Andrea James, writing at Boing Boing:
You will become mentally ill in 2013
Toronto is a lovely and tolerant city full of amazing resources for LGBT people and their allies. My many visits resulted in nothing but the fondest of memories. However, Toronto/Ontario taxpayers unwittingly harbor and nurture the most reactionary sexologists in the world. They are all clustered at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), formerly the Clarke Institute, nicknamed “Jurassic Clarke” for its antiquated views on sex and gender minorities.
Now CAMH “experts” have set their sights on declaring many of you mentally disordered because of your sexual preferences. Do you prefer people who are “too fat,” or “too skinny,” or “too tall,” or “too short”? Do you think transgender people are beautiful, or do you prefer to date disabled people? Do you get tingly watching sexy cartoons or prefer dressing up and roleplaying during sex? Do you like dating people who are “too old” or “too young” for you? Under the expanded definition of “paraphilia” which CAMH experts hope to codify in 2013, you will likely become a mentally ill paraphilic. This diagnosis could then be put in your medical records and other databases, with all the attendant joys of being declared mentally disordered.
Ray Blanchard, who refuses to publicly acknowledge his own sexuality, is leading the push to expand paraphilia. His new proposed definition classifies paraphilia as sexual preference for someone who is not “phenotypically normal.” Blanchard and pals are also seeking to make a wide range of sexual interests into thoughtcrimes. You can be diagnosed even if you never act out your fantasies, but just think about them.
I wonder if the theocrats who vexatiously assert that hate crimes laws are ‘thought crime’ laws will take the side of reality on this one?
I must be insane – but I digress.
Of course, if there’s a Blanchard there’s a Dreger shill, such as “nanuq”:
I gather that you’re a bit annoyed with CAMH but could you try refuting their actual research instead of denouncing all of the psychiatrists and psychologists who work there as quacks?
That’s the Raymond-Meyer-Reter-McHugh-Blanchard-Bailey Dreger game: (1) spout out pure, unscientific shit whilst claiming to be scientists (or, even better, “ethicists”); (2) demand respect; (3) whine when those whose lives they negatively affect with their unscientific shit point out that their shit does stink; (4) claim that those whose lives they negatively affect with their unscientific shit are, by merely standing up to exterminationist repression, censoring them; and (5) hole up in Toronto and, out of the public eye, fraudulently alter the definitions of relevant terms to give themselves more avenues to paint themselves as legitimate in the corporate, mainstream media whilst repeating the process at step 1.
Luckily, Andrea knows how to respond:
There’s no science to discuss, only pseudoscience. For refutations, see:
This kind of “research” can’t be refuted in the sense I think you mean, since the whole conceptual framework is pseudoscientific. We need a general-market book for sex “science” that is akin to what ‘The Mismeasure of Man’ is for race “science.”
The reparative therapists and Washington Times want to keep things as is; here are their arguments:
I think that anyone who demands the right to label people sexually should have every aspect of his sexuality up for public scrutiny.
I hereby propose a blogswarm dedicated to demanding to know if Ray Blanchard is homosexual.