First there was Jess Bradley, then the Challenors, now Edward Lord...

[PimmsnLemonade]

No direct accusations against Edward Lord (the 'non-binary' freemason who is trying to remove single-sex spaces in London) but here he is describing as a "hero" a man who was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and is a continuing "advocate" for paedophiles:

twitter.com/edwardlord/status/958632082762321922

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html

Prof. Ken Plummer made this statement on his website back in 2014. In fairness to him, I think it's important to put things in context.

kenplummer.com/2014/07/27/child-abuse-and-paedophilia-an-open-letter/

I agree Braveandstunning

Perhaps now is the time to reintroduce the SCUM manifesto by Valerie Solanas.

obsessed with screwing; he'll swim a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there'll be a friendly pussy awaiting him. He'll screw a woman he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and, further, pay for the opportunity.

Read the highlights

en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas

Solanas' treatise was an exercise in satire equal to that of Swift's A Modest Proposal. Just in case there are any TRA's or MRA's lurking.

Ugh. Can all these woman-hating, child-hating, dangerous pervs just fuck off.

Also Alice nailed it on queer theory from my personal experience:

I think queer theory is, at best, a way for boring heterosexuals to get to go on pride marches and be victim tourists. It also enables them to get more credibility for their dim-witted sexist and classist witterings.

At worst, it's bloody dangerous and a predator's wet dream.

IME it allows man-pleasing women to become proudly self-righteous self-abasing handmaidens. Absolutely falling over themselves to chuck the rest of their sex under the TRA bus by demanding that we all join them in the wholesale centring of male people.

Is it just a coincidence that AC seems to be involved in this adult baby stuff and recently Neville Southall wanted to give over his account to adult babies?

So that's what the Q stands for in LBGTQueertyuiop.

When did the organisations united by sexual orientation link up with the alphabet soup of sexual fetishists? How can Stonewall ("Acceptance, NO exceptions") have maintained its credibility with government, sponsors et al, while promoting the rights of the alphabet soup?

I think it's about time the parliamentary committee reconvened and and cross-examined Stonewall.

Am I the only one longing for a little bit of healthy repression?

Re the statement. I’m an academic. I’ve managed to never accidentally advocate for paedophilia. It’s really not hard.

Re the Plummer statement, this is from the Gilligan article

"As recently as 2012, Prof Plummer published on his personal blog a chapter he wrote in another book, Male Intergenerational Intimacy, in 1991. “As homosexuality has become slightly less open to sustained moral panic, the new pariah of 'child molester’ has become the latest folk devil,” he wrote. “Many adult paedophiles say that boys actively seek out sex partners … 'childhood’ itself is not a biological given but an historically produced social object.”
Prof Plummer confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that he had been a member of PIE in order to “facilitate” his research. He said: “I would never want any of my work to be used as a rationale for doing 'bad things’ – and I regard all coercive, abusive, exploitative sexuality as a 'bad thing’. I am sorry if it has impacted anyone negatively this way, or if it has encouraged this.” However, he did not answer when asked if he still held the views he expressed in the Eighties and Nineties. A spokesman for Essex University claimed Prof Plummer’s work “did not express support for paedophilia” and cited the university’s charter which gave academic staff “freedom within the law to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy”.

Intergenerational in respect of sex should always be a red flag it seems.

"and I regard all coercive, abusive, violent and exploitative sexuality as a ‘bad thing’."

Uprhread someone said something about "no violence no harm" or similar as a paedophile argument

The prof doesn't say fucking kids is bad full stop. Where he draws his line at what constitutes coercion is anyone's guess.

Oh dear goddess that PVC-clad abomination.

When a male says that they know better than a woman what she wants sexually, that is a big red flag of a rapist and abuser right there.

The whole dynamic of it makes me think of that guy who rage wanked on his own phone to defile a picture of a woman who supported Repeal The Eighth.

Yes, my thoughts too.

Paedophiles are known to be among the most manipulative people - men - ever. It is known amongst savvy probation officers. Paedophiles are effective groomers - in both convincing people that a) they will not act on their attraction to children and/or b) that sexual activity is not harmful to children, that children can consent.

Either the prof was groomed successfully by those he consorted with during his days as a member of PIE - or he has some very dubious views that he has sought to suppress/deny as the PIE-types have once again fallen foul of fashion (as they should).

I've read a few bits & pieces on Queer theory - and it is always disturbing. Adding the Q (and the K? did they add K for kink or was actually a wind up??) was a big mistake by Stonewall.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think I'd like to go back to 'LGB' now. Some sort of moral outrage is needed here - I really resent being called a bigot by someone on twitter who posts selfies of themselves wearing an adult nappy.

Channel 4 is doing a programme Married to a Paedophile which is part of the same normalisation.

Fuck that, C4.

Quote trail 'it's still so taboo'

Yes, and rightly so....

A bloke talking about his 'addiction' leading him to 'some very dark images'

I'm bookmarking the most excellent 'jeopardy' video by Derrick Jensen too. Very effective in demonstrating the links between the Q and trying to slip normalisation of paedophilia through the back door.

And people yelling 'transphobe' and 'bigot' at him....

Can you précis, by any chance?

I agree with the other criticisms of queer theory people have made here. In my view it is at heart anti-feminist and allows the existing power structures in society to remain while it’s followers claim they are progressive.

In a nutshell it is a nonsense academic theory that is harmful to many different people, particularly women and girls. It is cloaked in highly academic language, which disguises what it is actually about, and makes it appear more than it actually is. It is about blurring the boundaries of categories of things and claims this will somehow lead to a better society. In reality it harms many different groups of people for a great many reasons and is in direct opposition of actual feminism. For example, in the video they talk about how queer theorists would say that two gay men hiring a woman to be a surrogate, and have their baby is “queering birth” and so is progressive. It doesn’t acknowledge that the men are using women’s bodies for their own purposes, and often using women from poor countries, which could more accurately be called exploitation than progressive. Then of course there is the idea that the words girl/woman should mean femininity, and boy/man should mean masculinity, instead of human female/male. It also allows sexual fetishes and other dangerous sexual practices to be made more socially acceptable. The fact that it is full of so much obfuscation means its follows can argue we have just misunderstood it if we criticise it.

I think it's about time the parliamentary committee reconvened and and cross-examined Stonewall.

^ this

I think people have put far too much faith in that organisation, which in my opinion is nothing more than a men’s sexual rights organisation. I also think some queer theory academics campaigning for changes in law and policy, have decided among themselves how to frame our objections. It seems these people have decided to frame our legitimate objections to the removal of safeguarding and women/girls and children’s rights as a ‘moral panic’.

For example, they accuse the media of reporting on a few isolated cases to make their proposed changes to the law and policy unpopular. We, and the rest of the public, can then be accused of over reacting to these reports, out of ignorance, misunderstanding, unfounded fear and/or bigotry. Interestingly, queer theory academic Meg Barker wrote an article in 2017 framing objections to changes to law and policy as a ‘transgender moral panic’. I doubt this is the only person supporting changes in law and policy who frames our objections in this way.
www.rewriting-the-rules.com/gender/2017-review-transgender-moral-panic/

By framing things in this way they have enabled more people and groups/orgs etc, to agree to go along with them, and helped to ease any reservations they may have otherwise had. I think some academics, as well as advisors from the queer theory orgs, have informed various parties, groups, etc, of their ‘moral panic’ narrative, and people who have been exposed to it will then tend to sing from that hymn sheet and also claim our objections are no more than a ‘moral panic’.

The more stuff we uncover about various individuals recently in the press & their associates, the more sickened I feel about a select group of men-there is NO way they’re going to get in our spaces & it’s imperative children feel comfortable telling them to fuck off.

childhood’ itself is not a biological given but an historically produced social object

Think we need to watch out for this argument in particular. They've successfully claimed that sex is a social construct therefore men should be allowed in women's spaces. If it can be successfully argued that childhood is a social construct, the implications are appalling.

Stopthisnow

Thank you for that. I do ask periodically for people to explain queer theory to me, and now I understand why they sometimes struggle.

I can feel the appeal of blurring boundaries and ripping up rules and starting again. So I get why quite a lot of youngsters find it attractive.

But what I see, far more, is exactly how exploitable it is. And the patronising criticism almost forcing people to be 'considerably more open minded than yow'.

Very interesting. Thank you.

In older threads on here, pro trans posters frequently claimed childhood was a social construct.

"childhood’ itself is not a biological given but an historically produced social object

Think we need to watch out for this argument in particular. They've successfully claimed that sex is a social construct therefore men should be allowed in women's spaces. If it can be successfully argued that childhood is a social construct, the implications are appalling."

There are thought around this and puberty blockers. In theory you can have a person who is "old enough" in years but not having been through puberty and had the physical emotional changes ie they have not "grown up". Messing with ideas around children/ age/ sex and following with the idea that age is not relevant/ subjective etc...