Jump to content

Talk:Patrick Califia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Added magazine credit

In 1992–1993 Patrick (then Pat) founded, edited, and acted as genial dictator on the magazine "Venus Infers", which is self-described as a "leatherwomen's quarterly." I worked in various capacities with Pat on this project, so I would cite myself as a source, as well as Patrick's own current site(s). I added a single sentence adding this credit to the entry. A google of the title will turn up the subtitle "leatherwomen's quarterly." I trust this gender reference, as it is historical, will not excite the pronoun wars yet again. Pat wrote extensively on gender issues in the magazine, which also featured fiction, poetry, features and, of course, lavish photo spreads. I believe the magazine deserves mention as it is represented in the Kinsey Library and was reviewed favorably at the time as quite adventurous and recommended.--Fragileindustries 05:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Image

Pronouns

moved discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Trans people and pronouns— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morwen (talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 June 2004 (UTC)

Morwen (in the discussion that's been moved) described the Suspect Thoughts site as Califia's "official" website. The official site is presumably http://www.patcalifia.com/, but it links to the other and the two have the same format, with Suspect Thoughts having much more information, so I've included both. (Incidentally, whether male or female, Califia has always been American, so I Americanized "judgemental" and "whilst".) JamesMLane 13:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pronouns and names (again)

I noted the change back again (although the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Trans people and pronouns hasn't concluded SFAICT) but I've left it for the moment. Thing now though is that to the uninitiated reader it makes no sense: "As Pat Califia he came out as a lesbian" but as 'Pat' is short for 'Patrick' the whole first line of 'lesbian' continues to make no sense if referred to for this article. I've had no response to my email yet, btw. --VampWillow 16:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to clarify the wording. But please don't revert this back to using the prnouns that Patrick clearly doesn't use himself. Morwen – Talk 00:17, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Um. The point seems to be being lost here (and your "your offensive version" doesn't help) but the issue here, surely, is not what the people on WP or *any* reference work want or would like or prefer, but what is independent, NPOV and accurate to the task at hand. What Califia wants is, frankly, irrelevant; articles are written for the readers of the article, not the subject of the article. --VampWillow 01:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
By that standard there would be nothing wrong with referring to him as 'her' throughout – as that's the form the media usually use and is what readers will be used to. If we respect people's self-identity, we need to do this fully. I've acknowledged your issues about confusion, but they dosn't override the need to be factually accurate and non-offensive.
Since AlexR seems to think this is acceptable, I think I'm going to let the matter lie – at least for the moment. When I made the change the debate appeared to have stalled, with everyone apart from you agreeing with using the correct pronouns throughout the article. Morwen – Talk 06:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
ps I know I am being rather, um, dramatic, about this. I'm sorry if I caused you any offence. My original version of that comment was hasty and ill-thought out, which is why i changed it. Morwen – Talk 06:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
no probs ... I understand the reasoning and in any other circumstances (ie IRL) I'd have no problem with using male-identified pronouns throughout. Reading the debate where it moved to I don't see that I was the only person wanting to try to be accurate-to-date rather than accurate-to-current-only at all. WP isn't a red top but nor is it personal publishing. We need to take a step back from what we write about to ensure it makes sense to everyone, not just to ourselves. --VampWillow 09:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
We need to take a step back from what we write about to ensure it makes sense to everyone, not just to ourselves.: though we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we are writing an encyclopedia, which should be first concerned with maintaining factual accuracy first, rather than sacrificing that too much for readability. If Patrick is happy to use birth-gender pronouns then perhaps that's fine, and if Pat also identified previously as female (re the relevant paragraph) and then maybe that's fine for this article. But not all trans* people would be happy to have birth-gender pronouns referred to in terms of themselves, and more importantly, nor would it be exactly accurate either. So it is difficult to tar all cases with the same brush. Perhaps the use of qualification by James M is a viable option, but my mind isn't 100% decided on that matter. Dysprosia 10:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As per my comment on the Style page, I don't agree with VampWillow that Califia's preference is irrelevant, but I do agree with her that "he came out as a lesbian" is confusing. I added the parenthetical phrase "still female" in the hope that it will help some readers through this conceptual quicksand. Also, the later sentence about the 1979 publication seemed to have been worded awkwardly in an attempt to avoid using pronouns. On the assumption that the article is (at least temporarily) in a stable mode of using masculine pronouns throughout, I reworded the sentence. By the way, I assume that "Patrick Califia-Rice" incorporates the name of a partner; the article could do with some information about Mr./Ms. Rice, if anyone knows the details. JamesMLane 06:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From more recent information (websites) it appears that the relationship concerned ended :-( ... as such just 'Califia' is presently used although the name was accurate at the point of change. --VampWillow 09:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pat Califia was a model for many women with transgender identity issues. In the days when she was female, she offered us the possibility that we could be true to ourselves even though we were missing our penis. With books like "macho Sluts" she gave us examples of a kind of masculinity that could be incorporated by a female body.

And honestly when I heard that my hero had begun transition I felt a bit shattered. Until then she had been the primary voice of butch empowerment. She embodied a queer way of looking at one's identity, a possibility to be accepted by other queers even though some of us had dicks and some of us did not.

For this reason, I feel that calling Califia "he" before transition is insulting and dismissive to butch women and negates her identity during that time.

Stella Omega (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, using the male pronoun throughout deletes women from yet another slice of our own history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stella Omega (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Pronouns, again

I have re-edited the article to use "she" for the period before the female->male gender identity transition, and "he" for all events afterwards, including the present day. I agree, it is a nonsense to say "he came out as a lesbian", and this is also contrary to Califia's own self-identification at the time. -- The Anome 13:09, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've now added the four words "Califia was born female". This makes things much easier to read: now we can read "she" from there on, and "he" after the gender reassignment. It also provides a clue to the reader who has started by reading "he" in the intro that the gender reassignment is going to happen. -- The Anome

Just adding this for people who come here in the future, after this was written, WOS:IDENTITY became a guideline, which requires the use of a post-transition pronoun uniformly through the article. --joe deckertalk to me 20:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Query on type of writings

I note in the first paragraph it states that Pat Caliphia writes on "women's sexuality" ... not to create a huge debate, but his writings are broad enough in subject matter that I would drop "women's" and just say "sexuality" or something like "sexuality, alternative sexuality and gender". "women's sexuality" seems a bit narrow and tame. And I say that not because I'm arguing for her greatness and impact, but because ... I think it *underrepresents* and in that way misrepresents what Caliphia's about.

In some senses someone who doesn't know who Caliphia is ... could be in for a shock following some of the links from this article. IMHO.

erraunt— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erraunt (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 March 2005 (UTC)

This article stinks

This article stinks and reads like it was written by Pat Califia or a PR person for Pat Califia . There are NO sources to back up anything atated. The whole article needs to be scrapped.--65.1.223.91 (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it needs to be better sourced – big difference. I agree that it needs a lot of improvement, but Califia is more than notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --GenericBob (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I took a stab at sourcing a fair bit of the article, there's quite a bit there, unfortunately some of it firewalled under Highbeam and/or JSTOR. I do think some of the language could be more encyclopedic, but is generally pretty good. I'm not a particularly strong writer, I'll leave that to someone else. --joe deckertalk to me 21:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

More BLP issues

For a (brief) discussion on some accusations made here on this talk page that were deemed to violate policy, please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive186#Patrick Califia. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

[removed third round of non-productive talk page accusations against BLP and other editors]

Califia doesn't hide any of this. In fact Califia is very proud of this work. Why are you deleting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.64.249 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that Califia is up to no good. However, for a biography of a living person, we need a secondary reliable source before we say that the subject is up to no good. The sources you cite are either Califia himself (primary) or sexuality.org (activist website). It would be quite helpful if a mainstream journalistic source had recognized this issue. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
68.118.64.249, if you genuinely want anything on Califia's subject matter to be put into the biography you need reliable sources to make the case, not some activist website and not Califia's original writing which only proves what they wrote about at some time. Similar accusations against other writers – that a science fiction writer is pro-Martian, for example – is equally without merit. Use reliable sources only to make your case and only discuss what those sources state rather than opinions on how objectionable you feel the subject matter is. This is not, as the notice at the top of the page states, a place for general discussion. No one objects to you linking reliable sources and discussing their use. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I am very concerned to see that all prior discussion of Pat Califia's views have been removed from this talk page. I do not see how the edits in question are in violation of BLP guidelines. The issues presented here are legitimate and should be talked out here rather than hidden under a bush. Owen (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
No one is shutting down discussion. If a reliable source was presented then we can talk about how to present dirty claims about a living human being. Until then no reliable sources were presented just accusations supported by a pro-pedophile website that because Califia wrote fiction about subjects, they must believe, support, endorse those views, and activities. Instead we need reliable sources to go there, and we need to represent that content neutrally. Nothing close to that has occurred. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I am currently reading the book 'Macho Sluts' by Califia. Whilst it is fiction (and so political and author intent cannot be deduced aside from the fact the text is meant as pornography), there is a story about an older woman who is having bdsm sexual relations with her younger sister and preadolescent daughter. I realise many people involed in the 'kink scene' are adults who engage in 'age play', but so far I have read nothing to indicate this is adult age play, it does seem as if Califia was writing about actual intergenerational child-adult bdsm. I realise we must approach this with neutrality and caution, however, surely a summary of story content could be appropriate even if we don't know Califia's intent for that story (ie, the Lolita or Anne Rice discussions around unreliable narrators or attempting to shock the audience by what they have been turned on by). A final point I would like to make, Califia has written nonfiction essays positively describing adult-child sexual relationships, which were published in 'Paidika' a peer reviewed journal of paedophilia. How to other editors feel about this as a source? I believe primary sources are consistent with BLP rules as long as authorship can be guaranteed. Thank you. Shelly Pixie (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
PS -- Elaqueate, just to point out the passage added by Owen that you removed was sourced with a newspaper secondary source, and did in fact state that Califia changed their/his mind on age of consent laws. Shelly Pixie (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Shelly Pixie, I don't think it should be hidden, but I think it's potentially dodgy to oversimplify the situation as "he was an active supporter of NAMBLA" without enough context for what kind of support it was, and what it wasn't. It's like calling someone an active supporter of Al Qaida without an explanation of what that support was. I don't know the best way to do it, but "active supporter" tells me nothing and only implies enthusiastic membership or promotion of all of their ideas, which seems over-the-line for a BLP. NAMBLA's horrible, and it seems easy to lose neutrality if they're part of the story. I actually think that the newspaper source is a great example of what a neutral biography can be; it's better at showing both the notability and the controversy here then our article, in both depth and information. I'm not going to revert that part again, but I think there's still a strong case that we have to get the weight right. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for this. I get what you mean, and understand your caution now. I have added a section below with various quotes, or where I couldn't copy/paste, there was a link to the pages where Califia is cited or referenced. I haven't been able to access copies as yet, i will from our academic library though, but I think looking at the difference between the 'age of consent' chapters in Public Sex between 1994 and 2000 editions will show a good development of Califia's thoughts on this matter. Purely as a hypothetical, if it was found that Califia wanted full repeal of age of consent laws, advocated for children (either prepubescent or post-pubescent) to engage in sex with adults, and if it was shown that Califia supported NAMBLA (not just their right to speech), what would your feelings be around inclusion in the article? Shelly Pixie (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
That article, from 12-13 years ago, pointed out that Califia has been a renegade in many ways, and that they're views are always evolving. I think a neutral statement citing that source would be acceptable but that article was about a broader take than NAMBLA endorsement, and pointed out that it was in the context of the 1980s "culture sex wars," and that Califia was more on the side of NAMBLA specifically for their trying to change age-of-consent laws – which had broad support (and was very important to gay teens 13-19 who were homeless) – and because NAMBLA was being targeted by the FBI. And since then his views have evolved and likely will continue to. If we present the information with context then it's fine. That hasn't been tried yet. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I would be interested in hearing Owen's thoughts on this too. May I ask if you have any thoughts on what I said about the peer review journal article or the fiction? Shelly Pixie (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
A direct quote from the article: "probably his most controversial writings have concerned child sexuality. Califia-Rice has, in the past, been in favor of revoking age-of-consent laws". This statement supports the view that Califia believed at one point that age-of-consent laws should be removed in totality (rather than modified). I'm just wondering how this sits next to the fictional "pornographic" (Califia's term) work where children are described having bdsm sex with adults. Whilst I appreciate the IP may not have provided sufficient BLP sources, it seems the IP did have a point, even if Califia later changed their beliefs upon becoming a parent. Shelly Pixie (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Owen's addition seemed fine, as it basically summarized this:
Over the years, probably his most controversial writings have concerned child sexuality. Califia-Rice has, in the past, been in favor of revoking age-of-consent laws and has supported the North American Man-Boy Love Association, an organization rejected by most of the gay community for its stance on legalizing sex between men and boys.
Califia-Rice said he has shifted his position on both of those issues. "I supported NAMBLA for a really long time, in part because they got so much harassment from the FBI and the cops, and I found that really scary. It's my feeling that we do have a First Amendment in this country, and even though their positions are very unpopular, simply discussing an issue should not be a criminal activity.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Also:
"I don't agree with NAMBLA, because their position is that age-of- consent laws should be repealed, and there are members of that organization who think it's OK for prepubescent children to have sexual relationships with adults, and I just cannot agree with that. I think it's developmentally inappropriate." ____ E L A Q U E A T E 19:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
elaqueate, if you read the whole section that quote is from, you'll see that this is the new position held by Califia, where previously he did not believe that to be true (otherwise he would not have supported the repeal of age-of-consent laws, but rather supported their modification or change; he didn't do this; he supported repeal in total and an organisation which wanted repeal in total). Furthermore, that article says Califia writes about child sexuality. Finally, Califia published nonfiction essays in a paedophilia journal... It's disingenuous and bad editing to fail to acknowledge this was part of Califia's past/past-beliefs. Shelly Pixie (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Owen's addition violated NPOV on a BLP, so we still need to work on a neutrally worded addition, if this is deemed important enough to add now. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I think given that so many people have noted Califia's opinions on this, that Califia himself speaks on this in many interviews, and that so many pro paedophilia agencies (nambla, ipce, paidika) have felt Califia noteworthy along with so many anti-abuse proponents and authors have cited Califia's stance, this makes these views noteworthy enough for inclusion. We can do this by number of Google hits, so it is also quantifiable if you wish? Shelly Pixie (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey all, I think i've found some reputable secondary sources. 3 books on googlebooks (so published and deemed noteworthy enough to end up on googlebooks). Going to go through and summarise. Shelly Pixie (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually there are many unreliable sources on Google Books, it's an easy mistake to make. There are companies that take, for example, Wikipedia pages and create books of just Wikipedia content. We obviously need to check each book to ensure it is indeed reliable for what we're trying to use. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll look out for that with Google books. I'm a trainee sociologist at a prestigious university, so I'm required to be cautious with sources. Shelly Pixie (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to ask what BLP guideline do you believe is being violated in taking facts from a neutral, journalistic source and including them on this page. Frankly neglecting to include these obvious and important facts from the subject page leaves it a complete wreck as far as NPOV standards go. Also, I don't see any reason to not include published, reputable facts simply because it's possible that the subject has "changed their mind" since the article was published. The text I included did not say "Califia believes this or that", it said that Califia had such-and-such views, and that Califia went on record to retract those views. Those are documented facts of things that have happened. And even if Califia changes his mind again, it remains true that those things happened. So I see no reason to not include them here. Owen (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

First off the article didn't state they might have changed their mind, it flat out said it. This presenting that as anything else violates NPOV on a BLP. So work on presenting neutrally phrased content with the sources to be used and we can go from there. I also want to point out that this is a very short article so we have to keep WP:Undue in mind. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi SportFan5000. I checked back Owen's edits, and he never used the word 'might'. This is a direct quote of what Owen said, minus the source: "Pat Califia was also known to have been an active supporter of the North American Man-Boy Love Association and long advocated for the abolition of age-of-consent laws. However, he has since retracted these views, calling sex between adults and prepubescent children "developmentally inappropriate"." Consequently, Owen's points about omission and NPOV still stand, as do my points about being disingenuous. I'm not sure why these inclusions are being made such an issue of? They adhere to the BLP rules, so is there something I am missing? Shelly Pixie (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I was responding to their comment right above mine – "I don't see any reason to not include published, reputable facts simply because it's possible that the subject has "changed their mind" since the article was published." And yes there is something being missed. We are conflating that this BLP endorses the most-known pro-pedophile group in the world and doing so on the world's number one source for biographies. This is an extremely short article summarizing a person's full life. And here we are busy wedging in POV content out of context. So yes, we need to find neutrally worded content supported by reliable sources, in context and with WP:Due weight. We are in no rush here, so let's try to get it right. BTW you mentioned you had found other sources. If you think they might be reliable perhaps you could present them so we can all have a look? Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Owen's addition is fine. It summarizes the source accurately and is not undue. I suggest it be restored.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not fine for the reasons already stated, please find consensus for this contested and controversial content. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Pat Califia was also known to have been an active supporter of the North American Man-Boy Love Association and long advocated for the abolition of age-of-consent laws. However, he has since retracted these views, calling sex between adults and prepubescent children "developmentally inappropriate". is the statement in question. Is this undue? No, it's a very short statement. Is it true to the source? I believe it is. Where there other concerns raised here that I missed?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it reflects the source. I'm wondering if this, combined with the various secondary sources below, and Califia's own nonfiction chapters, essays and journalism on this topic make the passage by Owen more robust. I don't really understand what is contested about this content? I haven't as yet seen any sources which state Califia never supported paedophilia, and that Califia does not continue to support hebephilia. If you (Sportfan5000, elaqueate, drmies or others) have sources where Califia says this, and secondary sources which also record these views, I will be happy to concede that the claims are contested and are therefore controversial. But I haven't seen anything that would lead a reader to think these claims are contested? Thank you. Shelly Pixie (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying the claims are contested. I don't see what the fuss is all about;Califa showed support for NAMBLA, and later retracted that support and iterated the reasons why. Pretty much was what the sources say, and what Owen's edit said.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Apologies two kinds of pork. I think I was misunderstanding Sportfan5000's last post. Shelly Pixie (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
My statement about changing his mind refers to your statement that "And since then his views have evolved and likely will continue to." It is not encyclopedic to concern ourselves with what a subject might believe in the future, or even what they think in their heads and don't say in public. Article pages should reflect what subjects have been on record for having said, and what neutral secondary sources have said about them. As far as "undue weight", this claim makes no sense to me. Hell, there is a full paragraph in the article giving an anecdote where Califia made fun of a radical feminist. Where is your outrage about that? Clearly, both Califia and secondary sources have put a lot of weight on his age of consent views and support for NAMBLA, and there is no encyclopedic reason to not include that information here in a neutral and factual way. Owen (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
We're simply not there yet. If there are other content issues then please feel free to address them or start anther section. I'm concerned about adding content that conflates Califia with promoting pedophilia. Now that sources have been presented please allow others to look at them, we're in no rush to associate Califia with pedophilia , right? Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not stating an issue. I don't think that paragraph is necessarily undue weight. I don't think it would be undue weight to include an entire section about Califia's views on pedophilia, let alone two sentences. On the contrary, I think this article is violating NPOV policy in its curious avoidance of the subject. Also, I asked you directly what BLP guidelines you believe this sentence violates, and received no answer from you. And this isn't about associating Califia with pedophilia, it's about ensuring the article reflects Califia's beliefs as expressed in his writings, public comments, and secondary sources. To avoid including this information because we think it could malign the subject is POV. And in any case, the article even says that he has changed his mind regarding these issues. Owen (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am creating this space specifically for sources/quotes to be entered so that this article can conform to both BLP standards, and be NPOV through lack of omission of noteworthy parts of Califia's works (it's 4.30am, I'll tidy up the editing/references tomorrow, just getting them down for now). Shelly Pixie (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  • “Boy-lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers are the only people offering a hand to help young women and men cross the difficult terrain between straight society and the gay community. They are not child molesters. The child abusers are priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents who force their stale morality onto the young people in their custody. Instead of condemning pedophiles for their involvement with lesbian and gay youth, we should be supporting them.”

This is from two sources: i) http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_fa6a710d-fcab-5e45-b9e3-b5cc0399e1d7.html and ii) http://www.wnd.com/2002/03/13317/ I believe the second is the more reputable of the two. However, both could be used to show that the quote has been verified by multiple sources. The quote is across multiple right-wing-christian news sources, however, I'm not sure if these are acceptable under BLP rules. Shelly Pixie (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  • "Califia's most controversial stance--her opposition to age-of-consent laws--has provoked heated debate. Her critics are dismayed by her belief that society should suspend rules that say minors do not have the capacity to consent to sex with an adult... But Califia believes young people can be sexually active without being exploited, and she says we need to stop regarding young people as "the property of their parents." Her position comes out of her own experience... She credits her adult sexual mentors with giving her an opportunity to imagine, and create, a better life. "I did not wait until I was eighteen to be sexually active," she says. "What I got was a few minutes of sanctuary away from my family, a vision of another reality, and it saved my life and my sanity." In a 1980 essay, Califia argued that we should not confuse "the issue of violence against children with the issue of children and sexuality." Nonetheless, age of consent is one area where Califia's politics have changed during the past sixteen years, although she still opposes age-of-consent laws and "probably always will." Califia is less inclined now to believe that our society is ready to make sexual freedom safe for minors. "We're not even able to give kids the kind of sex education they need to protect themselves from AIDS," she says. "In that kind of world, it's really hard to emphasize increasing sexual freedom for youth. I still say that children have their own sexuality. In a just society, where children were given the kind of sex education that they ought to be entitled to, and support from their adult caretakers, kids would express their sexuality more instead of less. That sexuality might sometimes include exploration with older people."

This is from: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Profile+of+a+sex+radical.-a018710719 The original publication was Cussac, Anne (1996), Profile of a Sex Radical. The Progressive. Can someoen also advise on the policy of correct pronouns/grammar where articles quoted are historical from before transitioning? Thanks. Shelly Pixie (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

this source is already being utilised on the main article as source number 18. It's citation overleaf is as follows (different to citation above) Cusac, Anne-Marie (1 October 1996). "Profile of a sex radical. (lesbian, sadomasochist author Pat Califia)". The Progressive. Retrieved 10 May 2012.

.

Author is professor of sociology at Nottingham University UK; and Polity is a subsidiary of Cambridge University Press started by sociologist Sir Anthony Giddens. It only publishes academic texts. I can't work out how to copy/paste from googlebooks right now. Shelly Pixie (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Califia quoted on age of consent laws and expresses 'sympathy for man-boy lovers'. Text is described as: "This thesis shows how opposition to gay rights first emerged into a national political issue within the United States. It argues that links made between homosexuality and child endangerment in early 1977 were critical to the formation of anti-gay rights discourse. Opponents of gay rights labeled homosexuals "deviant" and thereby dangerous to children represented the basis of opposition to gay rights. Gay rights activists and gay media responded by emphasizing their normalcy over their difference to heterosexuals." Shelly Pixie (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This academic law text has a passage spanning two pages discussing Califia's views on child-adult relationships. Califia was shown to have argued that Califia believed children are able to make choices about consent from the age at which they are able to choose whether or not to wear shoes or which toys they wish to play with. Shelly Pixie (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  • "Over the years, probably his most controversial writings have concerned child sexuality. Califia-Rice has, in the past, been in favor of revoking age-of-consent laws and has supported the North American Man-Boy Love Association, an organization rejected by most of the gay community for its stance on legalizing sex between men and boys.... Califia-Rice said he has shifted his position on both of those issues. "I supported NAMBLA for a really long time, in part because they got so much harassment from the FBI and the cops, and I found that really scary. It's my feeling that we do have a First Amendment in this country, and even though their positions are very unpopular, simply discussing an issue should not be a criminal activity... "I don't agree with NAMBLA, because their position is that age-of- consent laws should be repealed, and there are members of that organization who think it's OK for prepubescent children to have sexual relationships with adults, and I just cannot agree with that. I think it's developmentally inappropriate."... It's inevitable, Califia-Rice said, that after decades of writing, he has retooled some of his convictions. But he doesn't regret writing any of it."

Marech (2000). Radical Transformation / Writer Patrick Califia-Rice has long explored the fringes. Now the former lesbian S/M activist is exploring life as a man. San Francisco Chronicle. Available at: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Radical-Transformation-Writer-Patrick-3303152.php#page-4 Reputable secondary source, which Owen cited/summarised above. Shelly Pixie (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  • That first quote should not be cited indirectly, and certainly not from the WorldNetDaily, which should never be cited. My institution offers archives for The Advocate from 1996 on--and one could wonder, of course, what the value is of a quote from 1980. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at these sources. I agree that the first quote is poorly referenced. However, I don't believe that the age of a quote/article discounts it's worth as it shows an authors views at a certain point in time. It is a logical fallacy to discount work simply because it is several years old. If age of text and development of thought from one position to another did not have relevance, then we would not bother to study Marx's early work in contrast to his later works; or the three stages of Sartre's works; or the life works of other social theorists. However, we do study the progression of social thought, similarly the influences to that thought and the influence that thought has on the surrounding society both at the time it was written and its continued influence. Shelly Pixie (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I just posted the following on drmies talk page, however feel it is relevant here too. Post-Script to this conversation regarding primary v secondary sources. I would like to point out that where some articles are concerned, extensive use of primary sources is considered acceptable where a BLP's thoughts and politics are being summarised. For example Patrick Baert's wikipaedia entry. I agree that for this BLP, with the claims being made, that excellent referencing is required. However, I do not believe well quoted/summarised primary references would be unacceptable, in fact, I believe for such bold claims as are being made, they are absolutely necessary [to work in compliment with secondary sources]. Shelly Pixie (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding age-of-consent content

Just a note that I am not standing in the way of adding anything. My concern all along has been to phrase anything in accordance with the BLP policies. Tying this BLP to NAMBLA, the world's foremost example of a pedophile group, needs to be done cautiously or it will just be removed again and again. Compounding the difficulty is that the Califia article is quite short so anything wedged in will be giving undue prominence to the newly inserted content. Again, caution is recommended. I'm looking at the sources now presented – the ones I had asked for previously – and some are great whereas some are abysmal and violate BLP so need to be removed (a request is in), and some are redundant or so POV that we can't use them, and likely don't need them anyway. All help paint a picture of who disagrees with this writer's stance in the 1980s/1990s but for various reasons so they need to be distilled for the best ones and converted into prose that works for all concerned including Califia as this is going to be broadcast to the world, endlessly. We're in no rush so please be patient. I'll work on crafting something but feel free to do so yourselves. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I read your comments on drmies talk page concerning my preliminary 4am research for sources. I agree, that some of the sources above are weak/lesser sources, and I am endeavouring to find the original articles from which quotes were taken (ie, The Advocate). I would never in a million years suggest those weaker sources in isolation be used to support such claims. But rather that they lend tertiary support to the primary and secondary sources which would be utilised as the main meat&bones should this be an academic text (tertiary support showing the ways in which thoughts and concepts are handled by, and come to influence behaviour within, a society). However, I realise encyclopaedic text is somewhat different to academic text, so primary sources (for some reason) are regarded as lesser than secondary sources (this baffles me, coming from the background I do).
So I have a proposal for how to remedy this situation: rather than use the paedophile organisations' (NAMBLA, IPCE and Paidika) sources to surmise Califia's views, we use those sources to show the influence Califia's writing had on these organisations and that they heavily promoted Califia's work as being consistent with their values. I think that would be factually accurate. What are your thoughts on this (the invitation is there for other editors to join in discussion also)? Shelly Pixie (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
All pedophilia organizations have an inherent interest in promoting their viewpoint that what they believe is correct, despite the overwhelming evidence that pre-pubescent children are not developed enough for sexual relations of any kind. NAMBLA was started, in part, by gay teens who were not legally emancipated but who were living by being prostitutes. So at the time gay liberation and age-of-consent laws meant that they could determine their own destiny, rather than be automatically be seen as criminals – for being gay, prostitutes, or under age. So it's a complex issue. Enter Califia who was intent that any organization under fire from feminists and the FBI, deserved to have their right to free speech. Califia was not alone in that belief. Even today reasonable people believe that NABLA has a right to talk about their issues, research into pedophilia, etc. It's engaging in any activity with children that almost everyone agrees is wrong, whereas talking, or in Califia's case, writing. is certainly acceptable as we have yet to institute thought police keeping us from even thinking about these activities. I think in context Califia was motivated not by a sexual interest in causing harm to children but in exploring in his writing, as he has done with almost all his characters, the extent to what drives someone to do, and interest in, sexual gratification that others may never understand. This is part of what makes Califia an exceptional writer, rather than a pro-pedophile advocate which is what we are currently suggesting. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I am replying to three points from what you have written. First, if USA laws use similar jurisprudence to UK laws, then the central philosophy is that those who are not able to consent, would not be the ones to face legal prosecution; rather it would be the adult john's and adult lovers/abusers of these under age people. It is the same with law concerning heterosexual child sex industry. The practice and application of this law, is another matter however, and I recognise that the outcomes for prostituted young people is frequently to be tried within the adult courts. Second, with regards writing on paedophila, these texts, if written in the UK would be illegal (from two perspectives: promotion/incitement of paedophilia, and the laws we have concerning possession or creation extreme materials (bdsm)). So I think what is determined as being reasonable is geography and nation specific. What is considered reasonable in the USA, is not considered as such here in the UK, so it is a logical fallacy to use a 'reasonable person' type test. Furthermore, such claims cannot be made without widespread quantitative data of what is considered reasonable. The final point I wish to address, is that we are speaking about Califia's nonfiction as well as his fiction. If he is writing nonfiction texts which are promotional of paedophilia/hebephilia, as some of his quotes/articles/chapters have illustrated, then this should also be part of our discussions. May I ask, have you read Public Sex or his articles The Age of Consent, A Thorny Issue Splits a Movement, or Califia's article for The Advocate from which NAMBLA took that quote about boy-lovers? If so, I would be interested in reading your thoughts on those texts in light of this discussion. Thank you. Shelly Pixie (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
PS, I still believe it is reasonable to speak about the ways in which Califia's writings have been utilised by organisations such as NAMBLA, IPCE and paidika to further their aims. Shelly Pixie (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The statement as it exists now is a paraphrased quote of Califia's from an interview in 2000 (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Radical-Transformation-Writer-Patrick-3303152.php#page-4) and I think it represents both his earlier views and what he believes now. I think this is a reliable source and statements made in an interview with a LP can be said to represent their views unless, in the past 13 years, Califia has stated he was misrepresented. I don't see how a restating comments given by a living person to a journalist for a published article can be a violation of BLP policy. Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Liz, that is my feeling as well. I would have thought this all pretty open and shut. And as of yet no one has yet explained here what BLP convention is supposedly under violation here. Owen (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
If you can't see the problem that a BLP is advertising the subject was an ardent advocate of the world's best known pedophile group than I really can't help you. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not being "advertised". It's being included in order to provide important details about the subject. That Pat Califia has advocated for pedophilia is preeminent both within his body of work and within secondary sources referring to him. BLP policy states that "contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" should be removed, but I think everyone would agree that the San Francisco Chronicle is an excellent neutral, secondary source. Owen (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia broadcasts everything published to the world. I never had an issue with reliable sources but in how we are presenting the information which is still problematic. The damage is being done but no one else seems to care that much so I'll have to do some research and fix it myself when I have time. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sportfan, all,
I found one of the chapters titled | Age of Consent in Califia's nonfiction Public Sex (1994) which is referenced a great deal in other books/articles/journals. I realise this website should not be used as a source, but it does have a copy of the chapter if you are looking to read it online (instead of getting the book itself). I read the completely rewritten chapter by the same title in the second edition of Public Sex (2000), which is completely different to the first ed. It really shows Califia's progression of thought and how his views have changed. And I actually think it would be worth doing a whole section on this tbh. This would allow us to detail Califia's views, place them in context (why he sought abolition of age of consent, why he gave support to nambla), show how those views were received and who utilised his words. Then we can detail the retraction of his views, retraction of his support for certain organisations, why, and what Califia has come to believe now. I realise this will take a couple of drafts, and that several of us seem keen to work on this, so I propose we start a new section on this page for us to work through those drafts? Shelly Pixie (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

NAMBLA and WP:BLP

copied here from my talkpage Since you reverted an edit with the summary "BLP", please explain at the talk page the BLP violation you are concerned with. There is already a section there where this is being discussed. Thank you.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It gives undue weight to a relatively minor, yet controversial subject and does not represent the source correctly. The article states that the "support" had to do with the debate and FBI interest.

"I supported NAMBLA for a really long time, in part because they got so much harassment from the FBI and the cops, and I found that really scary. It's my feeling that we do have a First Amendment in this country, and even though their positions are very unpopular, simply discussing an issue should not be a criminal activity."

This is NOT sufficiently reflected in the reverted edit, which merely states "support for NAMBLA" and implies support for their position. Associating anyone with pedophiles requires extra, extra care, since the subject is likely to arouse strong emotions. Kleuske (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your post. Please see the above three sections where this is being discussed. Thank you. Shelly Pixie (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Whilst this organisation may not be useable as a source, we are endeavouring to find the article from which this quote came: http://nambla(dot)org/califia.html
Shelly Pixie (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
They don't have to read the above three sections, or really anything else, to remove content which does not meet the requirements of content on a BLP. They looked at the content, and the underlying source and used their judgement that it simply did not cut the high bar for inclusion. It likely would be rejected on the basis of WP:Undue/WP:POV even if this were not a BLP. And that quote is cherry-picked from Califia's two-part column about the Boston sex scandal in The Advocate where Califia had a long-running column. Which also is a context of my he had such vocal opposition, because he had a prominent soapbox from which to espouse his radicalized views on a subject at the very core of gay and lesbian liberation – sex. Califia correctly defended not child rapists but gay and lesbian couples who had one or both partners who were below the age of consent. Legally today people are still charged with rape, for instance, when one partner is 17 and the other is older. Even if everything is consensual. The true genesis of NABLA was that it was co-founded by gay teens who were disowned by their families and fending for themselves one way or another, including prostitution. Nambla, for them, offered some support for their rights. Unfortunately Nambla was quickly over-taken by true pedophiles, those who desire children who have not reached puberty, as opposed to those who saw the inherent problems with age of consent laws, that like sodomy laws, criminalized their otherwise normal gay relationships. A young couple, one being in his 20s the other being 17, fits into this category. Both would be put in jail for homosexual acts however they were interpreted. 20/20 hindsight was, of course, useful to Califia and everyone else, to see that no matter how valid some of the Nambla, and other pedophile-interested groups at that time, arguments were, those same arguments were overshadowed by the aim of true pedophiles who wanted unfettered access to abuse children well below the time the reached puberty (which I think is usually in the young teens if not younger). Califia was arguing for the rights of people legally defined as children. She argued the the real abusers were anti-LGBT parents and society which demonized anything that wasn't traditional heterosexual unions. "I did not wait until I was eighteen to be sexually active," Califia says. "What I got was a few minutes of sanctuary away from my family, a vision of another reality, and it saved my life and my sanity." In context the support for Nambla makes a bit more sense. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I would ask that BLP stop being abused in order to justify removing the text. If you feel the text does not reflect the source, then tweak it. If you believe that there is "undue weight", I disagree strongly. On the contrary I believe that two sentences is ultimately insufficient, and that this aspect should be expanded into a full section in order to represent the subject in a way that is fully representative of the subject's history and body of work, and hence in a way that conforms to NPOV policy. Owen (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree BLP is being abused in this instance. Please show some good faith. However I agree that there is no undue weight (Owen's submitted text is hardly verbose). While this is most certainly a controversial subject, by definition this counters the notion that this is also "relatively minor" subject. And while Kleuske is correct that the article states an explanation for Califia's support of NAMBLA, this explanation is a direct quote from Califia and the article is not endorsing that explanation, but rather presenting it to the reader. Should we present Califia's explanation? The explanation sounds like shaking the devil's hand and saying you're only kidding, but in the interest of fairness to the living person who is the subject of this article, I see no reason why we shouldn't make this accommodation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 06:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
As explained this issue is more complex than the text offered presents and it is misleading to what the source states. No one objects to truly neutral and due weight content being added but BLP is deserves a higher standard than just getting it close when it comes to accusing someone of endorsing pedophilia. We are in absolutely no rush to get the Nambla association wedged in so please stop re-adding what has been removed again and again. Instead of edit warring there needs to be an effort to take the reliable sources and and find a way to neutrally and dispassionately present the information. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, i'll draft something later, and put it here to be modified. Given that we are adding first amendment in the context, it's going to make the passage longer. In which case, i'm going to add in a few more bits from Califia himself and other sources (academic), including details of the organisations/journals who published his work on age of consent, and how Califia feels about those organisations now.
Sportfan, I hear what you are saying about age of consent and young people in the sex industry. I firmly believe these young people should not be criminalised, and believe no front-line worker in the industry should be criminalised. But I also disagree on the history you present about nambla, do you have sources to show this was the origin and original intent? As from what I can gather it emerged out of a court case involving a molestation ring?
One final point, Califia himself made significant references to paedophilia as opposed to hebephilia/pedaresty, and there are quotes which indicate Califia agreed with pre pubescent children engaging in "consensual" sex with adults. Statements he has now retracted. So I am left uncertain as to where you stand with this, given this information. Shelly Pixie (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I've added some content that may resolve the entire issue. As for Hebephilia/Ephebophilia vs. pedophilia, my understanding is that everything was called pedophilia until age graduations were worked out. I never got the sense that Califia was advocating that unconsensual sex should be allowed, and no one seems to agree at what age children can consent to sex although many are sexually active at very young ages. I also think we need to tread carefully before using anything but reliable sources including primary sources for contentious material. I think WP:Undue remains at play here as Califia is not in the sex wars of the 1970s/1980s anymore and remains best known for erotic literature so anything about age-of-consent laws should be kept minimal. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
That text does not resolve the issue as far as I am concerned. It reads to me like something out of a NAMBLA newsletter. Owen (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Owen. It reads like justification for adults engaging in sex with teens. I also think it enters a legal grey area, or it would in the UK, under incitement laws, so wikipaedia needs to be cautious over wording. There were some aspects to that paragraph that were irrelevant to Califia too, and weren't sourced, at all, so it becomes a BLP issue. Shelly Pixie (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, NPOV issues to the whole thing that was added. Whilst I think the page would benefit from 'bulking out' with greater detail, the way the new paragraphs were written were promotional rather than factual. It read like wikipaedia applauded Califia, rather than treating this as a factual account of his work. So I think those paragraphs need reworking to be NPOV. I can have a look later. Shelly Pixie (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Please suggest specific issues. I do not see anything that suggest BLP concerns, everything about Califia was referenced to reliable sources. You two seem to be arguing that unless Owen's version is used, nothing else is suitable. Certainly was should be adding more referenced content. Deleting everything in favor of getting rid of Califia's views on child sexuality is not helpful. Cite specific concerns so they can be worked out. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Despite several requests no specific ideas for what needs to change has been presented but Owen did, again, remove all the new content as pro-pedophilia! Which I find rather outrageous but that is similar to the anon IP's claim so perhaps looking into what reliable sources and other Wikipedia articles state can help guide things along.

Califia had experience with anti-pornography/free-speech suppression in the early 1990s when dealing with the Canadian Supreme Court which ruled in Regina v. Butler that free speech did not include pornography.[1] Since that ruling the majority of banned writings have been the literature of sexual minorities.[1] Califia's books, and magazines were among those confiscated.[1] Califia's contended for many years that age-of-consent laws – the minimum age someone is permitted to engage in certain sexual activities, usually in the range 14 to 18, although the full range is 12 to 21 – left children at the mercy of their parents rather than allowing them to self-determine an essential aspect of their lives.[1] Many studies conclude that young teenagers are sexually active, with some engaging in intercourse. Califia's ideas were based, in part, on his childhood, as he knew children could be sexually active without being exploited.[2] He did not wait to 18 before becoming sexually active, and credits his adult mentors with showing him an alternative future away from his strict, conservative home life, and a school life where he was assaulted and bullied almost daily.[1]


The above is already stated plain as day on Wikipedia, or specific to Califia is presented in several reliable sources. Please suggest what is misstated, violates BLP – as suggested by Shelly Pixie – or otherwise needs to be changed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

My "specific issue" is that the text is a massive violation of NPOV policy by taking an apologetic attitude towards adult-child sexual relations. Needless to say, this is incredibly controversial. Owen (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

. I have stated repeatedly that I will come to this later this evening. There are numerous problems with the section, which I will gladly detail. I am sat in a restaurant right now, so will come come to this later. Thank you for your patience. Shelly Pixie (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed a small bit of text that was very closely paraphrasing the source. If it is returned, please re-write it to be more original.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I tried to rewrite some of the material in question, but it's been removed entirely now. Kaldari (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

POV tag

An editor has twice installed a POV tag, please use this section for the use of the tag. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This entire article from top to bottom looks like it was written by a Pat Califia supporter. Numerous anecdotes and details seem to have been included simply for the purpose of valorizing the subject and his point of view. This whole block of text might as well have been a blurb on the back of one of his books:

In a 2000 interview, Califia explained that the inspiration for his erotic writings varies; sometimes it is just about having fun, or it can be satire, or exploring a sexuality issue like HIV-positive people barebacking with the intent to transmit the virus.[10] Califia said, "It's about me trying to put a human face on that and understand that from the inside out."[10] He also likes to be thought-provoking, and challenging his readers on subjects they are less familiar.[10] He stated, "It's also a way to top a lot of people. In some ways, I get to do a scene with everyone who reads one my books."[10] Janet Hardy of Greenery Press, admires Califia's tenacity stating "He's got a phenomenal mind, … willing to get a hold of a thought and follow it through to the end, even if it doesn't feel comfortable."[10]

This whole section is nothing but a series of compliments about the author, clearly written from the perspective of a Pat Califia admirer.
Likewise, the following section is nothing but a "funny" anecdote intended to laud the subject at the expense of radical feminists:

When Califia would travel to Canada, his pornographic works were often seized by Canadian customs until he fought a court case to allow them to be accepted.[18] Afterwards he wrote of his amusement at finding that anti-porn feminist Catherine Itzin's book Pornography: Women, Violence and Civil Liberties was seized under the very law she had helped to establish, while Califia's books were recognized as acceptable by that law. Califia fought against anti-pornography legislation co-authored by Catharine MacKinnon.[1]

The worst section of all is this one, which sounds like it was written by lawyers for Pat Califia or for NAMBLA:

Arguably his most controversial writings, fiction, and non-fiction, have been on childhood sexuality.[10] Califia for many years defended NAMBLA's right to free speech as a First Amendment issue, and in abolishing age-of-consent laws, in part because he felt the pedophile/pedarasty group was being unfairly targeted by the police and Federal Bureau of Investigation.[10] He has since changed his views. Although he still upholds the ideal of personal liberty, he does not condone any behavior that would be abusive to children.[10]

This paragraph is loaded with original research. The article does NOT say "he defended NAMBLA's right to free speech as a First Amendment issue", it says he has "been in favor of revoking age-of-consent laws and has supported the North American Man-Boy Love Association". It is original research to synthesize that quote with what Califia said in the article in order to create new claims. Califia never claimed in that article to support NAMBLA as a free speech issue at all; you took two statements, one saying he once supported NAMBLA, and another saying (in the present tense) that he believes in the First Amendment. But the secondary source does not make or imply that link. As for the claim that "he does not condone any behavior that would be abusive to children", this is a total fabrication. All the source says is that sex between an adult and child is "developmentally inappropriate". What you wrote might reflect your position, but it does not reflect what Califia was sourced to have said. As such I find this text not only falsified and full of original research but also defensive of Pat Califia well beyond the statements he himself made to the Chronicle. I do not mean this list of problems to be comprehensive. Owen (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll have to take each item point by point but certainly disagree with your assessment. I'm hardly an admirer of Califia, or anyone else associated with this case, but was following along what was reported on by the SF Chronicle, the same publication you were using.
Original text:
"Over the years, probably his most controversial writings have concerned child sexuality. Califia-Rice has, in the past, been in favor of revoking age-of-consent laws and has supported the North American Man-Boy Love Association, an organization rejected by most of the gay community for its stance on legalizing sex between men and boys.
Califia-Rice said he has shifted his position on both of those issues. "I supported NAMBLA for a really long time, in part because they got so much harassment from the FBI and the cops, and I found that really scary. It's my feeling that we do have a First Amendment in this country, and even though their positions are very unpopular, simply discussing an issue should not be a criminal activity.
"I don't agree with NAMBLA, because their position is that age-of- consent laws should be repealed, and there are members of that organization who think it's OK for prepubescent children to have sexual relationships with adults, and I just cannot agree with that. I think it's developmentally inappropriate.""
Owen's version:
Pat Califia was also known to have been an active supporter of the North American Man-Boy Love Association and long advocated for the abolition of age-of-consent laws. However, he has since retracted these views, calling sex between adults and prepubescent children "developmentally inappropriate."
Sportfan version:
Arguably his most controversial writings, fiction, and non-fiction, have been on childhood sexuality.[2] Califia for many years defended NAMBLA's right to free speech as a First Amendment issue,[3] and in abolishing age-of-consent laws, in part because he felt the pedophile/pedarasty group was being unfairly targeted by the police and Federal Bureau of Investigation.[2] Califia's contended for many years that age-of-consent laws left children at the mercy of their parents rather than allowing them to self-determine an essential aspect of their lives.[1] Califia's ideas were based, in part, on his childhood, as he knew children could be sexually active without being exploited.[2] He did not wait to 18 before becoming sexually active, and credits his adult mentors with showing him an alternative future away from the strict, conservative home life, and a school life where he was constantly assaulted and bullied.[1] He has since changed his views, although he still upholds personal liberty, he does not condone anything that would abuse of children.[2] (note;this version includes two sources so additional information was added, I have removed extra information not germane to the SF Chronicle issue)
So while my version certainly might not be perfect, it did provide the NPOV context of why anyone would be supportive of these controversial ideas. I'll let others weigh in as well. I am concerned how disruptive you're being when we are trying to reach consensus. Using conflated language, rhetoric and silencing tactics runs counter to building consensus. Hopefully now that discussion is happening all that can be avoided. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)



Note, I wrote this during another editor editing above, so please regard this as following on from what Owen said, thank you. Okay, I'm home now, I want to state I agree with everything which Owen says above. And I also want to add the following:

"Arguably his most controversial writings, fiction, and non-fiction, have been on childhood sexuality. Califia for many years defended NAMBLA's right to free speech as a First Amendment issue, and in abolishing age-of-consent laws, in part because he felt the pedophile/pedarasty group was being unfairly targeted by the police and Federal Bureau of Investigation.[10]"

  • This is a badly structured sentence. With the structuring as is, it reads as if Califia only supported NAMBLA for first amendment/freedom of speech issues. There are several sources, secondary as well as Califia's own words which state this was not the sole reason for supporting NAMBLA. Consequently this is a POV issue, and potentially a BLP issue.

"Califia had experience with anti-pornography/free-speech suppression in the early 1990s when dealing with the Canadian Supreme Court which ruled in Regina v. Butler that free speech did not include pornography.[17] Since that ruling the majority of banned writings have been the literature of sexual minorities.[17] Califia's books, and magazines were among those confiscated.[17]"

  • Placing this sentence directly after the paragraph's lead sentence and second sentence will give readers the impression that Califia came to support NAMBLA due to his own works being confiscated. Which makes this paragraph highly misleading. The opening sentence of a paragraph is the introduction to the content of the paragraph; from there, evidence/details/story is provided in subsequent sentences, getting ever more detailed on the issue, as background to what is stated in the first sentences. This is a writing convention utilised in all academic prose. Consequently to vary from this convention without signposting to the reader that this is happening, will confuse readers at best, and mislead them at worst. So this a BLP and POV issue.

"Califia's contended for many years that age-of-consent laws – the minimum age someone is permitted to engage in certain sexual activities, usually in the range 14 to 18, although the full range is 12 to 21 – left children at the mercy of their parents rather than allowing them to self-determine an essential aspect of their lives.[17]"

  • Part of this is irrelevant, part of this is flat out incorrect. The irrelevant section is that which deals with the age ranges. The incorrect part states: age-of-consent laws – the minimum age someone is permitted to engage in certain sexual activities. People below an age of consent are believed to be incapable of consenting to certain sexual activities. This is different to saying that they are/are not permitted to take part in those activities. However, if a minor does partake in those activities with someone over the age of consent, then it is believed that the minor cannot consent to sexual activity with that person due to the power/knowledge imbalance. It is a child protection issue. I realise various laws have been misused/misinterpreted to prosecute young people who engage in sexual activity, but this is not the philosophy of the age of consent laws.
  • This section is also problematic as you are stating it in wikipaedia's voice. Which means it is no longer you as an editor stating 'age of consent means x, y, z'; wikipaedia is now stating that 'age of consent means x, y, z'. This is opinion and not based upon the facts of the actual jurisprudence.

"Many studies conclude that young teenagers are sexually active, with some engaging in intercourse."

  • This is original research and also irrelevant. Whilst yes, I know, many teenagers are, you cannot make this claim without sourcing. Even if you did source, this is still irrelevant to Califia and introduces POV.

"Califia's ideas were based, in part, on his childhood, as he knew children could be sexually active without being exploited." [emphasis added]

  • The underlined part is highly problematic. It is written in a way which conflates opinion with fact. And worse than that, it states those "facts" in wikipaedia's voice. What I am referring to is the statement that children can have sexual relationships with adults that are non-exploitative. Written in this way it reads as if paedophilia can/should be condoned in some instances. This potentially places wikipaedia in a difficult legal position and open to being sued. Furthermore, it is original research. Finally to state it as a fact is to introduce POV. A better phrasing would be 'At this point in his life, Califia believed that it was possible for adults to have sexual relationships with children that did not involve exploitation on the part of the adults; a position he has since retracted believing it is impossible... etc...'

"He did not wait to 18 before becoming sexually active, and credits his adult mentors with showing him an alternative future away from the strict, conservative home life, and a school life where he was constantly assaulted and bullied.[17]"

  • I'm uncertain about him crediting adult mentors, I was under the impression he wished he could have had these mentors, however was turned away by the lesbians at the various venues he went to?

"He has since changed his views, although he still upholds personal liberty, he does not condone anything that would abuse of children.[10]"

  • I think greater details about his retraction of his views can be included. He has written several essays, given interviews and written a chapter about this retraction.

I hope this all helps to illustrate the objections I have to this paragraph, and I await thoughts from other editors on this matter. Shelly Pixie (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"He came out as a lesbian"

WTF can that possible mean? "He" didn't have a secx change operation, or at least in the preceding sentences/(Lihaas (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)).

I think this is resolved. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Um, no, its not been answered. The only preceding passage to that statement doesn't answer this: "Califia was born in Corpus Christi, Texas on March 8, 1954. His father was an itinerant road-construction worker and he moved his family from job to job. His mother was a housewife. Califia was the oldest of six children.[3] Califia was assigned female at birth and grew up in a Mormon family"
Now if he was "assigned female" (although what that assignment means is unexplained either. Everyone is "assigned" male, female, none (?) or pehaps "both") then there is no logical possibility of "he came out as a lesbian"Lihaas (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)).

born vs. assigned

the article currently reads that Patrick Califia was "born female" but this links to "assigned female at birth." since it already links to "assigned female at birth" i'm going to change it to that since "born female" is a contentious phrasing, especially on an article of a trans person KateBushTheDreaming1982 (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Patrick Califia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Need birth name

Califia was not her birth name. What was it? And Pat is usually an abbreviation of something. Patricia? deisenbe (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

article is missing 1982 "swastika" controversy

Why is the incident where Califia carved a swastika on her lover's arm (and was afterwards beat up by the lover and her friends) excluded from this biography? Is it due to poor research about Califia, or is this information being deliberately suppressed in the wikipedia biography? The following information and sources support the inclusion of the 1982 controversy:

Califia, swastika
Lesbian S&M Leads to Criminal Charges
"Lesbian S&M writer Pat Califia found herself a victim of violence and in Superior Court last week. The case which will come up next month resulted partly from her own sado-masochistic practices.
The Cable Car Award-winning journalist who writes Lesbian S&M article for the Advocate is pressing charges against three other Lesbians who beat her up and threatened her life.
On October 18 Califia, 28, was engaged in sexual acts with Constance Marshall, 27, who had agreed to be placed in bondage. While trussed, Califira scratched (or cut) into Marshall's shoulder a "swastika" with a knife. To Califia it was a consensual act; to Marshall — subsequently — it was not.
Two days later Marshall returned with two friends, Lisa Ferreira, 23, and Mara Ora, 22. According to a public defender's statement, they were armed with a shotgut and a knife. Califia was on the phone at the time; she put it down and opened the door. The trio barged in. Ferreira allegedly said, "This will teach you to fuck over my lover." According to Califia why proceeded to beat her up and repeatedly threatened to kill her. The shotgun (or pistol) was unloaded. On the other end of the line, Califia's friend heard all and called the SFPD.
When the police arrived, the trio fled out the back door but were soon apprehended.
All three defendants were charged with one count of aggravated assault and one count of burglary (entering a premises with the intent to commit a felony). The maximum penalty for assault is 2 to 4 years and/or a $5,000 fine. For burglary, the penalty could be 16 months, 2, or 3 years and an additional year for carrying a weapon.
On November 24 Marshall filed a police report that Califia had injured her. She claimed six weeks after the event that the carved swastika was four inches wide. Califia maintained it was little more than a scratch. No action was taken because two days after the S&M episode the trio allegedly took matters into their own hands. Califia in turn insisted she was badly beaten and threatened to be killed. She so testified in the December 3 preliminary hearing, and Superior Court Judge William Mullern found probable cause that a felony had been committed. He ordered that the trio stand trial.
Prosecutors fell that with an assault with a deadly weapon (even though the weapon was not loaded) with the victim pressing for action, they must proceed for a conviction. Public defenders and defense attorneys feel the episode is essentially a domestic matter and should be resolved out of court. Others feel that the prosecutors and the media will make a sleazy circus out of the Lesbian/S&M/sordid details.
At press time the defendants had refused to plead guilty and settle for a lesser charger. The trio wanted their day in court according to case watchers. And reportedly Califia wants her present tormentors punished."
- Lesbian S&M Leads to Criminal Charges – Bay Area Reporter, December 9, 1982, Volume 12, Number 49, pages 1–2
"SAN FRANSISCO--S&M spokeswoman Pat Califia was beat up by three women in October following a consensual S&M encounter she had with one of the women two days earlier, reports the Bay Area Reporter.
The incident came to public attention earlier this month after charges of aggravated assault were filed against the women. The women were ordered to stand trial by a Superior Court judge after a December 3 hearing.
According to the Bay Area Reporter, Califia, 28, on October 13 had an S&M encounter with Constance Marsnall, 27, who agreed to be placed in bondage. While in bondage, Califia allegedly made a mark of a swastika in Marshall's shoulder with a knife. Califia claimed the mark was part of the consensual encounter; Marshall apparently felt otherwise.
Two days later, Marshall and two friends allegedly entered Califia's house armed with a shotgun and a knife and allegedly beat up Califia. Police were called to the scene by a friend of Califia's who had been talking on the phone with Califia. The three women fled, but were later arrested, and Califia filed charges against them. At the December 3 hearing, the women were ordered to stand trial on charges of aggravated assault and burglary.
In the meantime, on November 24, Marshall filed a counter-complaint with the police about the alleged cut on her shoulder by Califia.
reprinted from The Washington Blade, Friday, Dec 17, 1982."
- califia attacked for carving swastika on s&m partner; women will be tried – off our backs, January 1983, Vol. 13, No. 1 , page 5
"Neither were lesbian feminists particularly convinced by the concept of 'safety' within a lesbian SM context. Simply, they did not believe that the 'safe words' would work. This concern was reinforced in 1982 when Pat Califia faced prosecution in the States for carving a swastika, allegedly without consent, on her lover's arm."
- Emma Healey (1996), Lesbian Sex Wars, chapter "Pain Without Gain: Sado-masochism in the spotlight", pages 109–110, London: Virago Press, ISBN 1-86049-230-4

50.250.202.121 (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Controversy

"Repeatedly, Califia makes use of up-is-down, black-is-white doublespeak presented so emphatically that, at first glance, it may seem persuasive. Thus, "S/M relationships are usually egalitarian." ... All the sexual scenarios Coming to Power describes and celebrates involve humiliation and most move from humiliation to violence....at the same time that she spells out the connection between sadomasochistic practices and historical atrocities--"An S/M scene can be played out using the personae of...Nazi and Jew, white and Black, straight man and queer...whore and client"--Califia denies that this symbolism of Nazism, gay oppression, female sexual slavery, and racism has any cultural or historical significance...."

- Dorchen Leidholdt, "Lesbian S/M: Sexual Radicalism or Reaction", New Women's Times, July/August 1982, Vol. 8, No. 7, pages 17–21. 50.250.202.121 (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e f g Cusac, Anne-Marie (Oct 1, 1996). "Profile of a sex radical". The Progressive. Retrieved 1 December 2013.
  2. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference sfgate was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Boy-Lovers, Crush Videos, and That Heinous First Amendment", Patrick Califia, Speaking Sex to Power: The Politics of Queer Sex, reprinting of 2000 column in 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patrick_Califia/Archive_1&oldid=1256757878"