Post a response:
|
Re: "You had also, I will add, attempted to present the idea that the big beasts had indeed used the term approvingly in correspondence with you, and you did this after I had reproduced their quotes showing that would be unlikely to say the least, and before their replies. This was of course false, I knew it to be false, and I was rightly snapping back at it." Not in correspondence with me but (I thought) in their posts on Twitter which I often read. Later, as soon as you pointed out my error, I wrote to them asking for clarification, which I then reproduced here. As soon as I read your post, in its own thread, calling me out for mis-attributing B, B & C, I wrote this: "I'm not "attacking." Hopefully, I'm "deconstructing," and bringing some much-needed analysis to this issue, some of which I've not seen before. You may well be right that they (Bailey, Blanchard and Cantor) reject the use of the term. I respond to this further in response to Errant's response (as well as one cited instance where shrinks DO use the term). But, in a way, it doesn't really matter although if I have gotten this wrong, I will retract it. I'm waiting for responses from Bailey, Blanchard and Cantor. Then, as soon as I got a response from them, some hours later, I posted their responses. I don't know how I could have acknowledged my possible mistake, or its confirmation, any more quickly. " More: "And posted after the beasts replied to you. Notably, what they have said confirms my observation of their behaviour on social media in the person 2021-24. In other words, your canvassing confirms that their taxonomic/pathologizing approach is at odds with a uniting umbrella term based on sociolegal criteria. Hence they reject use of "MAP", and my assertion in the OP is confirmed." Bailey and Blanchard acknowledged that they rejected a factual description (minor-attracted person) preferring, instead, pathologizing terms where they can't be accused of being "pedo-friendly," because that's really what it's all about: saving their jobs and possibly more. That's quite clear. "MAP" may be several things but a "euphemism," it isn't. It's as "neutral," as you say, as it can be. "It is in the nature of the "beast" to reject umbrella terminology. This leaves you with only an empty appeal to the fact that "shrinks" use the term "MAP"." Empty appeal? Please, let me withdraw my "empty appeal" and move on to areas of greater substance, of far greater weight than I ever imagined my "empty appeal" held. "Of course they do, but the shrinks in question are by and large secondary providers of mental health care services, responding to the effects of stigma, and scholars with a similar focus. When organizations e.g. B4U-ACT have asked these individuals about their views on the pathology of pedophilia, or whether or not it should be classified, their responses tend strongly towards declassification." Declassification in the DSM? That's hard to imagine. Have they actually said that they think that "pedophilia" doesn't warrant inclusion in the DSM? I assume that you're including "Fred," too. "In Virped as a community, the views are more varied. But the focus of "MAP scholarship" work does not actually address pathology in any event, nor its causes. And only in a minority of cases does it in fact touch on prevention of "abuse"." I'm not clear what this refers to, possibly because I don't give two s***s about VIRPED or find anything about them interesting or informative. But, you say "MAP scholarship" and that it's not addressing pathology. What kind of scholarship is that? In the academy? "You had also, I will add, attempted to present the idea that the big beasts had indeed used the term approvingly in correspondence with you, and you did this after I had reproduced their quotes showing that would be unlikely to say the least, and before their replies. This was of course false, I knew it to be false, and I was rightly snapping back at it." long pause.... Well, we all get snappy, from time-to-time, don't we? I won't argue whether or not you were "rightly" snappy. "As for your other points, you are correct in that MAPs/Maps/YAPs using all of those terms are largely indifferent to their neutrality. This doesn't prevent them being used more effectively in academic publications with a sociological or clinical purview, as history has already proven. Value-neutral and person-centered language thus has multi-site effect,..." What is "multi-site?" So, far I don't disagree and I acknowledged somewhere in all of this mess that I didn't have a problem with "minor-attraction" in some circumstances even if do I think it is a poor identity for someone to actually wear, but then... " as it does with the far-right amplifiers who again, contrary to characterization by BLs, believe it to be a euphemism used to "normalize" and de-pathologize pedophilia." Sorry, what is it that the "BL's" are doing here? We're doing something to "MAP?" As far as the right wing goes, they pathologize us whatever the hell we call ourselves. "I have never accused you of seeking to pathologize anything, nor have I reacted angrily to you in any exchange." Pretty sure you did but I'm not going to go back into this thread. So, let's deal with the substance: " All of your points resort to digging in or recycled talking points from touchstone topics such as anti-woke safe space invective. No one has been able to get you past reductive analysis, and to actually engage with the MAP community you seek to characterize." And I haven't been able to get you to engage with my points. You're going to have to take my "recycled talking points" and point them out and demonstrate how they're unacceptably "reductive." As for "anti-woke," it should be obvious that any delusion "MAPs" may have of finding acceptance among the blue-and-pink haired is going to end with a rude awakening, not least because they're going down, too. If "MAP" avoids getting sucked into that maelstrom, then good for it but we have already gotten a few hints that "minor attraction" has made some (probably limited) appearance in the trans struggle sessions. "Nor did I imply that the term's popularity is the final arbiter of its merit. You again misread." No, I'm trying to find out. I'm learning. "I was clearly attempting to make the deeper point that who it is used by, and how it is used, is of more importance than what the term actually means or implies, even if its meaning is in fact neutral. Terms with pathologizing origins, or early use by patho-shrinks (Homosexual, Paraphile) have gone on to be embraced by massively anti-psych constituencies. Again and again, the field confounds the follies of reductive analysis. You only need to do as much as look." Okay, thanks! I'm not angry, you're not angry. We have no reason to be angry. We're all here to learn and share ideas. |