Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39279235›Full record

ReviewTrauma, violence & abuse2024

A Review of Academic Use of the Term "Minor Attracted Persons".

Christina Farmer, Michael Salter, Delanie Woodlock

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trauma, violence & abuse, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Christina FarmerUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0009-0003-2161-5100
Michael SalterUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6446-9498
Delanie WoodlockMonash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although it originated within online pro-pedophile groups, the term "minor attracted person" (MAPs) has been adopted by some academic researchers as a neutral and non-stigmatizing alternative to the term "pedophile." The transferral of this term from pedophile advocates to academic scholarship has been highly controversial. Claims that the use of the term "minor attracted people" normalizes or endorses pedophilia deserve closer scrutiny. This paper is based on a rapid evidence review of all peer-reviewed papers between 2015 and 2023 that used variants of the term "minor attracted" in their title and/or abstract. After screening, 30 studies were identified for review. Our analysis took a thematic approach to understanding the construction and use of the term MAPs in this scholarship. The analysis found that the term MAPs was operationalized in different and contradictory ways, however, the literature broadly agreed that MAPs constitute an oppressed sexual minority who are subject to undue stigmatization and discrimination. We point to the similarities between this sympathetic framing of MAPs and the political goals of the pro-pedophile advocacy groups that created the term MAPs, and from which many MAPs studies recruit their research participants. The review concludes that, in the absence of adequate self-reflexivity and awareness of bias, academic collaborations with pro-pedophile groups can produce work that minimizes the risk and harm of child sexual abuse and has the potential to delegitimize child sexual abuse prevention and treatment efforts.

Indexed as

PedophiliaAdolescentChildFemaleHumansMaleSexual and Gender MinoritiesSocial StigmaStereotypingTerminology as Topicchild sexual abuseminor attractionpedophiliapreventiontreatment

Identifiers

PMID39279235
PMCPMC11545205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.