articles and represent positions to which they may be opposed in a faithful and fair manner there is no constructive reason to bring COI up. When one assumes that a COI exists and then reads the article for evidence of this one can come to all sorts of frankly fabulist readings, as evinced in some of the comments above.FiachraByrne (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you are exactly correct. There are a handful of folks, highly invested in how a group they care about is depicted. That's not a problem unto itself, of course, but the desired depiction does not always match up with the science and RS's, and attacking/hounding the scientist is all that's left when the RS's and science are established. Such editors are completely entitled to their opinions, of course, but all the of COI (and various other) allegations are all just attempts to discredit me, as the material itself remains as solid and sourced as it gets. The general anti-expert sentiment of many WP editors does the rest.
Meanwhile, Guy/JzG appears to have topic-banned me, only the basis of his entirely reversing the evidence. Indeed, this is the second time his has done so, despite having been so excoriated for his error in doing so the first time:[31]
  • "Admin User:DGG however seems to think that the block was unjustified" -- Tijfo098
  • "Frankly, I thought the block was also unjustified." -- Atama
  • "I do not see grounds" -- Collect
  • There are more, but I think the point is clear.
I am open to suggestion about how best to deal with Guy's his now-repeated reflex to throw things at me despite a demonstrably complete misunderstanding of what's going on. Again.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it would have been trivial... if JzG/Guy had spent even two minutes checking the facts instead of automatically assuming that James Cantor was "belittling" Kleinplatz by giving her higher (and correct) job title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The 'and'

I think BitterGrey just used 'and' as the focus for his/her argument, but didn't mean you are opposed to the word itself... he/she was just saying your opposition is the OR of combining two terms without sourcing for that combination. Could be 'Peanut Butter and Hair Gel' instead, and yes, we have sources for PB and we have sources for Hair Gel, but the combination...? Not so much. -- Avanu (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed possible. My experience with BitterGrey, however, suggests that that interpretation would be very generous. He very frequently makes comments that are, well, rather concrete and miss the actual issue. Nonetheless, it is indeed possible.— James Cantor (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


James, could you please answer me this question? Why do researchers use the label homosexual male-to-female transsexual for a male-to-female transsexual who is attracted to men? Shouldn't that be a heterosexual male-to-female transsexual because she is attarcted to a person of the opposite sex? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not just researchers. It's 98% of all google hits. There are three reasons: historical, technical accuracy, and etiological. Now, in my previous experience explaining the literature to you and sending to you whole reprints is that you simply regurgitated the political correctese of others and remain entirely unaware of the content of the material I sent you. (Disagreement, I could have felt respect for.) So, I have no faith that you are willing to engage in a meaningful discussion of this. Nonetheless, for the record:
  • The historical reason is that when sexology began (late 1800s) there did not exist sex reassignment, and there existed many different combinations of gender characteristics. Whether the persons were heterosexual relative to their pre- or post- surgical statust was moot—there was no surgery.
  • The technical accuracy is that "gynephilie" refers to the sexual preference for adult females; whereas "heterosexual" (in pre-operative MtF's) refers to the sexual preference for females regardless of age. We have encountered (i.e., there do exist) biological adult males who want to be and are attracted to young girls: They are heterosexual (there attractions are to the sex other than the one they were born with), but not gynephilic (they are not all attracted to adult females). Of course, such persons do not circulate within the trans community and are not on the political radar screen of activists. They are, however, a meaningful clue to the taxonomic structure to human sexuality.
  • The etiological reason is that typical homosexuality (gay men or homosexuality teleiophiles) shares all etiologically relevant characteristics with "homosexual transsexuality"/"androphilic male transsexuality". Using the word "homosexual" in both classifications reflects their apparent taxonomic association.
Now, of course, one may disagree with the relative value of each of those reasons relative to perceived negatives. Legitimate disagreement can be had, and I use both terminologies, depending on to whom I'm talking. It is incorrect, however, to deduce anyone's beliefs from which set they use. 98% of google hits use heterosexual/homosexual.
— James Cantor (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry that I do not come to the same conclusions about Blanchard literature as you do. That you choose publicly to dismiss my reading of the material as if I am entirely unaware of the material is far below the belt. But heck, that is you choice. Because we have now reached the level of ad hominiems, I think I will leave it as it is. I would expect better from an expert like you. I was mistaken. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not an ad hominem, it is a statement of fact. In this edit, for example, you repeatedly mistook the entire content of Blanchard's work [32], as I told you then.[33] Whether Blanchard combined or separated groups, for example, is not some matter of interpretation; it was the whole purpose of the article. If one is unaware of that much, one has not read the article.— James Cantor (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Repeating the accusation does not make it true. And yes, it was obvious that the purpose of that article and the other linked to it were to make a specific point. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not repetition that makes it true, it is the content of the RS's:
"In summary, the above writers have collectively described four types of transsexual: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and a fourth type that, at least with regard to erotic interest in other persons, may be described as "asexual." These descriptions need not, however, correspond to four different disorders. The present study investigated an extension of Freund's hypothesis that there are only two etiologically different types of transsexualism: heterosexual and homosexual. It is hypothesized here that asexual and bisexual transsexualism are actually subtypes of heterosexual transsexualism" (Blanchard, R. 1985. Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 247-261.)
One cannot have read the article and still say that Blanchard divided, when the entire article was about how to combine.
Moreover, one does not need to use an RS "to make a point." Including in an encyclopedia the content of the most highly cited RS's on a topic is the point. That some activists dislike the content of the RS's is their right, but irrelevant. It is the job of good editors to check the WP content against the RS's. As your aformentioned 180-degree misinterpretation indicates, you are not able or willing to do so.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you're incorrectly assuming that Kim is beginning with the previous academic interpretation, which was four types of transwomen. It is far more likely that Kim is beginning with the pop culture story, which is that there is only one type of transwoman. From that perspective, Blanchard divided one group into two, rather than combining four types into two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I started with Blanchard work. In the first article, Blanchard subdivides the trans women in four categories, heterosexual (Trans woman interested in women), homosexual (trans woman interested in men), bisexual and asexual, using K-means clustering. He used two variables, sexual attraction to men and sexual attraction to women as input variables, with combinations of the min and max values as the seeding points for the clustering. In the follow up article, the one James refers to, he uses these four categories to combine the non-homosexual from the homosexual types. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
LOL Yes, that is indeed a valid summary...but, of course, one can easily see how this new summary (the correct one) says the very opposite of your prior (and incorrect) summaries. This new one correctly says Blanchard "uses these four categories to combine" (emphasis added), whereas your prior ones incorrectly said Blanchard found "it is possible to subdivide the group in two subgroups"[34] (emphasis added) and incorrectly said "what Blanchard has done is showing a correlation"[35].
Now, I have no problem with (and great respect for) people who do indeed express disagreement over this or that finding or interpretation. However, entirely reversing one's view while claiming that one had the right idea all along leads exactly to where I started: "I have no faith that you are willing to engage in a meaningful discussion of this".
— James Cantor (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
James, you can do better than this. Anyway, are you now claiming that Blanchard for his hypothesis of what causes transsexualism divides the male-to-female transsexuals in four groups with specific etiologies? As for the correlation, I stand with that. Blanchard showed that the chance that someone scored high on autogynephylia was HIGHER in the three homosexual, bisexual and asexual groups than the heterosexual(=androphilia) group, he never has shown causality. So, your triumphant gotcha battle cry is maybe a bit premature here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Cleary, I don't have to do any better: You have simply returned to getting wrong the content of those works and that literature. Blanchard never divided anyone into four groups. The research literature at that time was already considering multiple, overlapping phenomena---the cites for that literature are all contained in Blanchard's paper. (That you keeping missing it is why I conclude you have not read them.) Blanchard started with the multiple types already reported by others and then clustered those types.
You can stand by saying "correlation" all you want, but that doesn't make it any truer. Blanchard never claimed to have found a cause. So, the repeated insistence that he did not find causality is, as I say, just regurgitation of what is getting said on various attack blog-sites. To a scientist, talking about correlation/causation in article that is about typology (i.e., basic description) says only that you did not read/understand the article and do not know any of the basis of the relevant scientific/analytical methods.
"Battle cry?" Really? I think you're projecting your world view onto me. I'm not the one in the pirate costume with a sword in the face of readers, as my user pic.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Based on what you just wrote, can we now agree that Blanchard hypothesis about what causes transsexualism is not supported by a proven causal mechanism? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess if you keep typing the same mistake, I can keep typing its correction: Blanchard did not offer a hypothesis about what causes transsexualism.— James Cantor (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that is now clear. That leads me to a follow-up question. If Blanchard did not offer a hypothesis about the cause but only grouped the subjected in four groups, he does not propose that autogynephilia has anything to do with causing the difference between the four groups? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
No again. Blanchard does say that autogynephilia is related to etiology, as autogynephilia appears to be the main characteristic that distinguishes people. That is, autogynephilia has implications for research on the etiology of transsexualism, as it suggests there is more than one phenomenon, each with its own. He did not, however, offer an hypothesis for what the etiology of transsexual itself might be.— James Cantor (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a non sequitur: autogynephlia could have "something to do with" the difference, without Blanchard proposing that autogynephilia is a (or the) cause of transsexuality. To say that it has "something to do with" is only a statement of correlation, not a statement of causation. Correlation does not imply causation.
You also seem to be falling into the causa sui trap. Symptoms do not cause themselves. To give a simple example, having a cough and a runny nose without a fever does not cause you to have the common cold, but those symptoms are how we clinically differentiate "people who have a cold" from "people who have the flu". The actual cause of the common cold is (technically, your immune system's reaction to) infection by one of many viruses. Similarly, the cause of transsexuality might be genetics, hormones, personal experiences, social pressures, or any number of other things—but never the symptoms. Wanting to be treated like a woman (if you were assigned to the male sex at birth) is not caused by you wanting to be treated like a woman. Wanting to be treated like a woman is caused by something else (nobody knows what, but something other than the desire that the actually cause produces). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, it looks like we agree, namely that Blanchard showed a correlation, not causation. James disagrees with that, as he said above: 'whereas your prior ones incorrectly said "what Blanchard has done is showing a correlation"[36].' -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I looked at your original comment (which was quoted here), and I think it's wrong. You say there, "Hence, he has NOT demonstrated that there are two types, but only shown that it is possible to subdivide the group in two subgroups", which is illogical (or perhaps just badly expressed). Either there are two types in his system, or there aren't, and you appear to be saying here that Blanchard divided them into two groups but somehow didn't end up with two groups.
The fact is that Blanchard has divided transwomen into two types. Blanchard's types exist, regardless of whether the typology is important/useful/relevant. It might be as important/useful/relevant a division as the division of cookies into "cookies containing chocolate" and "cookies not containing chocolate", or it might be as worthless a division as "cookies I put on the left side of the oven" and "cookies I did not stack on the left side of the oven", but the division exists, and it results in two groups of transwomen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
LOL Despite your insistence that Blanchard is wrong, you keep agreeing with him. You and Blanchard (and I) agree that autogynephilia is a correlate, not a cause. Although you want to declare that "something to do with" is merely a correlational statment, you appear to miss repeatedly that Blanchard (and I) are only making a correlational statment in the first place. Because neither I nor Blanchard has ever said/written what you are arguing against (but some blog has...), I return to my original, now well supported, statement: You are merely regurgitating how they are described on blogs, rather than by what's in the articles.— James Cantor (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I am glad we now all agree that we are talking about a correlation, which I had said all along despite your insistance that it was wrong: 'whereas your prior ones [..] incorrectly said "what Blanchard has done is showing a correlation"[37].'-- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Kim is confused again: No, in the 1985 paper about typology, Blanchard noted no correlates. Autogynephilia came around a little later. It was in those subsequent articles that Blanchard noted that autogynephilia was associated (correlated) with typological classification. Your original question ("Why do researchers use the label homosexual male-to-female transsexual for a male-to-female transsexual who is attracted to men?") was about typology, not autogynephilia or other correlates. I do not know why your focus morphed from one issue to the other...except, perhaps, that you believe that the statement would somehow reflect poorly on Blanchard or the credibility of what he wrote.— James Cantor (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so you were talking about a single article on topology, while I took the whole series of articles in consideration. And you just lectured me about not considering the whole context? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, are you telling me that clustering people into four groups using K-mean clustering is not subdividing them in four groups with the labels asexual, bisexual, heterosexual and homosexual? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, the four groups (asexual, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual) all predate Blanchard. He merely used a non-subjective method of deciding who would have fit which of those four descriptors according to the general criteria already in play by other researchers and clinicians at that time...He then showed that three of those four were actually minor variants of the same thing. He took what was then believed to be four groups and demonstrated that there were only two. He did not take one group (transsexuals) and divide them into two, which is the popular misunderstanding.— James Cantor (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. So, when Blanchard wrote: "These findings support the view that male transsexuals may be divided into two basic types: heterosexual and homosexual.", he did not propose to divide the group in two but merely confirmed what other had already proposed? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
LOL Yes, he did not. (When trying to clear something up, I recommend avoiding phrasing questions phrased in the negative.) He concluded that male-to-female transsexuals may be divided into two as opposed to four groups, as previous authors had been discussing at that time, and which is the very topic of that article. By selectively ignoring the rest of the article, the rest of Blanchard's other articles, and the rest of the then-contemporary literature, the out-of-context phrase "divided into two" suggests as opposed to one, which is incorrect and is the common misunderstanding.— James Cantor (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so when you talked about two groups, you had in mind some of the past literature in which four subgroups (Hirschfeld 1922) were used (not all used four subgroups, for example Buhrich and McConaghy 1978, and Freund et al. 1982 used two while most others at the time used three subgroups) and were talking about the relative change against that background, while I was talking about the sample Blanchard was analyzing and how he subdivided that sample in two groups based on some criteria. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
LOL Yes, when an expert makes a statement about a finding, it is in the context of the whole scientific context. (At least, that is the aspiration.) And what you had in mind was "ignore everything that goes in another direction, while insisting it's the expert who has it wrong." LOL— James Cantor (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, glad to have learned that your field functions different then mine. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Right. That's the reason. LOL— James Cantor (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, we do not assume that everybody we talk to will know the whole context. We spell out the context so that the people know what that context is. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It's no problem at all when people start out with the popular understanding. My disappointment with Kim is that (at her request) I provided her with all the reprints, which she said she read. Her subsequent comments merely echoing the misrepresentations that appear on blogs, however, indicated clearly that she did not. Simply disagreeing with the content of a literature is perfectly fine, of course—that is the engine that drives science. Kim's edits, however, do not indicate disagreement with, but rather unawareness of their actual content, now mixed with the obvious falsehood that her rejection is based on their content rather than her presuppositions. Thus, in my prior comment here, I said, in honesty, that I have no faith that Kim is "willing to engage in a meaningful discussion of this" but that I would answer the question for the record.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
James, I see you are keeping repeating that I did not read the articles. You are still mistaken. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)