User talk:James Cantor/Archive 2

BLPN
FYI, there is some discussion about you and the Kleinplatz article at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll comment there.— James Cantor (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks  DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

DSM question
WLU and BitterGrey are at it again. Would you be willing to look in on Reliable sources/Noticeboard? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll take a look.— James Cantor (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Note
Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note this comment in relation to the discussion of the DSM and paraphilic infantilism. If you genuinely believe that edit should stand, then we should probably discuss it.  Given your more recent posts, it appears that you do not believe the DSM sources this point. I consider this yet another time-wasting tangent, but I also want to ensure that the page is accurate and well-cited.  I removed that citation (using Money and Pate & Gabbard instead), if you believe this is in error, please discuss on the talk:list of paraphilias.  Normally the process would involve editing to replace or simply not bothering, but Bittergrey's approach to editing muddies the waters considerably making explicit notes more helpful.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 05:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Infantilism
Hi James, I have a question relating to your interpretation of infantilism if you have the time to answer it. I don't think that it will be relevant to the content of the article, given the rules governing the use of sources (i.e. verbotten to interpret) so this is more from intellectual curiousity.

An editor posed the following question on the Talk:Paraphilic infantilism page:
 * Please specify exactly where CBB (Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree 2009) defines which group in the FB (Freund & Blanchard 1993) paper are the infantilists. Is it only one group?  More than one? All?


 * '''Fair point. It is ambiguous. Ans: all infantilists; they do not differentiate or define.The question is what is an infantilist for F&B and CB&B?
 * "Freund and Blanchard (1993) referred to this characteristic [internalisation of target of attraction] as an erotic target location error. They hypothesized that erotic target location was a basic dimension of sexual attraction, independent of the nature of the erotic target (object) itself. They interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." (CB&B, 2009:531)
 * They define infantilists as those who, "are sexually aroused by behaving or imaging themselves as children or infants." They refer to a further group who "wear diapers while masturbating" and state that it is unknown whether they are hiding imagery of self as baby from clinicians or whether they represent an incomplete form of infantilism as transvestites do of transexualism.
 * But if you read their entire description of infantilism and its associated behaviours and desires they do not include any practices which might be considered masochistic. Also bear in mind Cantor's statement at the RSN that he had never come across a masochistic infantilist in his clinical experience. In my opinion - which is irrelevant but anyway - they are excluding masochists who happen to dress up and/or imagine themselves as babies as they do not see that as entailing an inversion of sexual targeting. Rather "masochistic gynaephiles" have, they assert, a different etiology whose resemblance to those with an ETLE is only "superficial" as their "abberant" self-image is derived from a desire for a relationship of submission to a dominant female. Hence, F&B's paper treats "masochistic gynaephiles" as distinct from infantilists proper. Implicitly, CB&B are advancing their own ETLE theory as a greater organising principle of the paraphilias than a categorisation based upon an attraction for any particular object or whatever.'''

Again, just from personal curiosity is this accurate? You'd advance a reorganisation of paraphilias based upon aetiological theory rather than object of attraction? Thanks FiachraByrne (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Sexual orientation
We could really use your input on this. One editor is consistently trying to get zoosexuality deemed a sexual orientation in either the Sexual orientation article or its template. Comments have been given about why it is not considered a sexual orientation, but a proven expert on these topics (sexual orientation and sexuality), such as yourself, may help to settle matters. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Intersex
Believe it or not, I am asking you to comment on my comment here: Talk:Intersex -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 19:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Invite
I invite you to comment here Pass a Method   talk  11:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
Note that you are being discussed here. I don't see a need for you to comment. In fact, I would urge that you don't, as I think it'll probably just result in acrimony without actually addressing any substantive issues. For that matter, there don't seem to be any substantive issues. As I say, I think your actions are well in compliance with WP:COI (even excessively so) but mental health-wise I think you're actually doing a very smart thing by restricting your edits the way you do. Less drama and soul-sucking conflict. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural history of the buttocks
Open to commenting on the above?

Also, I believe my reasoning for reverting you on two things at List of paraphilias - seen here and here - is sound. For the first revert, I really don't understand why breasts is even on the list since sexual attraction to breasts and therefore becoming sexually aroused by viewing breasts is considered very normal in today's society. If not by all of society, then at least by most. I am of the same mindset regarding buttocks being listed. But I noticed that this was broached at Talk:List of paraphilias/Archive 2. Why it was ignored, other than a comment by an IP and a registered editor mostly commenting on something else, is a bit difficult to understand. Can't you leave a short note about sexual attraction to breasts being considered normal, if it's to stay on the list? And do the same for buttocks? 31.193.138.200 (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for help about "Paraphilia"
I am a lesbian trans woman. I have been quite hostile to the idea of any form of transsexuality being autogynephiliac, being a paraphilia, and it occurs to me that my lay-person idea of a paraphilia - me as a blank slate, basically heterosexual male who by accident one day cross-dresses and through obsessive behaviour and masturbation turns myself into a pervert where with only a little self control I could have been a normal husband and father- meeds updating. Can you point me to articles on what a paraphilia actually is? Scholarly articles preferred, ideally with free access by internet. Abigailgem (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Abigail. Your going theory about how you came to feel transsexual is just like the theory I used to have about what made me gay.  (I was going into computer science before I started in psychology, and I didn't know any more than anybody else.)  I used to think that indulging in my fantasises (which were about guys I had crushes on instead of being cross-dressed) were the cause rather than the result.


 * There has never been any good evidence for the "self-training" idea we had; rather, we were making a logical extension from what we were being taught at the time. We were clever, but we were wrong.  The current evidence is that we were both born with something that made us different from regular folks.  We don't yet know much about exactly what that something is, but the evidence suggests that whatever in the brain establishes our future sexual selves, the chain of events starts before birth.  As far as we can tell, it is true for all atypical sexualities in otherwise male brains.


 * I once heard a song with a line I loved: We may have gotten here in different ships, but we're in the same boat now. I've always thought it unfortunate that paraphilias are still so stigmatized that everyone wants to avoid being counted as one.  Personally, I prefer embracing one's differences from the norm rather than re-defining "normal" to include whatever one's make-up is.  We cannot appreciate our diversity by denying our differences.


 * There are only very few contemporary scientists working on paraphilias broadly, and there are even fewer who publish "open access" (which costs money). The only two scholarly works I can think of that are downloadable for free are two that I wrote recently.  (I apologize if it seems like self-promotion.):


 * Cantor, J. M. (2012). Is homosexuality a paraphilia? The evidence for and against. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 237-247. http://www.springerlink.com/content/00311501070l6321/


 * Cantor, J. M. (2011). New MRI studies support the Blanchard typology of male-to-female transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 863-864.  http://www.springerlink.com/content/b52p04306u076623/fulltext.pdf


 * I also wrote the Sexual Disorders chapter of the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology, which may give you more. It's not downloadable for free, but if you have an email address you are willing to share with me, I would be happy to email you a copy.
 * I hope that's a help.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * By coincidence, I just ran into this related essay which was posted today and might also be of interest to you: http://sillyolme.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/were-freakin-at-the-freakers-ball/
 * — James Cantor (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That is very helpful.


 * I would be grateful for your Sexual disorders chapter. abigailgem [at].


 * I wonder if autogynephilia could be distinguished from paraphilias, because the cause of the imaginings is less clear. A shoe fetishist will only kiss a shoe if he finds it arousing. An AGP pre-transition M-F TS may imagine herself as a woman out of gender dysphoria, which would in itself be sufficient to cause the imaginings without the arousal.


 * I think the shame of people with these characteristics, and the disgust of others, reduces as people become more familiar. So I am glad you are doing the work you are doing. Abigailgem (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note ANI mention
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Replacing with less specific categories – don't do it!
Please stop changing categories to less specific ones for sexologists and sex educators. __meco (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Meco. I appreciate your point, and I gave it some thought before doing it.  I had in mind Categorization_of_people: "The place of birth is rarely notable from the perspective of an individual, although it may be notable from the perspective of local studies."  In none of these cases were the birth places relevant, and very many of these people became notable only in association with their subsequent citizenships rather than within their nations of origin.  I would not object to changes/revisions, but I would caution anyone doing so to check each one before restoring.  Very many of the entries were inaccurate.— James Cantor (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your having acquainted yourself with the policy, however you have misinterpreted it. These category schemes exist because consensus has found them to be appropriate. The changes you were making simply goes against what is accepted practice. __meco (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now reverted your edits where I have deemed it necessary. In other articles I have expanded on your additions. __meco (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Round two
I notice that you have begun adding Category:Sexologists to all the biographies that are already categorized by the sexologists by nationality scheme. I wonder why you are taking on this apparent unilateral recategorization in conflict with what I wrote above. If you have investigated our policies further and found support for this type of double categorization I'd like to know about it. __meco (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I realize you are basing these additions on WP:DUPCAT and that you have added to the sexologists main category, so I guess that answers my question. My instincts tell me this is against consensus and established practice. However, I do see the guideline does seem to give this mandate. so I'll address the issue in a more general forum thusly. __meco (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good.— James Cantor (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I did so investigate, did find such support, did provide that support where you made your comment (at talk:Kenneth Zucker), did wait for a response, did repeat my request for feedback, and did wait again before doing anything. That you (apparently) ceased following where you put your own comment hardly makes me doing something unilaterally.  Moreover, you have offered no policy cite of you own---only your personal observation of what you believe to be "tendency."  As I said already (to your comments at talk:Kenneth Zucker), a non-diffusing category is perfectly consistent with existing editing policies as well as consistent with your own note about putting the same bio in multiple subcategories.  Moreover, creating multiple subcategories consisting of only a single entry is (very clearly) WP:Overcategorization. — James Cantor (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hiya James!
Since you obviously want to keep communication between you guys to a minimum I informed him of the ANI discussion (before someone noticed you hadn't and started whining about that). Arcandam (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! (I was just typing/retyping/reretyping one now.)— James Cantor (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you want some free advice? Arcandam (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. Disclaimer: I am crazy, and my advice may be worthless.
 * LOL Please.  (I am a promiscuous reader.)— James Cantor (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would recommend removing the word "libelous" from your ANI post because many Wikipedians, including myself, automatically think about WP:NLT when reading that word. Arcandam (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly consider alternatives. What would you suggest?— James Cantor (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would recommend removing that word, not replacing it. But if you want to replace it with something you may want to use the word "banana-flavoured". You wrote that you won't hesitate to pursue the matter, feel free to do so, but please don't fall in the NLT trap like so many before you did. Arcandam (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Better now?— James Cantor (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Much much better. Sorry to nag about this, I personally don't give a flying pianolesson about who you sue and why as long as its not me, but I think we just avoided potential drama. Arcandam (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and nagging to prevent trouble is always welcome. (LOL@flying piano lesson.)— James Cantor (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong way
I saw your message at ANI. Please change it immediately to remove any possible suggestion that you might consider initiating a legal action. I know you have been at Wikipedia for an extended period, but you may not be aware that while you have every right to be irritated by the message you referred to, and you have every right to consider all options, any suggestion of legal action will result in an indefinite block until the suggestions are withdrawn. I will explain the reasoning behind this if you like (the policy is WP:NLT), but your complaint is justified and will receive an appropriate response. However, the "legal" issue will cause the report to be derailed because all regulars at ANI know the NLT routine. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. In other words, any suggestion of legal action is taboo for ANI. See the above section. Robby The Penguin   (talk)   (contribs)  02:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I have changed the wording.— James Cantor (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The refactored comment is probably ok, but for the future (now would be better), the text "I will not hesitate to pursue the matter" is a violation of NLT and should be removed. We all know those words mean, so the fact that a wikilawyer might claim it doesn't say "legal" is irrelevant. The words have zero relevance for the community—anyone may "not hesitate to pursue" a matter, so the words add nothing of value except to imply an off-wiki threat. NLT is intended to avoid the problem whereby disagreements degenerate into huffing and puffing as combatants inflate the language they use. People are entitled, indeed welcome, to pursue other avenues, but while doing so they cannot interact with the community. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've removed it.— James Cantor (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bittergrey, you may be blocked from editing. ''[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bittergrey&diff=504681554&oldid=504680684 Very much not cool]. Hatting it might be acceptable, but making him say things he didn't is a fast track to being blocked.'' SarekOfVulcan (talk)  04:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hiya James, I've two things to say. First, SarekofVulcan seems to think you edited BG's comments, and I've left a comment to hopefully get some clarification.  I'm not sure if you know or not, but editing someone's comments to change meaning is a huge no-no.  You undid an entire edit, which is...better...sort-of...but still controversial.
 * Second, as I note as a possible solution here, an excision of the specific offending part might have been a better choice. It's not black-and-white, but generally the intent is to make as few changes to someone's comments as possible.  Even if you find the rest of the post offensive and blatantly wrong, which I do, it should still be preserved. An opinion for the future.
 * Normally I'd suggest leaving a note on the editor in question's page requesting a removal. Of course, given the specific editor in question, we both realize that would be fruitless.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. To me, how I should handle the situation pit two important principles against each other, BLP's and not editing others' comments at RfC/U's.  I was/am aware that repairing BLP violations has great latitude, such as being exempt from 3RR.  Before making the deletion, however, I checked what I could find in the policies for guidance.  Rightly or wrongly, my thinking followed this:


 * "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." To me, "anywhere on Wikipedia" would seem to include RfC/U's.  I am aware also that "what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial."  However, WP:BLPEDIT indicated that " The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable."  So, what I could find again suggested I could/should delete the offending section.  So, at the end of the day, I could not find anything to change the global BLP policy that "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."  Of course, I am very aware that there are many unwritten traditions or precedents in WP culture that I am unaware of.  If this is one of them, then that's that, and I have no objection to the alternative solutions proposed.  (I would, however, offer the good faith suggestion that if my reading above is incorrect, then the BLP policy page really really needs some work.  Although I will never have the tens of thousands of edits that others do, if after 5000 edits and 5 years and reading and rereading the applicable policies, I still cannot find how wikipedians actually handle the policy, then there is a problem.)
 * — James Cantor (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the warning above -- I didn't realize that BG had changed his post and that you had reverted to the original. Hatting would still have been better, but I wouldn't have warned for a straight BLP revert. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a cascade of unlikely situations, so it's not surprising you've had difficulty addressing it. In most cases common sense applies, but this isn't most cases.  I would echo Sarek's suggestion of hatting the section as a possible solution, another would be removing solely the section that was a BLP problem.
 * Personally I wouldn't have bothered to remove it given the source and complete lack of substance, but I edit pseudonymously and don't have a wikipedia page. Since on-wiki actions can have real-life consequences for you, I can't say my option would be the best one.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Cut and paste move of SSTAR
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

"Ah. Got it.  Thank you very much for the help.  And thank you also for correcting it.— James Cantor (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation templates
Do you know about or ever use citation templates? The easiest would probably be cite pmid. Just code, substitute the pmid from pubmed and a bot does the rest, pulling from the pubmed database. It basically produces a transcluded citation everywhere it is used. The only thing to watch for is the first time a pubmed number is used, the bot doesn't kick in automatically. You need to go to the references section to make sure it's complete. If not, click on the blue "jump the queue" link and the bot will kick in automagically. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. You'll probably laugh at me, but my notebooks of references are so old that's it's actually easier for me to cut and paste the old fashioned way. (!) — James Cantor (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Another point, in this set of edits you linked a section heading. Just note that per MOS:SECTIONS, it's generally not advised to link in section titles.  You may want to use a main template just below the section title, but often a simple link in the body of the section works - main links are usually used when connecting parent and daughter articles.  I've also changed the citation templates in ETLE to be cite pmid or doi as I mentioned above, one advantage is that it always includes a hyperlink to the PMID or DOI (or sometimes both).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thank you! That's very helpful to know. — James Cantor (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whenever possible, I like to be a MOS-nazi :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL I'm a journal editor; you don't have to sell me on the idea! Speaking of MoS, there is a deletion discussion going on at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Gynandromorphophilia, which is centering on MoS issues.  More eyes there would be great.— James Cantor (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That does indeed look like a pointy nomination. May I suggest however, is that less important than what something is called is the page content.  If there are substantial difference between concepts, they should be separate pages that refer to each other.  If the concept has multiple names, the usual approach is to list them all in the lead, but then use one throughout.  If it's basically the same concept, then all names should rediret to a single page and discuss them all there.  I don't know, I'm no expert in the area, and I really don't want to get into a bickering fight with Jokestress (and perhaps you might not either - take it from my experience, on wikipedia the more you reply to every single point, the less people listen).  I'll have another look at it a little later, but my very cursory review suggests that merging might be the idea.  I'd have to look into MOS:NAME to re-familiarize myself with the relevant policies and guidelines, then give my opinion (probably here though, not the AFD page).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

zoophilia and plushophilia
Hi, an editor keeps removing references to your work, even though it seems valid to me, and also fits in with common sense. Is there a place online where someone could read your study? The website I found wants $32 to see it, and I'd like to see it, but don't have $32 right now. Xerofox (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Happy to send you the article...but I'm not sure which one you meant my "mine"? Email me at james.cantor@camh.net, and I'll send you whichever .pdf.— James Cantor (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * both would be nice, but email sent to that address is returned with a bounce notice. My email address is Zerofox@outlook.com if you're inclined to send them to me. :) Xerofox (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sent! Let me know if these were not the ones you were referring to.— James Cantor (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Gynandromorphophilia
Hi James, thanks for your note.

I deleted that material because it seemed out of place and OR. You started the article by defining "gynandromorphophilia" as "the sexual preference of men for women who have a penis or other mixtures of male and female characteristics." You then included as an example a man who fell in love with just one pre-operative transgender woman, where we don't know that he had the kind of sexual preference you describe (in the sense of repeatedly and explicitly searching for that kind of relationship), and you went on to discuss the political consequences of his murder, which were unrelated to gynandromorphophilia.

I couldn't see whether your source named him as an example of that condition, but even if it did, I think it is questionable. It is similar to suggesting that, if a man falls in love with a woman who has beautiful feet, he must be suffering from podophilia. Also, it was arguably a BLP problem because it implied, of the named (living) woman, that she had been the object of a fetish, which seemed a little undermining.

Feel free to reply here, by the way, or on the article talk page, as you prefer. I'll look out for both. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries; that was just non-obvious to me. I'll not re-add the text.  The cited article about the phenomenon (which I'm happy to email you) did name him; indeed, it was how the article opened.  So it seemed (to me), that if any examples were to be on the mainpage, that would probably be the most notable one (in addition to the cites already given on Calpernia Addams about the outcome of the case).— James Cantor (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, James. If you wouldn't mind emailing me the source, I'd like to read it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to send it. The WP email system won't let me attach a .pdf, but if you email me at james.cantor@undefinedcamh.ca, then I can respond to that without your address getting posted here.  (My address is already public knowledge.)— James Cantor (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done!
 * If you're reading it anyway, I'd welcome, of course, any appropriate page additions based on the article--It's one of the few RS's available on the topic. — James Cantor (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind James, I've subbed-in @ to your e-mail address because I'm a pedantic, micro-managing nutjob. Even though your address might be public knowledge, putting a raw-text e-mail on wikipedia pages can be problematic, I believe because spambots can harvest them.  Feel free to revert, and I'll take my pedantic, nutjob self to micro-manage elsewhere...  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL Nope, don't mind at all.  You are a font of knowledge for me!— James Cantor (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment re: talk pages
Hi James,

Just a comment regarding this edit. Regardless of how right you may be about being hounded by Jokestress, you are extremely unlikely to get any traction on talk pages by bringing up past history. Bittergrey used to do it to me all the time. It makes other contributors tune out, and generally adds little weight to your arguments. Disputes and hounding like that are extremely common on wikipedia, and virtually nobody has the time, patience or interest to wade into the history to find out who is right. It's essentially bringing up behavioural disputes in talk space - which can annoy other people as well as generally not resolving the dispute itself. If you really have a problem with Jokestress' behaviour, you are far better off using dispute resolution than article talk pages to try to resolve them. In cases like this, unless there is clear evidence of disruption or the editor in question gives an admin an excuse to block for tangentially-related reasons, it'll probably require arbitration, and will probably result in a statement that if either of you ever talk to each other or refer to each other, you'll be blocked.

The other point I'll make is, in situations like this you probably don't need to bring up past personal history. You've got access to the mainstream sources, you are a scholar and an expert. For experienced wikipedians, a source demonstrating your point is correct is worth far more than a personal assertion. I would suggest building consensus via those sources on the talk page, rather than trying to resolve a behaviour issue unrelated to the article itself.

It sucks and it's frustrating, but it's the best way to meet wikipedia's purpose - expanding the encyclopedia. I try (and often fail) to take the approach that if it doesn't affect an actual article, it's not worth commenting on. Hell, if you dig on ANI you'll see where I've basically done what you did, with/against Jokestress! You'll also see that it got me nowhere  But at least ANI is a venue that has a partial-purpose of dealing with editor behaviour. Over the long-term, keeping your comments clean, focussed on the sources and article and letting behaviour roll off your back as much as possible is far more fruitful. Just my hypocritical advice and suggestions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct, of course.— James Cantor (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And a hypocrite, don't forget that :)
 * My sympathy for your frustrating experience, I know it sucks and wikipedia isn't good at dealing with things like this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this?
Hi. Could you take a look at this? 2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:A2D0 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Responded there.— James Cantor (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A comment
Hi. I was really surprised to find someone like yourself here on Wikipedia. I just wanted to say that it's really cool to have such a prominent sexologist as yourself here. There are far too few medical professionals making contributions on Wikipedia, and more should be like you in that regard.

On a side note, if you have any suggestions or critiques for the Real-Life Experience article, I would be happy to hear them. The article is by no means complete yet, but I'm a perfectionist and want it to be as good as it can be, so any input is greatly appreciated.

el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 22:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why, thank you!
 * I'm a big supporter of what the profession calls "the giving away of psychology," and putting good information into here is one of the best ways to do that. Several of the professional psychology associations are coordinating wiki efforts for their members, but sexology is too small for that.
 * I generally go very easy on trans related articles, big I am happy to send whatever info I can. I'll hit my files when things there have calmed down.  (My presence tends to attract a lot of conflict from folks who dislike the content of the medical and scientific literature there.)
 * Great to meet you, and happy editing!
 * — James Cantor (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Heya. Sorry for the late response. I've been crazy busy lately.




 * You're quite welcome. :-)




 * I certainly concur. Freedom of information and knowledge is a great thing!




 * Alrightie, I appreciate it! And take your time.




 * I believe you're referring to the Blanchard-Bailey-Lawrence topology and the autogynephilic and homosexual models of transsexuality? The theory is not something that I subscribe to personally to be honest, but I do find it interesting nonetheless and I believe it could apply to some transgender individuals to some extent (like those that actually identify with it such as Lawrence). That being said, I would never try to apply it to anyone that identified otherwise personally, and from what I've seen, most transgender people don't actually identify with it (including myself). In any case, Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence all seem sincere and very respectful from what I've read, so I do respect them as well as the theory as a scientific hypothesis, despite the fact that I may not necessarily agree with it.


 * Anyway, I just mention all this so as to not give you the wrong idea or anything of the sort. :-P




 * Same to you~


 * – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 22:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks so much! – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 22:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exhibitionism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flashing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ways to improve Analloerotic
Hi James Cantor, thanks for creating Analloerotic!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Could you add a citation for the second sentence, please? Other than that, it looks wonderful :). Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.


 * Thanks! I've added the Aggrawal cite there.— James Cantor (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

COI
If you are writing an article about someone whom you know personally, work with or have some other connection to, I would suggest writing it in a sandbox and then using some procedure like AfC where someone can look at it for COI issues. Note to the reviewer that you have a COI. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Child sexual abuse
Hey, James. Will you weigh in on the above linked discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Section headings
Hola James,

Just a procedural note, it's generally not recommended to name specific editors in section headings, see the WP:TALKNEW.

Also, have you thought about archiving your talk page? It's quite lengthy. You could use User:MiszaBot to do it automatically if you'd like (I can set it up for you if you'd like). If a page gets too long, it's hard to navigate and can take excessive time to load on slower browsers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't know that. And, yes, please!  If you could set that up, it would be great!— James Cantor (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Miszabot should kick in tomorrow afternoon.  I've added an archive box too (the orangey-beige box with the blue safe, top of the page), just note that if you want it to be accurate you'll have to update it manually.  There's no real clean way to decide on the date cut-offs, I just eyeball it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some other notes - MiszaBot indeed kicked in, and your more than 100 talk page sections have been archived. I've manually adjusted your archive box to reflect the date ranges of your first and second archive (not strictly speaking necessary, lots of people just note it as "archive 1, archive 2" etc).  MiszaBot will not auto-archive sections that lack a date stamp, so if someone doesn't date their comment, it'll linger on your page like a dead woodchuck until you do something manually.  Given that, I've taken the liberty of deleting two threads that were a personal insult and a mail template respectively - you're free to replace or archive manually if you'd like, it's your talk page.  MiszaBot changes your talk page without causing a "new talk" message every time.  Finally, MiszaBot is usually configured to leave a certain number of threads on the page no matter how old (I believe 5 threads is the default setting) so the page doesn't end up blank all the time.  Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. You're an ace!— James Cantor (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jokestress at Talk:Hebephilia, taken to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Hey, James. I'm alerting you to this. Flyer22 (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up.— James Cantor (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks; that's a pleasure to hear...er, read.— James Cantor (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

AN/I
Hi James, in case you miss it, I've posted a question for you here on AN/I in the hope it will help to end the issue between yourself and Jokestress. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Vengeance is Ours rears its head again
Hi James. I appreciate you may have your hands full with the ongoing arbitration case, but I thought I'd draw your attention to renewed discussion at Talk:Jared Diamond about the 'Vengeance is Ours' controversy, in case you haven't seen it. Just as we agreed to remove it, none other than Shearer herself has appeared to argue that the section be put back in. joe&bull;roet•c 20:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I am indeed distracted at the moment, but I will do my best to read it over.— James Cantor (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Psychopathy
Hey, James. I figured that I'd alert you of this just in case you have anything to state about it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes!— James Cantor (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Jared Diamond, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Cantor". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  02:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The foregoing notice was posted to an incorrect user talk page and the DRN request was mistitled. The request is now at Dispute resolution noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) (DRN volunteer) 21:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd have never seen that otherwise.  I've now responded there.  Thanks again.— James Cantor (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Robin Wilson (psychologist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Freebirds Howdy!  02:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.
 * One of the best articles I've seen on AfC in a while. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Freebirds Howdy!  02:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robin Wilson (psychologist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexology arbitration case opened
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 22, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You might want to consider using Webcite or similar archive tool to preserve any evidence you submit. A direct link to a site controlled by another participant might not be advisable. I doubt Jokestress would do that to throw off the case, but it would also be better for historical purposes. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right. Thanks. I'll start on that.— James Cantor (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Fursuitism listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fursuitism. Since you had some involvement with the Fursuitism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). GreenReaper (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies
I apologize James for generating the appropriate link to autogynephilia. I assumed that it was an minor oversight that you forgot to generate that link when you made that complex table. I now understand that it was intentional to leave the link out. I am sorry that I misunderstood that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone tried treating pedophiles with pheromones?
To me it seems like pheromones have a strong, lasting influence on what appears attractive that at least partly transcends sex, race, acne scars, gray hair, etc. Has anyone tried using them on pedophiles (in combination with adult stimuli), either to get them to expand their sexual predilections or to see if they are resistant to the usual biological effects (e.g. testosterone levels)? Wnt (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so, no. Thus far, attempts to convert pedophiles in to non-pedophiles have been very much like conversion therapy for gays/lesbians, with equally poor results.— James Cantor (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A disappointing answer, but thanks. (I find that comparison hard to accept, because just about every kid is at least a "hebephile" stage at puberty, but the vast majority grow out of it; let's hope someone comes up with a better method) Wnt (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you are exactly correct in your disappointment. What my field needs, more than anything else, is more scientists in it.
 * I appreciate your example of children showing sexual interest peers, then growing out of it. Although they are little studied, I don't believe that that phenomenon actually does represent a "conversion."  Rather, I suspect that, upon puberty, the brain becomes extremely sexually arousable/reactive in general and then becomes more focused as it develops.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I know this is no real argument, but that just doesn't match my recollection. For example, when I first saw Phantasm (film) sometime around puberty I was only interested in the younger brother - several years later on it was the older one, and then a third time some years after that it was mostly the father.  Though before puberty I found adults more arousing, until sometime around 7 or 8 I think.  It seems like this would be easy enough to verify in a population - I'd think most people would remember stuff like this from when they were young. Wnt (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, you make some very interesting arguments. Although neither of us has any real data on this, very many findings start out exactly this way.  (My experience with more than a few sexologists, however, is that they often retain their pet theories even after the data start coming in and point in a different direction.)  Because it is very unlikely any REB (and few parents) would let us test or survey kids of that age, we may never have a satisfactory answer.  My hunch (and I don't pretend that it is more than that) is that the crushes and attractions we experience at that stage are a mix of multiple (potentially competing) social instincts, which include children's natural instincts to imitate (or obey) adults and alphas.  At puberty, rebellion kicks in, and the social instincts for responding to adults changes (and start including the sexual).  I guess what I am saying is that
 * On an unrelated note: I don't think there is anything to be gained by my adding to the current discussion re Ellis and the hypermasculinity theory of pedophilia. I don't have copies of his books with me at the moment to check, but what I suspect Ellis was referring to was that men (much more than women) have a sexual preference for youth, and that pedophilia might therefore represent an overshooting of the usual sex difference, hence a hypermasculine preference.— James Cantor (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

List of technical terms for nonparaphilic sexual interests article
James, why create this article...given the problems already faced with keeping WP:OR and silliness out of the List of paraphilias article? There are going to be people adding things to this new list that they personally consider nonparaphilic. Flyer22 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Really, just because the list of nonparaphilia had gotten so long. That is, the page is a list of paraphilias, not a more general list of technical terms for any sexual interest.  When it was just a small handful of nonparaphilias, it didn't really matter much, but it seemed to me to have become a list unto itself. Whether editors debate 'it goes on this list page versus that list page' didn't strike me as any different from 'it goes on this versus that part of the same list page'. No? — James Cantor (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The split doesn't seem necessary to me; there aren't many "technical terms for nonparaphilic sexual interests," unless we define "sexual interest" to include any normative aspect of sexuality (sex acts, for example). It's just one more article to have to worry about, but I'm not hard-pressed on debating your creation of it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Very few sex acts have technical terms, and I can't say that I feel strongly enough to oppose a merge if that's where things ultimately lead. As I say, it just seemed odd to me for a list of paraphilias to include so many off-topic entries.— James Cantor (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably would have been best just to delete the material, or leave it up to the Paraphilia article to discuss that aspect (just like it already discusses homosexuality). But again, I don't care much about your having created the article. Flyer22 (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I think deleting the material outright would have provoked much more opposition than would giving the material it's own home.  I'm happy to post a note on the talk page about whether to re-merge it.— James Cantor (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The only opposition I can imagine on this matter is Jokestress, considering her favoritism of including mention of homosexuality on the list. But mention of homosexuality is off the list either way, despite it still currently being mentioned as "formerly classified as a paraphilia" on the new list. I don't care whether or not you ask about re-including the terms. I simply wanted to know your reason for thinking that the split was a good idea and to let you know why I disagree that it is. No worries. Flyer22 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For clarification, since this discussion has been linked at the workshop for Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology (a link that I don't mind at all), I was referring to the table portion of the list when I stated "homosexuality is off the list either way." Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. (And I don't mind the link either.)— James Cantor (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long
Hello, James Cantor. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Sexology Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1029 words and 124 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hers fold ArbClerkBOT(talk) 06:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Dreger's book
Oddly, Dreger's book may touch on one of my other areas of interest (recovered memories). Any idea when it's due out? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question, dunno. I'm happy to email her to ask.— James Cantor (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * She said a date hasn't been sent yet, but that she hopes soon.— James Cantor (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

BBC R4 Programme on feminism and transgenderism in the UK
Hi James, you're probably already aware, but Analysis, a BBC Radio 4 programme, made an interesting episode recently on trangenderism and feminism. The context is quite specific to the UK and, while I'm sure you're more than acquainted with all the issues, I stumbled across it today and thought the public discourse might interest you. "Who Decides if I'm a Woman A spat between feminist Suzanne Moore and transgender rights activists played out on social networking sites, and then hit the headlines when journalist Julie Burchill joined in too. Jo Fidgen explores the underlying ideas which cause so much tension between radical feminists and transgender campaigners, and discovers why recent changes in the law and advances in science are fuelling debate. Contributors: James Barrett, consultant psychiatrist and lead clinician at the Charing Cross National Gender Identity Clinic; Julie Bindel, feminist and journalist; Lord Alex Carlile QC, Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords; Melissa Hines, professor of psychology at Cambridge University; Richard O'Brien, writer of the Rocky Horror Show; Ruth Pearce, postgraduate researcher in sociology at the University of Warwick; Stephen Whittle OBE, professor of equalities law at Manchester Metropolitan University." Here's a primer in using a proxy to access the BBC iplayer from outside the UK (hopefully it works):. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * How interesting, thank you. I'll look forward to listening.  Those debates have been smouldering for a long time, but I've never seen it hit public notice before.  The only person I know on that panel is Melissa Hines (who is also the wife of Richard Green).— James Cantor (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sexualization article
This rewrite of the Sexualization article looks inappropriate to me. Besides having fully italicized sections about the European Parliament proposal, and now mostly being about that, with those sections all attributed to Joanna Skrzydlewska, it may appear significantly more feminist in its presentation than it should be. Or maybe, since the article is about the political term (as the hatnote states), focusing more on girls and women, what can appear to be much feminist POV isn't inappropriate? Your thoughts? Flyer22 (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalking ... That's insane. Instant revert. The editor has republished a "draft" statement from the EU working group almost in toto (all the italicised text is taken verbatim from the report). If the report is going to be used - which is debatable at this point I'd think - it needs a context and this should be provided by a suitable secondary source. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Fiachra. Although I can't say that the previous version is very good either, the page does need a rewrite.— James Cantor (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverted to previous version . Agree with James that this also needs a rewrite. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You just beat me to the revert. In addition to the above quoting that amount of material from the report looks to my inexpert eye like a copyright violation (I can't find an explicit copyright statement on the document, and the default for the European Parliament appears to be copyrighted but freely usable for academic and personal use, which is not compatible with cc-by-sa). Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted a comment at the editor's talk page; trying to be nice . (Sorry for the talkpage-jacking James.) FiachraByrne (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem at all!— James Cantor (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on the article talk page (Talk:Sexualization/Archive 1) approximately simultaneously with FiachraByrne's talk page note. We should probably move this conversation there. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys, for weighing in. All that reproduction certainly signified WP:COPYVIO to me, but I was also speaking in terms of having all that in the article even if it was worded differently. If it wasn't a copyright violation due to extensive rewording or whatever else, it would still be WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to have the article focus so much on that. I decided to come to James first, and get his take. Like he stated, neither version is good, which is what I was thinking when considering whether or not to revert on the spot. I also didn't feel like getting into an edit war where I would be the only one reverting the editor, in case the editor decided to revert me, and I wanted some backup to assist my reasoning for reverting. What I mean by that is that whether James were to assist me in reverting/communicating with the editor or not, I could point the editor to this discussion to show why the revert was made. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The note I left there on the Sexualization talk page informs the editor of this discussion (showing what led up to the revert). Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin scale
Thanks; I've commented there.— James Cantor (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Libido vs. sexual desire
Maybe you can clear this up? Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to add what I can. I'll comment there.  Thanks!— James Cantor (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that you already did before replying here. Again, thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder article?
I've seen that Abbie.dodz is planning on creating a Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder article, as seen here, here, here, and at his or her sandbox: User:Abbie.dodz/sandbox. However, like I noted with this edit, since it is only a proposed addition to the DSM-5 and largely overlaps with existing articles, I'm not sure that there should be a Wikipedia article on it; I told the editor that I'd ask elsewhere about that.

I know that you watch the Hypersexuality article, which is opposite of the Hypoactive sexual desire disorder article, and I assume you have as much, or enough, experience with the latter as you do with the former. Flyer22 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I also see that a Wikipedia article exists about the following proposed/never included addition: Hypersexual disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. It does seem a bit OR...and those are not the terms that most professionals use. Although there are differences between individual authors, "sexual desire" usually refers to amount of desire (hyper or hypoactive desire), but "sex interest" usually refers to interest in what (ie., sexually interested in women, in men, in children, in cross-dressing, etc.). There are many RS's about both regular sexual desire, hyperactive desire, and hypoactive desire. So, although I appreciate wanting to put all three in one place, I can't think of many RS's that discuss them as a set.— James Cantor (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By "a bit OR," are you stating that there is no proposal for anything that is called Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder? If that is a made-up combination term by Abbie.dodz, then that is problematic. Further, formatting an article title that way likely violates WP:TITLE; I'll have to read over that policy again. If there is a proposal under that exact name, however, then having an article about that proposal should be fine, right? Similar to how having the Hypersexual disorder article is fine? Or is it not notable enough to be a standalone article? I assume that Hypersexual disorder is notable enough to be a standalone article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I ask Abbie.dodz to weigh in here? If the article he or she is planning to create shouldn't be created, it would be best to work that out before its creation. Surely, it can be summarized in one of the existing articles, preferably the Female sexual arousal disorder‎ article...considering that apparently the proposal concerns females only. Flyer22 (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I misspoke. The DSM5 will contain Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder, which is a new formulation.  The difference between interest, arousal, and desire (as I described them to you in the above) pertains to men.  (Paraphilias and other atypical sexual interests occur almost always in men only.)
 * No problem at bring Abbie in.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. And, yes, I'm aware that paraphilias, pedophilia being a prominent example, occur almost exclusively in men. As you very likely know, some researchers believe that testosterone plays a significant role in that. Anyway, there is no problem with the Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder article being created...unless it's not notable enough to be a standalone article. I'll let Abbie.dodz know that his or her planned article has been discussed here and that he or she may want to weigh in on this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * May I ask what source you have for knowing which proposed changes have been accepted and which have been rejected? (I have in vain looked for them, both for this Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder and for other disorders.)  Lova Falk     talk   14:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of the DSM5 decisions have been discussed at various professional conferences, so are publicly known, but not all have appeared in print in a way that would allow them to be included on WP. Several of the DSM5 decisions have been posted ([here] for example), so knowing the proposals and what was rejected tells us essentially what will be in there.  The final version of DSM5 is only a few weeks away now, however, so I think waiting is the most logical thing to do.  I hope that's a help.— James Cantor (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  Lova Falk     talk   15:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In the Hypoactive sexual desire disorder article, Abbie.dodz used this source to support mention of the Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! "Purchase on Springer.com for $39.95" or.... just use the free pdf I found. Face-smile.svg  Lova Falk     talk   19:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And thank you for that PDF version. Flyer22 (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I am actually just doing the article for a fourth year class that I am in right now, so I'm not sure if it will ever go live (it has to be approved by my professor first). Yes you're right - it is a diagnosis exclusively for females. They are trying to restructure the way females are diagnosed with sexual disorders, because of the high rates of comorbidity. I put the title like that just so it's clear to my prof when I send her the link to hand it in - I am aware that it is incorrect formatting, and if it does go up as an article, I will be sure to change it. Thanks! Abbie.dodz (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Abbie.dodz
 * Just to let you know that because of the uncertainty if the article ever will go live, and because Abbie.dodz has had no more activity since april 7th, I did not revert my edit to Anorgasmia. (I hope you don't mind James that I chose your talk page to tell this. It seemed the best place...)  Lova Falk     talk   08:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology closed
An arbitration case regarding sexology has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia).
 * 2) User:Jokestress and User:James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.
 * 3) User:Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 12:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
Hello, James Cantor. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sceptre (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of erotic dysphorias
Hello; I wanted to notify you that I proposed List of erotic dysphorias for deletion. None of the four dysphorias (dysphoriæ?) on the list are exactly "erotic," aside for the common misconception that gender = sex in the case of gender dysphoria. Feel free to weigh in. --Fran Rogers (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Homosexuality
James, do you mind commenting on the above linked matter that is in the heading? Flyer22 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, happy to. Comments there.— James Cantor (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Raymond J. Noonan
Hi, the above article is at AFD here. As it is sexology-related, I wondered whether you'd be interested in participating in the discussion. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Randy! Happy to add what I can.— James Cantor (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Partialism
So this is basically the "catch all" for body part related fetishes, correct? What about some sort of indicator that this is a "category" of fetishes versus essentially the rest of the list which refers to specific interest?

I have an understanding of this now, but if I were viewing the list for the first time I doubt I'd infer that "partialism" was describing a laundry list of related fetishes. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Scalhotrod. I don't think the term was ever intended as a catch-all.  It really just reflects the beliefs of some authors that being more interested in a body part instead of whole body is the important aspect, whereas other authors believe that the actual body part is the central feature.  So, some authors use "partialism"  and others use terms reflecting the specific anatomy.  I don't believe there has ever been a meaningful effort to use it as a category analogous to the Courtship disorders or the Erotic target location errors.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, so how should the issue that the entry for "partialism" is a defacto category be addressed since its atypical for the list? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation


As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Voice intro project. You can ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.

Canvassing
There is an appropriate place for your canvassing efforts, it isnt the pedophile article whose talk space you are, IMO, abusing (sorry to use such a word but I cant think of a better one), it is [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, I suggest you move your and my comments there♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the absence of a very well known info on SEXUAL DESIRE on wikipedia
This question is related to sexual desire of males. In the article SEXUAL DESIRE i could not find a very well known fact. It is generally seen that in sexually active active males, the time gap between the ejaculations affects their sexual desire. For example, if a man masturbates or ejaculates regularly(say once a day or once every two days or twice a day) and suddenly stops it, his sexual desire(or what we call libido) increases..It is also observed that the orgasm after a period of abstinence are also intense and getting and erection in a short term abstinence period is quicker..Why does this happen..? And why does wikipedia not mention i under the factors affecting sexual desire ..? I know that males are made to release their sperms once in a while. But why could i not find a reason or mention of it on wikipedia...many thanksEd beerman (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You have made a legal threat against me
And been reported at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have responded there.— James Cantor (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit, which you made recently, please see WP:CHILDPROTECT. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * FreeKnowledgeCreator, as James is someone who has worked with me, Herostratus and Legitimus (and SqueakBox before their recent disagreements/conflicts) on pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics, and to stop pedophile/child sexual abuse activism, on Wikipedia for years, he is well aware of WP:CHILDPROTECT. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, he should have known better than to make the edit I linked to above. The IP was violating WP:CHILDPROTECT through advocacy of pedophilia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Just curious

 * , if you felt that it was use of the word "libelous" by another user that constituted a legal threat, how is it that JCantor has "threatened you", if he removed that word when reverting the comments back in? - the WOLF  child  05:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * , is your comment to JCantor above a simple 'FYI'? - Or do you feel he violated wp:childprotect? - the WOLF  child  05:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cantor's edit was ill-advised. That's my only response. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for help about "courtship disorder"
My name is Kirill and I write articles about paraphilias in Russian Wikipedia. Now I want to write article about courtship disorder, but unfortunately I don’t find free authoritative sources. Can you please provide me with articles about courtship disorder (Kurt Freund’s studies)? My email is gugolpleks@mail.ru 37.205.51.38 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sent! Happy editing to you.— James Cantor (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably there are some technical problems with mail.ru (I don't receive email). Can you please resend message on ten.inessa@gmail.com. 37.205.51.38 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Resent.— James Cantor (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes!! I received your new email on gugoleoleks@mail.ru and on ten.inessa@gmail.com. Thank you very much! 37.205.51.38 (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Is imprinting during critical period important for development of sexuality?
Good morning, James! It’s again Kirill from Russia.

I thought a lot about the possible role of imprinting (or other form of learning) during critical period of ontogenesis for developing atypical sexuality. I assume that it is possible that paraphilias are critical period disorder like autism. Some researches claim that in autistic person due to disturbed balance of excitatory and inhibitory (E/I) neurotransmission critical periods for developing sensor, motor, cognitive functions can open and close atypical early or maybe atypical late (or in other way go awry) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150222/. Personally I think that similar process can be in persons with paraphilias. For example, in child critical period for developing sexuality can open atypical early, and therefore pedophilia (infantile body scheme can be imprinted) or other paraphilia can be formed. Moreover, a lot of paraphiles have some signs of autism spectrum disorder, especially signs of Asperger syndrome. Maybe paraphilia is part of packet of pervasive neurodevelopmental disorder, which affects a lot of cortical function, becasue of pathology of critical period. Deficit in white matter, what you have found, can disturbed excitatory and inhibitory (E/I) neurotransmission and increase probability that critical period go awry. What do you think about my hypothesis of paraphilias?

I have written my hypothesis in Russian here http://mostovskiy.com/paraphyly/434-gipoteza-o-roli-kriticheskih-periodov-v-formirovanii-parafiliy.html We discussed this topic here http://www.psychforums.com/paraphilias/topic124849.html

Will be happy if you answer. :) 37.205.51.38 (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

eMedicine debate going on at WP:MED
Hey, James. Coming from this discussion, where WebMD is mentioned, reminded me of the eMedicine debate going on at WP:MED. WP:Permalink here; current link to the discussion here. I'm alerting you to the discussion in case you want to weigh in on it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up!— James Cantor (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Requests for comment/Bittergrey
Requests for comment/Bittergrey, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bittergrey and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Requests for comment/Bittergrey during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (Sexology) in which you were involved has been modified by which changed the wording  of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gender Identity Disorder in Children
Hi James. I had an opportunity to review the sources you offered to replace Green (1987) for persistence/desistence rates of gender identity disorder in children. In summary, I am extremely impressed with Drummond et al (2008), and find Wallien & Cohen-Kettenis (2008) to be methodologically suspect but useable with caveats. Would you like to hammer out a rewrite of paragraph three of the lead section together, or will you agree to offer comment on a good-faith revision if I submit one? --April Arcus (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry for my delay, April. I am perfectly happy to read and discuss anything you'd like to propose, but, as Flyer22 says, we should be using secondary sources (such as the several she listed).— James Cantor (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to inform
Hello, I thought it is appropriate to tell you that I informed Women Against Registry of your existence as they are planning a class action lawsuit in federal court and are asking people to help in gathering articles to be used in the lawsuit. I referred them to your homepage and told about what I know of your views on these matters. In other news: Mongo is acting like a Mongo on AWA article once again :/ ViperFace (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, ViperFace. No problem at all!  I'd be happy to help them however I can.— James Cantor (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ViperFace, are you aware of WP:No legal threats? Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Informing people of relevant policies is always a good idea. But to clarify the above, Viper wasn't threatening, or even involved, in any such activity.  He was just letting me know that he told a non-WP group that I might be able to assist with a non-WP lawsuit involving only non-WP people.— James Cantor (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Could use some help with sourcing on a subject marginally within your range of study
Sorry for jumping out of nowhere, but would you mind looking at this user draft? Do scholarly sources exist? There's a very loud discussion going on here about whether this subject is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. I'm feeling lots of heat but seeing virtually no light in the clash of ideas. Are there academic sources on this (surely common) phenomenon? I'm not asking you to wade into the discussion, but you may be aware of sourcing in a field where many editors claim no such sources exist. Any guidance would be helpful. BusterD (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Buster; I'm happy to contribute what I can. I took a look at the RSs on the draft and the scholarly lit.  The RSs look fine overall, but generally provide only passing mention of the topic rather than significant coverage.  That is, they seem sufficient for sourcing individual statements, but not for establishing notability.  The few sources that do provide substantial coverage use varying definitions/operationalizations of the term.  That is, although they would seem better for establishing notability of the phrase as a topic, it is not clear that they are actually referring to exactly the same topic in the first place.  (This is true also for the other cites: They are referring to overlapping, but differing phenomena.  None should really be used to express general statements about the whole phenomenon, despite that they use the same phrase.)
 * The scholarly literature contained very little. Donnelly and Burgess appear to be about all there is.  There are other research literatures that use the phrase (such as prison research referring to sexual behavior within correctional institutions), but nothing that would suggest "significant" coverage, especially since that article was published 15 years ago and not much has come forth since.  So, although I can't say someone is crazy for wanting to pull an article together, it probably boils down to exactly how low one is willing to go in interpreting "significant" coverage.  (And I'm not hearing about any salt: If the topic does become of wider academic interest, and article can certainly come forth later.)  Is that a help? (I'd be happy to repeat this in whatever forum.)
 * — James Cantor (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Very kind of you James. I very much appreciate the eyes of someone who knows the ground better than myself. Just my opinion, but considering the universe set of all human beings, I'd think the subset of humans who are celibate involuntarily would be huge, including almost every person on the planet at some point in each life. Perhaps there is a better nomenclature. The arguments I'm seeing formulated against inclusion in the AFD/RFC and in previous Talk:Celibacy discussions seem of a very poor quality. As I've mentioned, there's a heat to light ratio which seems to me wildly disproportionate. BusterD (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to do it. It's amazing how much we don't know about basics in sex.  Other than HIV, there has never been much opportunity to fund decent sex research on many topics!— James Cantor (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If one considers the short length of time we've been studying medical, sociological and psychological topics in a scientific way, one could assert humans know virtually nothing about their own sexual behaviors. I've seen arguments that incel would be a medical topic and therefore subject to the properly rigorous standards of WP:MEDRS, but to me this seems a social phenomenon, not a medical one. Do you share this opinion? BusterD (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can certainly imagine a world in which it would be a more sizeable topic, but I don't think there is any way to say what field "owns" the topic. The medical field will have commentary about its medical aspects (and there will be debates about medicalizing a natural phenomenon), the social sciences will have commentary about its social aspects (and there will be debates about the identify politics), etc.  So, I guess I don't have a strong opinion over whether MDRS is the most appropriate standard.— James Cantor (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The outcome of the RFC/AFD was no consensus for inclusion, which I can accept for now. However, I will continue to research this topic (being IMHO a social state affecting virtually every human being at some point in their lives) and build an offline draft for discussion at some point in the future. Would you be willing to send me notice of RS if you were to stumble across such during your normal daily study? I'd appreciate your help and I'm in no hurry. As an active wikipedian you've got a good set of eyes for sources in this field marginally related to your specialty. If I can ever be of assistance, please call on me. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Question
Hello James Cantor. As a general question, do you have easy access to articles in the Archives of Sexual Behavior? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure. What can I grab for you?  (And I'd need your email address to send it to.) — James Cantor (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I need Kenneth Zucker's review of Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity and Growing Up Straight by George Alan Rekers. Although it is a negative review, it would help me to establish the notability of the books concerned. I could give you my email address, but there is another option: if you wanted to, you could add the review to the articles about Rekers's books. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I don't have time to digest and add it myself, but it was no trouble to retrieve the review itself. Just let me know where to send it! — James Cantor (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please send it to pison123psion@mail.com. I quite understand if you don't want to work on the articles yourself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

question
Hello Dr. Cantor, I recently proposed some edits at the sex offender talk page:  [|here]. I don't want to be a lazy editor but I thought I might ask if you have any WP:RS ready to go? I don't want to add work to your plate, I should be able to find information. Incidentally both links to assessments in the article are not working? Is Quinsey's work generally regarded as a WP:RS? Hope to talk to you soon --Cityside189 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Megan's law, Jacob Wetterling Act , and  Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
Articles related to some that you have been involved in editing&mdash; Megan's law,  Jacob Wetterling Act , and  Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act &mdash;have been proposed for merging with Sex offender registries in the United States. If you are interested, you are welcome to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 19:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sex Offender Incomplete Sentences Blank
Is this test used much? I don't see a lot of sources mentioning it, but it sounds kind of interesting, like a Mad Libs approach to seeing what's in people's heads. Beembly (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I very, very rarely see it. I'm sure there might be psychoanalytic hold-out's who still try to use it, but projection tests can't get far in any forensic situation. — James Cantor (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this because structured risk instruments that are composed of predetermined risk factors, that specify how to combine factors into a total score, that provide cutoff scores for risk levels, that provide estimated recidivism rates, and that periodically revise their scales to reflect advances in knowledge, are consistently found to be more accurate than unstructured approaches? Beembly (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. — James Cantor (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Courtship disorder for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Courtship disorder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Courtship disorder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone nominated this on the talk page and offhand it looks to be fine, but I completed it anyway and voted to keep it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi James! I don't think it's necessary to post AfD notices on bot talk pages (e.g. your edit to User talk:BattyBot).  Happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I went through the all the contributors to the page and must have included one of the bots.  Thanks for the heads up! — James Cantor (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think an apology is in order.
A few months ago, you complained that I was libelling one of your colleagues. Given that said colleague has been letting his clinicians ask vulnerable nine year old children from foster care about their sexual interests, and has generally been found to have engaged in "inappropriate" and "unethical" medical treatments on children, I think an apology is in short order. Sceptre (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Being a current employee of CAMH, I cannot speak on this issue as freely as I would like. Nonetheless, an accurate assessment of the situation is better summarized here. — James Cantor (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * So you think, like Dreger does, that Zucker did nothing wrong by asking vulnerable nine year old children about their sexual interests? Sceptre (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What I think is that being a current employee of CAMH, I cannot speak freely on this issue. Get me permission to speak externally about internal affairs, and I will be happy to do so. — James Cantor (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Asking for your opinion
There is a discussion happening at talk: Tom O'Carroll on a subject in which you have taken an interest in the past. I was wondering if you would like to offer an opinion. Researcher1000 (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Group
You might be interested in this: User:Ongmianli/Helping Give Psychology Away. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What do yo think?
I had an idea for academic journals that is described here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. What do you think? Is there any reason why a journal would not want to advertise that it spends a few dollars and maybe five minutes per submission to check for blatant plagiarism? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there, WAID. I'm sorry I didn't see your message while it was relevant.  (I don't sign in often these days.)  I hope the issue resolved well!
 * — James Cantor (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion (which is short) has been archived here. It's a question about journal editing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I agree: I don't think IF should be used for that purpose.  Small (and highly specialized) fields have lower scores than larger (and more general) fields. — James Cantor (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also curious about this: Should academic journals be using plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin) and advertising that fact?  I realize that there's a certain amount of expense there, but I'm thinking that the reputational damage when the journal has to retract something for having copied from Wikipedia (for example) is also expensive.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, WAID. I hesitate to say anything general to all journals: Different fields and subfields would plausibly react differently.  I would certainly have no opposition to any journal I'm involved with doing such a thing, but mine is a very small field where most reviewers would likely recognize such a thing.  I can imagine that very large fields might benefit more from it.  Advertising doing so might also vary with the field/audience.  If I were still an editor and my journal were going to institute such software, I would consider putting the information in the "instructions for authors," so a potential plagiarist would go someplace else, but making a more public statement could feasibly become a PR problem. Is that a help?
 * — James Cantor (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm insufficiently cynical, but I suspect that most authors aren't planning to plagiarize anything. They just copied something from their notes, and forgot that it happened to be a quotation.  But I can see why a journal might want to check for plagiarism "secretly", rather than with public fanfare.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I think it's journal- and field- specific. Although we are accustomed to Western academic (and lifestyle) standards, there is no shortage of very desperate grad students and new profs under unbelievable pressure, especially in India and China.  For many of them, the perish in publish-or-perish is very real, and their risk-to-benefit ratio isn't what we enjoy. — James Cantor (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies


The article International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Ephemeral journal, published for only a short time. Tagged for notability since 2013. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive 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 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 will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

USRN
What is WP:USRN?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was a typo on my part. I meant to write WP:UCRN. — James Cantor (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Creep Catchers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CTV and W5. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI
See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. A WP:Permalink for it it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A request
Hello, James Cantor. Do you have access to Archives of Sexual Behavior, volume 24, issue 6? I would find it very useful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, FKC! Yes.  It contains 5 articles and a letter-to-the-editor.  Which do you need?— James Cantor (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am looking for the review of Simon LeVay's The Sexual Brain. If you don't want to e-mail me the entire issue, you could simply e-mail me the text of that review - it would be much appreciated. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem: I was able to download the book review section of that issue as a .pdf. I don't think I can send an attachment in wikipedia-email, however.  Is there another address I can send it to? — James Cantor (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You could e-mail it to pison123psion@mail.com. Thank you very much. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Done!— James Cantor (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

IP hopper who adds gendered sexual behaviors material
Regarding this, this and this, yeah, I don't trust the IP's material. I've already noted that I will fix up the content the IP added to the Lesbophobia article. As for the Erotic plasticity article, are you able to tell me if anything the IP added is supported by the sources? I am familiar with the research on lesbophobia and erotic plasticity, and the topic of penile plethysmograph as well, but I don't always have access to the sources.

No need to ping me to your talk page. It's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Happy to send whatever RS's you need/want.  Also, I have here somewhere some of the original photographs of Freund's original device.  When I get a moment to upload them to the commons, I think they'd be interesting and relevant on the page.— James Cantor (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Desexualization
Are you able to assess this material via access to its sources and see if it has WP:OR, or specifically WP:Synthesis, in it? Looks like some WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is very Synth. It also seems rather off topic.  Finally, a claim about how to distract someone from their sexual interests is now the basis of  enormous discussion, within the sex addiction field.  I have no idea what could possibly be learned from a single, non-peer-reviewed claim in a book published more than 50 years ago.  I hope that's a help.  Keep up the good work!— James Cantor (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will remove with a link to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"Homosexual" vs. "MSM"
I do think that you could provide sound commentary at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Permalink here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Dr. Cantor,
 * Thank you for your thoughtful comment on the terminology usage. Could you please, however, provide us with any specific advice as to which term (homosexual or MSM) is better to use in this particular article (Antisperm antibodies)? The problem here is that some contemporary reviews (2013, 2017) in the field of reproductive medicine are using the term homosexual when referring to very old primary sources, which had been published before the term MSM was introduced by UNAIDS in 1996. I hope I am not pushing you too much with my request :)
 * I am not a specialist in sexuality studies (I am a virologist), but I am very interested in some aspects of human sexuality, in particular in the development of sexual orientation. I have also read with great interest some of your articles related to homosexuality.
 * Please keep up the good work!
 * Best regards,
 * Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please keep up the good work!
 * Best regards,
 * Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Alexi. Thank you for your kind words.  In the specific context of that article, "homosexual men" or "gay men" would be correct.  That is, the immune response is linked to one's sexual attraction pattern (homosexual or gay), and not to one's actual behaviour (having sex with men).  The immune response would be present in closeted gay men, virgin gay men, men who say they are bi- even though they are really gay, etc.; whereas the immune response would not be present in heterosexual hustlers who only have sex with men for money.  Although "having sex with men" is what is important to preventing HIV transmission, it is the sexual attraction pattern that is linked to the brain/immune-response.  The contemporary reviews are correct to be using the term homosexual, as would be whichever primary sources.  (See also the cite I post below to Путеец.  I hope that's a help. — James Cantor (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Dr. Cantor,
 * Alexei misleads you, arguing that the term "homosexual man" is used only in citations from old sources. As proof I provide the page of the book of 2017 and the textbook of 2014 . I constantly face his dishonesty, and I'm tired of it. Unfortunately, the discussion in which you participated was closed. I ask your participation in the decision to resume this discussion. In addition, Alexei tries to add erroneous data to the article "Antisperm antibodies", even after I pointed to the source of the error. Best regards, Путеец (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Путеец. I have not read the rest of this thread and have no opinion about anyone's honesty, but you are entirely correct that the term "homosexual" continues to be used (appropriately and correctly) by contemporary research on this topic.  Indeed, a particularly significant one (a primary source) just came out a week or two ago: .  I'd use MSM in the context of sexual behavior research and gay/homosexual in the context of sexual orientation research. — James Cantor (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Paraphilia and homosexuality
You might want to address Monochrome Monitor's hidden note concerns made with this edit. As you can see, the two hidden notes are beside text on one of your papers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 02:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A request
Hello, James Cantor. I realize that you may be busy, but when or if you could find the time, I would be extremely grateful if you could e-mail me the book reviews in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Dec1993, Vol. 22 Issue 6, in PDF format. Asking you because you have been willing to help with requests such as this in the past. As before, the e-mail address you can send it to is pison123psion@mail.com. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sending it to me. I didn't find it immediately as you didn't respond on your talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You're welcome...And I'm sorry for forgetting to respond here!— James Cantor (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello again. If you are still interested in helping, could you send me the book reviews section of Archives of Sexual Behavior volume 11, issue 1, to the same e-mail address as before? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Done!— James Cantor (talk)


 * Thanks, got it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * At this stage, if you still want to help, I'd like the book reviews section of Archives of Sexual Behavior volume 25, issue 6. And that's the last one for the near future, I swear to God. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * lol Done! !!!!


 * Forgot to thank you. Doing it now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, James Cantor. If you are still interested in helping, I'd like the book reviews section for Archives of Sexual Behavior, volume 21, issue 3. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Causes of transsexuality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Moser ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Causes_of_transsexuality check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Causes_of_transsexuality?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Your past pledge with regard to transgender and certain transgender-related articles
Seeing you at the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article, I was just about to state that I think you should remove the pledge from your user page, but I then saw this. It would still be wise to not edit an article like Andrea James (Jokestress), though. Given my past interaction with her on Wikipedia, I don't even edit her article and stated so at Talk:Andrea James. For me, it's a WP:BLPCOI when it comes to her. I'm sure that I could edit her article neutrally, but it's still best that I don't edit it at all.

I think I partly know what you meant by "moot," but do you want to clarify?

Anyway, you are good at declaring your COI on talk pages or by adding a Template:Connected contributor tag. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, and thanks.— James Cantor (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Gamergate/gender-related issues discretionary sanctions alert
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

"autogynephilic MtF's"

 * most activists are autogynephilic MtF's

Can you explain this comment? Are you calling people autogynephilic in your own voice or did you forget some quotation marks? Calling people autogynophiles (unless they use that word to describe themselves) would be extraordinarily uncivil. --Wickedterrier (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * My own voice. The correct spelling is "autogynephiles."  I don't find it extraordinary at all, and I am not the first to say it.  To address the underlying message: Nor do I think of autogynephilia as an epithet or insult.  I appreciate that internalized autogynephobia gives many people a feeling of shame over experiencing it, but I do not see it as negative at all.— James Cantor (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm a trans women and I find your use of the term to be highly insulting and degrading. The person who coined it is a transphobe, and the term refers to the insulting notion that being trans is merely a fetish. Would you please refrain from using it in future? --Wickedterrier (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to that view. No, he is not.  No, it does not.  And no, I will not.— James Cantor (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wickedterrier (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not the first person to say that "most activists are autogynephilic MtF's"? It sounds like you're attributing a paraphilia to bunch of people who you've never met or treated. I'm all in favor of having frank conversations about the science, but I suspect this is more of a conjecture than a scientific fact. Nblund talk 22:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure of this: ANI closed the discussion, seeing things my way, and overwhelmingly so. Please, WP:STICK.— James Cantor (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The closure notice said that this discussion should stay within the content area, and there was no consensus for administrative action. That does not mean that the administrator "sees things your way". There is certainly no indication that any administrator agrees with you on ascribing a hypothetical paraphilia to every trans person who disagrees with you. rspεεr (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, talk about having issues letting go of conflict. Although I'd typically delete this from my talkpage, this tone suggests a problematic future, for which this note may need to be a reference.— James Cantor (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Breast fetishism
This is an article that you may want to take a look at when you get time. It contains some claims that, while sourced, seem dubious or WP:UNDUE, such as:

...with debate existing as to whether the modern widespread fascination with breasts among heterosexual males in western societies is a sexual fetish.

Breast fetishism is claimed to be an example of a contagious thought (or meme) spreading throughout society...

In clinical literature of the 19th century, the sexual focus on breasts was considered a form of paraphilia...

Some authors from the United States have made the statement that attraction to the female breast is a sexual fetish, that it is the American fetish-object of choice, and that breast fetishism is predominantly found in the United States.

In an effort to balance things out, the first paragraph after "Scientific explanation" was recently copied over by me; and I found one instance where a statement went beyond what its source said (more probably exist). It could definitely use some improvement. Of course, it should still have views from feminists and social scientists, and should not be only about the clinical sense of the phrase. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I agree. The article correctly indicates at first the correct (scientific) use of fetishism as a paraphilia, but the rest of the page uses the lay-definition of fetishism, including only cultural/political reactions to (het-) men finding female breasts arousing. The claims are the claims, but I can't say there has ever been any kind of solid evidence, or even a testable or unfalsifiable theory, to come out of it. — James Cantor (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of transgender clinics


The article List of transgender clinics has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No sign that the set of all transgender clinics is notable, though individual ones may be."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rab V (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have responded there, adding some examples of RS's.— James Cantor (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * But are there only 4 in the world? a list article normal implies either that, or that there are four, all of which hacve articles for being individually notable. I suggest it would make immensely more sense as Transgender clinic, and I've moved it accordingly. It would still need great expansion.  (If you do mean to establish separate articles on these, do it first, and then make the list)     DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok— James Cantor (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

neuromorphic computing
what are your thoughts on the role of neuromorphic computers in the study of psychology/neuroscience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJJ4y7 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)