Important article by La Scapigliata 'Writer, doctor, feminist, wearer of many hats.'
concludes:
"Worst of all is the practical misogyny involved in dismissing women’s concerns in conversations about sexual violence, and bad faith arguments which are asserted with impunity. For example, just because there are some paedophiles who haven’t, allegedly, molested a child yet, doesn’t mean that they haven’t abused children by proxy, by using child porn. And if there is a single therapist that can prove, beyond any reasonable doubt (keeping in mind the grooming, and the lies and the DARVO) that there is a group of paedophiles that have most certainly never molested or groomed or viewed porn, I’d like to see that evidence. Because without being psychic, the only thing that can be proven is absence of conviction/getting caught, not the other way around.
"I’d also like to compare the numbers of that hypothetical group of proven non-offending paedophiles with numbers of actual sex offenders and their victims, and then I’d like to have a conversation about what ushering marriage equality, prevention of employment discrimination, laws against “paedophobia” and encouraging paedophiles to march in Pride marches, would do for safeguarding frameworks and indeed for treatment that aims to reduce offending.
My position is that it would do nothing for either, in fact it would increase harm to children by normalising fantasies about child molestation and by putting state power behind paedophile grooming tactics. It would dismantle safeguarding frameworks in a similar way that transactivism is already doing, and it would make it near impossible for victims to discuss what was being done to them without them being accused of “paedophobia”.
"We need to circle right back to the existing laws that prevent paedophiles from marrying children, that allow employers to refuse to employ paedophiles in jobs that bring them in close contact with children and that allow us all to be concerned about paedophiles manipulating their way into easier access to victims without making us guilty of a ”hate crime”, in the same way that we are circling back to the sex exemptions under the Equality Act that prevent men from entering women-only spaces.
The laws that safeguard children from paedophiles, and allow LGBT+ community to exclude paedophiles, are here because the danger of not having these safeguards has been clearly established in our society, and yes with studies and “empirical evidence”. So why are certain people ignoring the reasons these laws already exist? Why are they focusing discussion on portraying (potential) perpetrators of sexual crimes as “victims”? Why are they calling for empathy toward paedophiles while accusing people who focus on protecting their victims of “moral panic”? We have plenty of historical evidence that paedophile rights activism has always done this, and it has been repelled each time because it was proven to be dangerous, so what makes this iteration any different?"
lascapigliata8.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/what-is-wrong-with-child-sex-dolls-and-why-p-should-not-be-a-part-of-lgbt/