Talk:James Cantor

2020 resignation from the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS)

He was forced out of the distribution list, in violation of their rules, and then hounded out by transphilic (or TERF-phobic? ambiguity intended) activists:

In the present culture war between science and popular appeal, the SSSS Board of Directors selected the latter. This is not the first time the SSSS Board abused their authority to silence science ...

due to his article.

He alleges censorhip, hounding and more. Nihil novi.

It seems significant and DUE in view of the ongoing culture wars worldwide, Cultural Revolution 2.0 as I would call it.

There is at least one relevant WP:RS cited there:

How to Ruin Sex Research
J. Michael Bailey 
Archives of Sexual Behavior  

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-1420-y

but I do not have inclination to search for more, update his bio and related articles (TERF? Science wars? ), and then monitor and restore it, especially after being repeatedly reverted recently on similar LB+ cum social topics.

Any takers?

Ps. What a yumny word:

gynandromorphophilic 

in this ref!

My sesquipedalianophila kicks in! Zezen (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zezen: Only two secondary sources have covered this; the National Post and Pink News. There is no rush to include it given how sensationalized the reporting is, but maybe they are okay sources. I'll wait and see what other editors say. Sxologist (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the legwork. Please monitor it then. I will take care of other areas. Zezen (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Media Matters article

A Media Matters article used as a source is of questionable value. A few points:

• It uses "Expert" in scare quotes in its title. Is there really any point questioning that James Cantor is an expert?
• It is cited in support of the fact that Cantor's removal from the witness list was "related to public advocacy for pedophiles," but the Media Matters article has nothing more to show for this than speculation.
• Furthermore, why is his involvement with Prostasia Foundation mentioned in connection with this? What is this meant to prove? That stigma reduction around this mental health condition is bad? If so, all we have for this is a link from the article to a Medium blog, which in turn quotes and links to a Daily Mail story that calls pedophiles a "fiendish group of sub-humans". Seriously?

If not the whole paragraph, then the section "The removal was reportedly related to public advocacy for pedophiles, including association with the Prostasia Foundation, and advocating for pedophiles to be included as "P" under the LGBTQ umbrella" should be removed. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Cantor's testimony has been important and relevant to court cases related to transgender youth in several states so far. It may be fair for the article to question whether Cantor is an "expert" on that, as a federal judge questioned that, and mostly discounted his testimony. This was due to lack of first-hand clinical experience with that gender dysphoric minors, and lack of familiarity with the treatment protocols. Someone whose testimony would have been given more weight would likely be a practicing clinician with significant ongoing experience treating gender dysphoric minors, and who has evaluated the efficacy of those treatments first-hand. The connection to Cantor's past statements and affiliations is relevant in this case because they were highlighted publicly in such a way that his testimony was cancelled on the same afternoon of 24 October 2022. Hist9600 (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and it makes it look like he's okay with child molestation when he has specifically said he is not. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Promo page?

This “article” totally feels like a promo page. Tangamandapiou (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)