Top Canadian sex researcher quits scientific group after being blasted for views on transgender issues

submitted by sallytomato from nationalpost.com

all 12 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]OrangeFirefly 29 insightful - 6 fun29 insightful - 5 fun30 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

'Wayne State University PhD student Jami Pittman said “I would just like to express a great sense of violence that I feel from being exposed to this conversation.”'

A PhD student who can't handle opposing views or being challenged in any way. It's an absolute joke.

[–]davids877 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Universities are supposed to be places where discourse happens and views are challenged. So much for that.

[–]jet199 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

Just going to point out this guy is pro-peadophile. He's not an ally to anyone but himself, although maybe that makes him better at being unbiased on the science side of this.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Jet, I don't agree with Cantor's position on pedophilia, but I don't think it's accurate or fair to say he is "pro-pedophile" coz that could be taken to mean he promotes pedophiles being allowed to abuse children. I think his stance is that he believes pedophilia is for some people (mostly men) an innate sexual orientation & that this needs to be recognized so that therapists & policy makers can come up with more effective methods to help people with the orientation understand their impulses but never act on them.

My understanding is that he thinks shaming pedophiles for their orientation backfires against society's & children's best interests coz it causes pedos to remain in the shadows under a cloak of secrecy, & has the unintentional effect of making them less likely to seek help & more likely to commit crimes of CSA. Apparently many pedos reason that since their deviant sexual desires already make them reviled social pariahs, they really don't have much to lose if they go ahead act out those desires; they're gonna be hated, looked down on & ostracized either way.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with Cantor on this; I don't know enough about the topic. But I think his view is a bit different than simply being "pro-pedophile."

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, you need to read into this then you'd realise how dangerous what you wrote is.

Being pariahs is what stops paedos from offending. Thinking they at have public acceptance and support makes them offend more. The UK recently had to close down a paedophile treatment programme because it was increasing offending rates. The issue was it included group therapy which then normalised paedophilia and encouraged them to act out. Your post itself could also well have this effect.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7552421/Sex-offender-treatment-programme-RAISED-risk-reoffending-England-Wales.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/sep/03/childprotection

Paedophilia is a paraphilia just like AGP or sadism, not a sexuality.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Huh? The first article you posted from the DM is about discredited UK group "therapy" programs that lumped a wide variety of convicted sex offenders - from the most violent rapists to voyeurs & "panty sniffers" - all together as if they were all of one mind. The upshot was that in these groups these criminal men ended up telling titillating details of crimes that sexually aroused themselves & all the other deviant males in the group - and these men also swapped "trade secrets" that helped them all become more adept at committing sexual offenses. From these groups, lower-level offenders learnt how to commit more serious sex crimes, & higher level offenders learnt new ways to commit even worse & sicker sex crimes. These groups, however, seems not to have been confined to pedophiles.

But people in the US who worked with convicted sex offenders in the early 1980s found & loudly warned back then that such "group therapy" programs for a mixed bag of sex criminals - or even sex criminals with the same proclivities & patterns of offending - were basically functioning as "sex abuse universities" and "sex crime technical schools."

But the issue at hand here in these posts is: is James Cantor now advocating for such programs?

The second article you linked is about pedophiles who in the internet era watch images of child sex abuse online and claim that doing so doesn't hurt or victimize anyone, apparently because in their view filming & photographing crimes & selling copies to others somehow decriminalizes the acts shown therein. What's more, these men also argue that there's no link between men who view images of CSA & men who commit acts of CSA. Sorry, but these sorts of claims by such men were thoroughly discredited by feminists & others working in criminology & sexology in the 1970s & 80s.

More to the point for our discussion here: does James Cantor promote viewing of CSA images by pedos? Does he say viewing images of such crimes makes men less likely to commit such crimes? If that is what he says, please cite the sources so I and others here can see & can contact him in protest.

As I said, I don't agree with what I know of Cantor's POV on pedophiles. At all. But I also think it's not a good idea to simplify & misportray the views of those whose positions we disagree with, or find reprehensible.

I've followed this issue pretty closely since the 1970s when Jimmy Carter was POTUS, in part cuz I've been heavily involved in feminism since then - & also because from 1961-1967 I suffered CSA & was preyed on by other pedos who didn't succeed in reaching their ultimate goal. I disagree that what I wrote is "dangerous" & I think you are wrong in saying my post could have the effect of normalizing pedophilia or encouraging pedos to act out. But hey, whaddo I know?

[–]anxietyaccount8 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But I think his view is a bit different than simply being "pro-pedophile."

Nope. Also he wants to include pedophiles in the LGBT community.

[–]OrneryStruggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He does promote pedophiles being allowed to abuse children, just implicitly. But that is exactly what he promotes, because he is against pedophilia being stigmatized and he is against putting pedophiles in prison. He also claims pedophilia is a sexual orientation and should be part of the LGB. I don't know what kind of crazy mental gymnastics it requires to try to spin this as 'not pedophilia promotion' but I don't really want to know. We shouldn't be supporting this guy at all. His former protege, a pro-porn and pro-BDSM researcher, fled to Mexico after sexually assaulting at least 7 undergraduate students too. This is a group of really bad men whether they believe in gender bullshit or not.

[–]MurkyMilk 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why do you say that? Because he ran an MRI study that found that pedophilia is hard-wired?

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

He said he thinks the P should be included in the LGBT.

[–]catoboros 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not even his views: his willingness to discuss the issues. Violence! I will post the Benjamin A Boyce interview.

[–]buttbuttinator 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

“The original piece in question was a difficult and frankly irresponsible read — especially in light of the fact that 21 trans people have been murdered in 2020 so far (the vast majority of whom are Black trans women),”

Why do they always bring race into this? Seriously, I know that that's the exact sort of language that a lot of people use when they don't want to address real racial issues, but in this case it's not a racial issue at all. Why did they bring race into this? Is it because they're trying to hide behind black civil rights the same way that they hide behind LGB civil rights?

Is 20 murders in 8 months even disproportionate for black males? Looks like over 6000 black men were murdered in 2018, so if we assume that the numbers would stay similar in 2020 (which is admittedly not a reasonable assumption) and we assume that 0.6% of black men are trans (which is the rate for US adults in general according to this study) then that's on par. Which would mean that, once again, TRAs are appropriating a problem that faces marginalized communities to try to make themselves look like victims.