Because a person says something odd does not automatically disqualify everything else they say.

As the chair of the Paraphilias subgroup, proposing a diagnosis he doesn’t believe exists for purely political reasons pretty much does disqualify him.

That’s not just “something odd”, it means the process is corrupt.

Then he says:

I don’t think we should promulgate untruths for the sake of political agendas, even if they are worthwhile political agendas.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/heres-how-the-guy-who-wrote-the-manual-on-sex-talks-about-sex

I have issues with Blanchard in the way that he has little understanding of how fraught the concept of “biological sex” is – he apparently defines it by whatever was written on a birth certificate, certainly not anything to do with biology or anatomy. But that’s another matter.

I’m sorry for being a bit defensive about my former marriage. It still hurts. I really didn’t intend to have a conversation about marriage. I was trying to make a point about waiting periods as enforced by law. Apparently you don’t see the analogy

Of course I do, David. I’m just pointing out that the law is an ass, and must be written so one size fits all.

Even if we stipulate that no waiting period would have saved your marriage and further that woman X would not be one of the ones psychologically damaged by an abortion, the state’s compelling interest is in the marriages it CAN save and the women it CAN spare psychological damage.

You DID get your divorce and woman Y DID eventually get her abortion. This is really just an ethical argument, even a utilitarian one that simply seeks to minimize harm–not a moral one, making no moral judgments of divorce or of abortion.

I would like to offer a perspective from my own experience. I used to head up a multi-disciplinary programme for learners aged 16 to 19, and was very conscious of those learners arriving as ones who often functioned as children and leaving as adults (I remember a progress review with one learner who was approaching the end of the programme – at the end of the dialogue of I suddenly thought to myself “My goodness, N, you’re a man now!”).

I’m sure that what is being discussed here is important, but I’m also convinced that what many call ‘the invisible change’ is also worthy of very serious consideration.

“I don’t think that fact can invalidate Blanchard’s key question about the normalcy of primary sexual interest in stage 2-3 children.”

I wouldn’t call what Spitzer contributed a “definition.” Mostly he suggested some guidelines/criteria to examine. Determining whether something should be considered a psychological disorder is still more of an art than a science.

However, Blanchard’s “key question” sets up a false dichotomy, either it is “normal” or “disorder.” Just because the APA BOT may not have thought hebephilia was significant enough to be listed in the DSM-5 as a disorder, does not mean they consider it “normal.’

ken – Establishing the definition of a disorder was Spitzer’s contribution to the DSM, although most would not consider his approach perfect. However, there are criteria involving distress and hindrance to self that are in place. Bottom line is that it is inexact and the DSM has erred on many points. I don’t think that fact can invalidate Blanchard’s key question about the normalcy of primary sexual interest in stage 2-3 children.

Do you think autoandrophelia, where a woman is aroused by the thought of herself as a man, is a real paraphelia?

No, I proposed it simply in order not to be accused of sexism, because there are all these women who want to say, “women can rape too, women can be pedophiles too, women can be exhibitionists too.” It’s a perverse expression of feminism, and so, I thought, let me jump the gun on this. I don’t think the phenomenon even exists.

After that admission, I don’t see a reason for taking anything he says seriously.

I think you are correct in your suggestion that the reasons for those women going to Gosnall were probably ‘complex’. Lack of access to timely advice might have been one of them; pressure from the father another; simple panic another. As I said, my impression is that Gosnall’s (adult) victims were from relatively disadvantaged circumstances.

@ Tom

I understand your point now. I’m not going to push my point further – for various reasons.

I’m sorry for being a bit defensive about my former marriage. It still hurts. I really didn’t intend to have a conversation about marriage. I was trying to make a point about waiting periods as enforced by law. Apparently you don’t see the analogy, and that’s OK. It seems we’re done with any conversation about waiting periods now anyway.