Debate Guide: MAPs are invalid - Revision history

The Admins at 14:47, 28 December 2024

2024-12-28T14:47:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:47, 28 December 2024
Line 75:		Line 75:
	*[[Research: Pedophilia as a sexual/erotic orientation]]		*[[Research: Pedophilia as a sexual/erotic orientation]]
	*[[Research: Prevalence]]		*[[Research: Prevalence]]

			==External links==

			*[https://www.map-union.org/blog/are-maps-queer Are MAPs Queer?] - Analysis from [[Mu]].

	==References==		==References==

	[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]]		[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]]

The Admins at 19:07, 9 September 2024

2024-09-09T19:07:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, 9 September 2024
Line 11:		Line 11:

	*How [[Research: Prevalence\|common minor attractions]] are, and thus how they must by necessity coexist with gender-based LGBTQ+ attractions.		*How [[Research: Prevalence\|common minor attractions]] are, and thus how they must by necessity coexist with gender-based LGBTQ+ attractions.
	*How present-day sexuality experts, and the ''"Bible of Psychiatry"'', the [[DSM]] appear to [[Research: Pedophilia as a sexual/erotic orientation\|endorse the idea]] of attractions to particular subsets of minors as ''sexual orientations''.		*How present-day sexuality experts, and the ''"Bible of Psychiatry"'', the [[DSM]] appear to [[Research: Pedophilia as a sexual/erotic orientation\|endorse the idea]] of attractions to particular subsets of minors as ''sexual orientations''. An unchosen condition, after all, does not beg "acceptance", since failing to accept it makes not one bit of difference.
	*How the historical reasons for the MAP identity are, ironically, related to the ostracism and distancing of people with an attraction to minors by a [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity\|formerly accepting Gay Movement]].		*How the historical reasons for the MAP identity are, ironically, related to the ostracism and distancing of people with an attraction to minors by a [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity\|formerly accepting Gay Movement]].

The Admins at 19:05, 9 September 2024

2024-09-09T19:05:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 9 September 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__NOTOC__<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Attraction to minors is NOT a <u>valid</u> sexuality/identity like (L/G/B/T). A person's age (children and teenagers included) is not equivalent to their sex or gender. You're not with us!'''''</font></blockquote>		__NOTOC__<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Attraction to minors is NOT a <u>valid</u> sexuality/identity like (L/G/B/T) and will NEVER BE ACCEPTED! A person's age (children and teenagers included) is not equivalent to their sex or gender. You're not with us!'''''</font></blockquote>
	[[File:Sheep copy.png\|thumb\|Identitarians like to ignore their former friend, [[Alfred Kinsey]]]][[File:SexualOritent.jpg\|thumb\|Trolling meme response]]		[[File:Sheep copy.png\|thumb\|Identitarians like to ignore their former friend, [[Alfred Kinsey]]]][[File:SexualOritent.jpg\|thumb\|Trolling meme response]]
	[[File:Antibadguy.png\|thumb\|Us good guys get to decide who is valid]]		[[File:Antibadguy.png\|thumb\|Us good guys get to decide who is valid]]

The Admins: /* The invalidity of "validity" as an argument */

2024-06-03T22:56:11Z

The invalidity of "validity" as an argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 3 June 2024
Line 42:		Line 42:
	==The invalidity of "validity" as an argument==		==The invalidity of "validity" as an argument==

	The concept of ''valid'' and ''invalid'' sexuality is clearly chauvinistic and a questionable idea in and of itself. This strategy of "othering" and erasure appears to be a rehash of 1980s respectability politics deployed by the conservative moral majority, albeit under the pretense of social-justice literacy. Decades before that, the German Nazi party also [[Historical analogies for MAPs and allies\|''invalidated'' pederasts]]; the only difference being ~~that~~ those boy-lovers were not the only hunted demographic. The Nazis made sure they were joined by "normal" ''teleiophilic'' homosexuals - the sort of people who now ritualistically invalidate pederasts.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140109235532/http://archive.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=064C63A6-125A-11D4-A7AB00A0C9D84F02 Human Rights Wrongs, by Andriette, 1998]</ref>		The concept of ''valid'' and ''invalid'' sexuality is clearly chauvinistic and a questionable idea in and of itself. This strategy of "othering" and erasure appears to be a rehash of 1980s respectability politics deployed by the conservative moral majority, albeit under the pretense of social-justice literacy. Decades before that, the German Nazi party also [[Historical analogies for MAPs and allies\|''invalidated'' pederasts]]; the only difference being those boy-lovers were not the only hunted demographic. The Nazis made sure they were joined by "normal" ''[[Teleiophilia\|teleiophilic]]'' homosexuals - the sort of people who now ritualistically invalidate pederasts.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140109235532/http://archive.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=064C63A6-125A-11D4-A7AB00A0C9D84F02 Human Rights Wrongs, by Andriette, 1998]</ref>

	Nevertheless, some modern day homosexuals might tentatively agree with the Germans and maintain that pedophilia and hebephilia are mental illnesses and therefore "invalid" identities. In doing this, "liberal" gays should be congratulated on confirming that pedophiles are entitled to care, respect, protection, social interaction and "safe spaces" in which to "recover". After all, a good LGBT person with a firm understanding of their own history must surely not willingly submit others to the ableism and carceral psychiatry once used against ''their own'' people.		Nevertheless, some modern day homosexuals might tentatively agree with the Germans and maintain that pedophilia and hebephilia are mental illnesses and therefore "invalid" identities. In doing this, "liberal" gays should be congratulated on confirming that pedophiles are entitled to care, respect, protection, social interaction and "safe spaces" in which to "recover". After all, a good LGBT person with a firm understanding of their own history must surely not willingly submit others to the ableism and carceral psychiatry once used against ''their own'' people.

The Admins: /* The invalidity of "validity" as an argument */

2024-04-08T19:38:24Z

The invalidity of "validity" as an argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:38, 8 April 2024
Line 50:		Line 50:
	a) Does not rely on ''normativity''.		a) Does not rely on ''normativity''.

	b) Does not [[Attraction ≠ Action\|confuse attraction with action]] or intention.		b) Does not [[Attraction ≠ Action\|confuse attraction with action]] or criminal intention.

	==Lessons from history==		==Lessons from history==

The Admins: /* The invalidity of "validity" as an argument */

2024-04-08T19:36:47Z

The invalidity of "validity" as an argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:36, 8 April 2024
Line 49:		Line 49:

	a) Does not rely on ''normativity''.		a) Does not rely on ''normativity''.

	b) Does not [[Attraction ≠ Action\|confuse attraction with action]] or intention.		b) Does not [[Attraction ≠ Action\|confuse attraction with action]] or intention.

The Admins at 19:36, 8 April 2024

2024-04-08T19:36:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:36, 8 April 2024
Line 2:		Line 2:
	[[File:Sheep copy.png\|thumb\|Identitarians like to ignore their former friend, [[Alfred Kinsey]]]][[File:SexualOritent.jpg\|thumb\|Trolling meme response]]		[[File:Sheep copy.png\|thumb\|Identitarians like to ignore their former friend, [[Alfred Kinsey]]]][[File:SexualOritent.jpg\|thumb\|Trolling meme response]]
	[[File:Antibadguy.png\|thumb\|Us good guys get to decide who is valid]]		[[File:Antibadguy.png\|thumb\|Us good guys get to decide who is valid]]
	This "identitarian" argument ~~is often, but not always made by LGBT~~ people who ~~like~~ to ~~claim that~~ [[Minor Attracted Person\|MAPs]] ~~can not be ''gay'', ''homosexual'' or ''queer'' under any circumstances, and should voluntarily distance themselves from the LGBT Movement~~. ~~They pursue this argument in seeming ignorance of how [[Research~~: Prevalence\|common minor attractions]] are, and how minor attractions must by necessity coexist with gender-based attractions. Sexuality experts, and the ''"Bible of Psychiatry"'', the [[DSM]] appear to [[Research: Pedophilia as a sexual/erotic orientation\|endorse the idea]] of attractions to particular subsets of minors as ''sexual orientations''.		This "identitarian" argument has become fashionable among LGBTQ+ people who feel pressured to disavow or distance [[Minor Attracted Person\|MAPs]]. It is then often claimed:

	One thing ~~that~~ proponents of ~~this~~ argument almost routinely ignore, is that ~~nobody actually uses~~ the term "MAP" to denote a sexuality. ~~"MAP"~~ is ~~in fact~~ an identity; an umbrella term used to unify people with differing attractions, who have been put in the same boat as a result of political/cultural circumstances. [[Pedophilia]] and [[Hebephilia]] are examples of sexual "orientations" that fall under this umbrella. The historical reasons for the MAP identity are, ironically, related to the ostracism and distancing of people with an attraction to minors, within a [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity\|formerly accepting LGBT Movement]].		*MAPs can not also be ''gay'', ''homosexual'' or ''queer'' under any circumstances.
			*MAPs should be distanced from the LGBT Movement, regardless of their sexuality.
			*LGBTQ+ people "never had anything to do with" MAPs, and the association between the two groups is a vicious and homophobic trope employed by right-wingers.

			However, Identitarians pursue this argument in seeming ignorance of:

			*How [[Research: Prevalence\|common minor attractions]] are, and thus how they must by necessity coexist with gender-based LGBTQ+ attractions.
			*How present-day sexuality experts, and the ''"Bible of Psychiatry"'', the [[DSM]] appear to [[Research: Pedophilia as a sexual/erotic orientation\|endorse the idea]] of attractions to particular subsets of minors as ''sexual orientations''.
			*How the historical reasons for the MAP identity are, ironically, related to the ostracism and distancing of people with an attraction to minors by a [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity\|formerly accepting Gay Movement]].

			Thus, to claim that an explicit link between the two groups has been broken for political reasons would be far more honest.

			One thing proponents of the identitarian argument almost routinely ignore, is that the term "MAP" is not actually used to denote a sexuality ''per se''. It is ''itself'' an identity term just like the LGBTQ+; namely an umbrella term used to unify people with differing attractions, who have been put in the same boat as a result of political/cultural circumstances. [[Pedophilia]] and [[Hebephilia]] are examples of sexual "orientations" that fall under this umbrella.

	==Contradictions of the identitarian argument==		==Contradictions of the identitarian argument==

	Another point here, is the lack of consistency. If [[boylove]]rs are "not homosexual" because sexuality is ~~exclusive~~ to gender-preference (as [[anti]]-MAPs like to claim), then heterosexual pedophiles and hebephiles can not be deemed "straight", either. We would then ~~have to~~ ask, ''what exactly is'' this well-documented<ref name=blanchard /> tendency of pedophiles and hebephiles to gravitate towards one or the other gender ([[Boylove\|BL]]/[[Girllove\|GL]]), if it is not a gender preference? ~~It appears~~ the insistence upon a complete divorce of homosexual MAPs and the LGBT community, is entirely political/ideological. MAPs are already members of the community, just as ~~they~~ are part of mainstream society.		Another point here, is the proponent's lack of consistency and intellectual rigor. If [[boylove]]rs are "not homosexual" because sexuality is exclusively related to gender-preference (as [[anti]]-MAPs like to claim), then heterosexual pedophiles and hebephiles can not be deemed "straight", either.

			With the above in mind, we would then ask, ''what exactly is'' this well-documented<ref name=blanchard /> tendency of pedophiles and hebephiles to gravitate towards one or the other gender ([[Boylove\|BL]]/[[Girllove\|GL]]), if it is not indeed a gender preference? A reasonable person might reach the conclusion that LGBTQ+ peoples' insistence upon a ''complete'' divorce of homosexual MAPs and the LGBT community, is entirely political/ideological in nature. After all, some MAPs are already members of the LGBTQ+ community, just as others are part of mainstream heteronormative society.

			===What ''is'' an attraction to immaturity if it is ''not'' a sexuality?===

	The distancing of MAPs also covertly legitimizes the concept of [[chronophilia]] as a ''secondary'' spectrum of desires and identities. Age-structured relations have been present throughout the [[Research: Intergenerational Relationships in History\|entirety of human (and gay) history]], yet have now (modern LGBT people would maintain) been rightfully excluded from the category "sexualities". If age/physical development attractions are of such great operative ''importance'' re. what is considered to be a "sexuality" or otherwise, they must clearly be ''something''.		The distancing of MAPs also covertly legitimizes the concept of [[chronophilia]] as a ''secondary'' spectrum of desires and identities. Age-structured relations have been present throughout the [[Research: Intergenerational Relationships in History\|entirety of human (and gay) history]], yet have now (modern LGBT people would maintain) been rightfully excluded from the category "sexualities". If age/physical development attractions are of such great operative ''importance'' re. what is considered to be a "sexuality" or otherwise, they must clearly be ''something''.

	In the above argument of LGBT "validity" proponents, it is ~~held~~ that if pedophiles or hebephiles ~~of any gender preference aren't also attracted to adults, they~~ can't be considered gay (or~~, as we contended straight)~~. So, to expand on the argument's absurdity, we might ask ourselves - what if a MAP has a ''non-preferential'', secondary attraction to adults? Can they now ascend to the status of fully fledged queer, homosexual, or indeed heterosexual? What about a 13 year old boy who is attracted to other 13 year old boys? We'd have to maintain that because his psychological target is not an adult, he can not be considered "gay", does not "know himself", and should remain open-minded to the idea he may in fact be [[pederasty\|pederastically inclined]]. After all, there is [[Debate Guide: Corresponding age attraction\|no solid evidence]] that these attractions will change as he ages, only prejudiced assumptions and dating norms. If LGBT "validity" identitarians were to stay true to these principles, they would have to give up their pursuit of LGBT youth organizations and policies, for example.		In the above argument of LGBT "validity" proponents, it is maintained that same-sex attracted pedophiles or hebephiles can't be considered "gay" or even "queer". So, to expand on the argument's absurdity, we might ask ourselves - what if a MAP has a ''non-preferential'', secondary attraction to adults? Can they now ascend to the status of fully fledged queer, homosexual, (or indeed heterosexual)?

			What about minors? Say, for example, a 13 year old boy who is attracted to other 13 year old boys. We'd have to maintain that because his psychological target is not an adult, he can not be considered "gay", does not "know himself", and should remain open-minded to the idea he may in fact be [[pederasty\|pederastically inclined]]. After all, there is [[Debate Guide: Corresponding age attraction\|no solid evidence]] that these attractions will change as he ages, only prejudiced assumptions and dating norms. If LGBT "validity" identitarians were to stay true to these principles, they would have to give up their pursuit of LGBT youth organizations and policies, for example.

	It should also be noted, many liberals will assume the unsubstantiated hypothesis of a changing, "age-appropriate"/"corresponding" age-based attraction in pubertal youth mentioned in the above link. They typically do this when they attempt to defend youth-on-youth sexual activity and attractions as "normative" vis-a-vis minor-adult relations. So, they have essentially ~~claimed~~ age-preference (chronophilia) changes over time in a "normative" pattern. It must then follow that non-normative variation in such preferences also exists, as it does with gender preferences (homosexuality)~~. Once again, their narrative is covertly legitimizing chronophilia, by taking an expedient and short-termist approach to their own present struggles/realpolitik~~.		It should also be noted, many liberals will assume the unsubstantiated hypothesis of a changing, "age-appropriate"/"corresponding" age-based attraction in pubertal youth mentioned in the above link. They typically do this when they attempt to defend youth-on-youth sexual activity and attractions as "normative" vis-a-vis minor-adult relations. So, they have essentially gone back on their previous claims and instead argued that age-preference (chronophilia) changes over time in a "normative" pattern. It must then follow that non-normative variation in such preferences also exists, as it does with gender preferences (homosexuality).

	Finally, LGBT identitarians must also be asked if they believe ~~that~~ gender is socially constructed (most of them do). If they agree, ask them what this spells for the "validity" of sexualities based solely around gender, as opposed to, say "biological" features such as physical maturity or species.		Finally, LGBT identitarians must also be asked if they believe gender is socially constructed (most of them do). If they agree, ask them what this spells for the "validity" of sexualities based solely around gender, as opposed to, say "biological" features such as physical maturity or species.

	===Biological studies===		===Biological studies===
Line 24:		Line 42:
	==The invalidity of "validity" as an argument==		==The invalidity of "validity" as an argument==

	The concept of ''valid'' and ''invalid'' sexuality is clearly chauvinistic and a questionable idea in and of itself. This strategy of "othering" and erasure appears to be a rehash of 1980s respectability politics deployed by the conservative moral majority, albeit under the pretense of social-justice literacy. Decades before that, the German Nazi party also [[Historical analogies for MAPs and allies\|''invalidated'' pederasts]]; the only difference being that those boy-lovers were not the only hunted demographic. The Nazis made sure ~~that~~ they were joined by "normal" ''teleiophilic'' homosexuals - the sort of people who now ritualistically invalidate pederasts.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140109235532/http://archive.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=064C63A6-125A-11D4-A7AB00A0C9D84F02 Human Rights Wrongs, by Andriette, 1998]</ref> Nevertheless, some modern day homosexuals might tentatively agree with the Germans and maintain~~, in their vanity,~~ that pedophilia and hebephilia are mental illnesses and therefore "invalid". In doing this, "liberal" gays should be congratulated on confirming that pedophiles are entitled to care, respect, protection, social interaction and "safe spaces" in which to "recover". After all, a good LGBT person with a firm understanding of their own history must surely not submit others to the ableism and carceral psychiatry ~~that was~~ once used against ''their own'' people.		The concept of ''valid'' and ''invalid'' sexuality is clearly chauvinistic and a questionable idea in and of itself. This strategy of "othering" and erasure appears to be a rehash of 1980s respectability politics deployed by the conservative moral majority, albeit under the pretense of social-justice literacy. Decades before that, the German Nazi party also [[Historical analogies for MAPs and allies\|''invalidated'' pederasts]]; the only difference being that those boy-lovers were not the only hunted demographic. The Nazis made sure they were joined by "normal" ''teleiophilic'' homosexuals - the sort of people who now ritualistically invalidate pederasts.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140109235532/http://archive.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=064C63A6-125A-11D4-A7AB00A0C9D84F02 Human Rights Wrongs, by Andriette, 1998]</ref>

			Nevertheless, some modern day homosexuals might tentatively agree with the Germans and maintain that pedophilia and hebephilia are mental illnesses and therefore "invalid" identities. In doing this, "liberal" gays should be congratulated on confirming that pedophiles are entitled to care, respect, protection, social interaction and "safe spaces" in which to "recover". After all, a good LGBT person with a firm understanding of their own history must surely not willingly submit others to the ableism and carceral psychiatry once used against ''their own'' people.

			Ultimately, we must ask: What constitutes a valid determinant of "sexuality"? Any intellectually honest, or historically literate LGBT campaigner or liberal should be able to explain this in a way that:

	~~Ultimately, we must ask: What constitutes~~ a ~~valid determinant of "sexuality"? Any intellectually honest, or historically literate LGBT campaigner or liberal should be able to explain this in a way that does~~ not rely on ''normativity''.		a) Does not rely on ''normativity''.
			b) Does not [[Attraction ≠ Action\|confuse attraction with action]] or intention.

	==Lessons from history==		==Lessons from history==

The Admins: /* Contradictions of the identitarian argument */

2024-04-08T12:21:38Z

Contradictions of the identitarian argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:21, 8 April 2024
Line 8:		Line 8:
	==Contradictions of the identitarian argument==		==Contradictions of the identitarian argument==

	Another point here, is the lack of consistency. If [[boylove]]rs are "not homosexual" because sexuality is exclusive to gender-preference (as [[anti]]-MAPs like to claim), then heterosexual pedophiles and hebephiles can not be deemed "straight", either. We would then have to ask, ''what exactly is'' this well-documented<ref name=blanchard /> tendency of pedophiles and hebephiles to gravitate towards one or the other gender ([[Boylove\|BL]]/[[Girllove\|GL]]), if it is not a gender preference? It appears ~~that~~ the insistence upon a complete divorce of homosexual MAPs and the LGBT community, is entirely political/ideological. MAPs are already members of the community, just as they are part of mainstream society.		Another point here, is the lack of consistency. If [[boylove]]rs are "not homosexual" because sexuality is exclusive to gender-preference (as [[anti]]-MAPs like to claim), then heterosexual pedophiles and hebephiles can not be deemed "straight", either. We would then have to ask, ''what exactly is'' this well-documented<ref name=blanchard /> tendency of pedophiles and hebephiles to gravitate towards one or the other gender ([[Boylove\|BL]]/[[Girllove\|GL]]), if it is not a gender preference? It appears the insistence upon a complete divorce of homosexual MAPs and the LGBT community, is entirely political/ideological. MAPs are already members of the community, just as they are part of mainstream society.

	The distancing of MAPs also covertly legitimizes the concept of [[chronophilia]] as a ''secondary'' spectrum of desires and identities. Age-structured relations have been present throughout the [[Research: Intergenerational Relationships in History\|entirety of human (and gay) history]], yet have now (modern LGBT people would maintain) been rightfully excluded from the category "sexualities". If age/physical development attractions are of such great operative ''importance'' re. what is considered to be a "sexuality" or otherwise, they must clearly be ''something''.		The distancing of MAPs also covertly legitimizes the concept of [[chronophilia]] as a ''secondary'' spectrum of desires and identities. Age-structured relations have been present throughout the [[Research: Intergenerational Relationships in History\|entirety of human (and gay) history]], yet have now (modern LGBT people would maintain) been rightfully excluded from the category "sexualities". If age/physical development attractions are of such great operative ''importance'' re. what is considered to be a "sexuality" or otherwise, they must clearly be ''something''.

	In the above argument of LGBT "validity" proponents, it is held that if pedophiles or hebephiles of any gender preference aren't also attracted to adults, they can't be considered gay (or, as we contended straight). So, to expand on the argument's absurdity, we might ask ourselves - what if a MAP has a ''non-preferential'', secondary attraction to adults? Can they now ascend to the status of fully fledged queer, homosexual, or indeed heterosexual? What about a 13 year old boy who is attracted to other 13 year old boys? We'd have to maintain that because his psychological target is not an adult, he can not be considered "gay", does not "know himself", and should remain open-minded to the idea ~~that~~ he may in fact be [[pederasty\|pederastically inclined]]. After all, there is [[Debate Guide: Corresponding age attraction\|no solid evidence]] that these attractions will change as he ages, only prejudiced assumptions and dating norms. If LGBT "validity" identitarians were to stay true to these principles, they would have to give up their pursuit of LGBT youth organizations and policies, for example.		In the above argument of LGBT "validity" proponents, it is held that if pedophiles or hebephiles of any gender preference aren't also attracted to adults, they can't be considered gay (or, as we contended straight). So, to expand on the argument's absurdity, we might ask ourselves - what if a MAP has a ''non-preferential'', secondary attraction to adults? Can they now ascend to the status of fully fledged queer, homosexual, or indeed heterosexual? What about a 13 year old boy who is attracted to other 13 year old boys? We'd have to maintain that because his psychological target is not an adult, he can not be considered "gay", does not "know himself", and should remain open-minded to the idea he may in fact be [[pederasty\|pederastically inclined]]. After all, there is [[Debate Guide: Corresponding age attraction\|no solid evidence]] that these attractions will change as he ages, only prejudiced assumptions and dating norms. If LGBT "validity" identitarians were to stay true to these principles, they would have to give up their pursuit of LGBT youth organizations and policies, for example.

	It should also be noted, ~~that~~ many liberals will assume the unsubstantiated hypothesis of a changing, "age-appropriate"/"corresponding" age-based attraction in pubertal youth mentioned in the above link. They typically do this when they attempt to defend youth-on-youth sexual activity and attractions as "normative" vis-a-vis minor-adult relations. So, they have essentially claimed ~~that~~ age-preference (chronophilia) changes over time in a "normative" pattern. It must then follow that non-normative variation in such preferences also exists, as it does with gender preferences (homosexuality). Once again, their narrative is covertly legitimizing chronophilia, by taking an expedient and short-termist approach to their own present struggles/realpolitik.		It should also be noted, many liberals will assume the unsubstantiated hypothesis of a changing, "age-appropriate"/"corresponding" age-based attraction in pubertal youth mentioned in the above link. They typically do this when they attempt to defend youth-on-youth sexual activity and attractions as "normative" vis-a-vis minor-adult relations. So, they have essentially claimed age-preference (chronophilia) changes over time in a "normative" pattern. It must then follow that non-normative variation in such preferences also exists, as it does with gender preferences (homosexuality). Once again, their narrative is covertly legitimizing chronophilia, by taking an expedient and short-termist approach to their own present struggles/realpolitik.

	Finally, LGBT identitarians must also be asked if they believe that gender is socially constructed (most of them do). If they agree, ask them what this spells for the "validity" of sexualities based solely around gender, as opposed to, say "biological" features such as physical maturity or species.		Finally, LGBT identitarians must also be asked if they believe that gender is socially constructed (most of them do). If they agree, ask them what this spells for the "validity" of sexualities based solely around gender, as opposed to, say "biological" features such as physical maturity or species.
Line 20:		Line 20:
	===Biological studies===		===Biological studies===

	LGBT people will sometimes attempt, for example, to erase the inherent homosexuality of boylovers by claiming that male attraction to boys is fundamentally different to homosexuality, or an entirely "separate phenomenon". They might contend that boylovers are more attracted to adult females than adult males, but this is incorrect. Studies of physiological response in pedophiles and hebephiles suggest that not only do they express defined gender preferences, but ~~that~~ their ''secondary'' and ''tertiary'' preferences are towards the ''same gender'' as their primary preferences. This includes attraction to adults of the same gender as the minors.<ref name="blanchard">[https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3 Blanchard, R., Kuban, M.E., Blak, T. et al. Sexual Attraction to Others: A Comparison of Two Models of Alloerotic Responding in Men. Arch Sex Behav 41, 13–29 (2012).]</ref> Similarly, it has been found that some of the same variables seen to exert an effect on the likelihood of homosexuality developing in a child (i.e. birth order), govern the likelihood of homosexuality in pedo/hebephiles.<ref>[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01819-3 Blanchard, R., Beier, K.M., Gómez Jiménez, F.R. et al. Meta-Analyses of Fraternal and Sororal Birth Order Effects in Homosexual Pedophiles, Hebephiles, and Teleiophiles. Arch Sex Behav 50, 779–796 (2021).]</ref>		LGBT people will sometimes attempt, for example, to erase the inherent homosexuality of boylovers by claiming that male attraction to boys is fundamentally different to homosexuality, or an entirely "separate phenomenon". They might contend that boylovers are more attracted to adult females than adult males, but this is incorrect. Studies of physiological response in pedophiles and hebephiles suggest that not only do they express defined gender preferences, but their ''secondary'' and ''tertiary'' preferences are towards the ''same gender'' as their primary preferences. This includes attraction to adults of the same gender as the minors.<ref name="blanchard">[https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3 Blanchard, R., Kuban, M.E., Blak, T. et al. Sexual Attraction to Others: A Comparison of Two Models of Alloerotic Responding in Men. Arch Sex Behav 41, 13–29 (2012).]</ref> Similarly, it has been found that some of the same variables seen to exert an effect on the likelihood of homosexuality developing in a child (i.e. birth order), govern the likelihood of homosexuality in pedo/hebephiles.<ref>[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01819-3 Blanchard, R., Beier, K.M., Gómez Jiménez, F.R. et al. Meta-Analyses of Fraternal and Sororal Birth Order Effects in Homosexual Pedophiles, Hebephiles, and Teleiophiles. Arch Sex Behav 50, 779–796 (2021).]</ref>

	==The invalidity of "validity" as an argument==		==The invalidity of "validity" as an argument==

The Admins at 12:15, 8 April 2024

2024-04-08T12:15:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:15, 8 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__NOTOC__<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Attraction to minors is NOT a <u>valid</u> sexuality like ~~LGBT, whatever label you put on it~~. ~~Their~~ age is not their sex~~! Child and Teenager are not genders, you disgusting invalid!~~ You're not with us!'''''</font></blockquote>		__NOTOC__<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Attraction to minors is NOT a <u>valid</u> sexuality/identity like (L/G/B/T). A person's age (children and teenagers included) is not equivalent to their sex or gender. You're not with us!'''''</font></blockquote>
	[[File:Sheep copy.png\|thumb\|Identitarians like to ignore their former friend, [[Alfred Kinsey]]]][[File:SexualOritent.jpg\|thumb\|Trolling meme response]]		[[File:Sheep copy.png\|thumb\|Identitarians like to ignore their former friend, [[Alfred Kinsey]]]][[File:SexualOritent.jpg\|thumb\|Trolling meme response]]
	[[File:Antibadguy.png\|thumb\|Us good guys get to decide who is valid]]		[[File:Antibadguy.png\|thumb\|Us good guys get to decide who is valid]]

The Admins: /* Lessons from history */

2023-10-07T18:45:09Z

Lessons from history

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, 7 October 2023
Line 30:		Line 30:
	==Lessons from history==		==Lessons from history==

	Homosexuality has, of course, been [[Research: Intergenerational Relationships in History\|age-structured throughout history]] (see also, resources such as [https://greek-love.com/ Greek Love: Pederasty throughout the ages]). Normative, modern-day teleio-homosexuals would be invalid by most classical standards, as they date exclusively within their own adult age group. However, experience tells us that modern-day homosexuals take differing roles indicative of the age gap in classical pederasty, often explicitly power structuring their sexual lives.		Homosexuality has, of course, been [[Research: Intergenerational Relationships in History\|age-structured throughout history]] (see also, resources such as [https://greek-love.com/ Greek Love: Pederasty throughout the ages]). Normative, modern-day [[Teleiophilia\|teleio]]-homosexuals would be invalid by most classical standards, as they date exclusively within their own adult age group. However, experience tells us that modern-day homosexuals take differing roles indicative of the age gap in classical pederasty, often explicitly power structuring their sexual lives.

	===Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity===		===Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity===

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, 9 September 2024
Line 11:		Line 11:

	*How [[Research: Prevalence\|common minor attractions]] are, and thus how they must by necessity coexist with gender-based LGBTQ+ attractions.		*How [[Research: Prevalence\|common minor attractions]] are, and thus how they must by necessity coexist with gender-based LGBTQ+ attractions.
	*How present-day sexuality experts, and the ''"Bible of Psychiatry"'', the [[DSM]] appear to [[Research: Pedophilia as a sexual/erotic orientation\|endorse the idea]] of attractions to particular subsets of minors as ''sexual orientations''.		*How present-day sexuality experts, and the ''"Bible of Psychiatry"'', the [[DSM]] appear to [[Research: Pedophilia as a sexual/erotic orientation\|endorse the idea]] of attractions to particular subsets of minors as ''sexual orientations''. An unchosen condition, after all, does not beg "acceptance", since failing to accept it makes not one bit of difference.
	*How the historical reasons for the MAP identity are, ironically, related to the ostracism and distancing of people with an attraction to minors by a [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity\|formerly accepting Gay Movement]].		*How the historical reasons for the MAP identity are, ironically, related to the ostracism and distancing of people with an attraction to minors by a [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity\|formerly accepting Gay Movement]].