Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:35, 15 April 2013

Archives

July, 2008–August, 2011 August, 2011–

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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)

(edit conflict) I've left a note on the article talk page (Talk:Sexualization#20 March rewrite) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ( 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. 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