Trans professor is placed on leave after interview defending pedophiles

[PandorasMailbox]

Oh dear, how very sad.

Don't let them back in!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10210713/Trans-professor-placed-leave-controversially-defending-pedophiles.html#comments

@CheeseMmmm

The very concept that those with an apparently unstoppable urge to sexually assault/ rape small children is being seen as something stigmatised is a huge and dangerous shift.

It's easy not to sexually assault or rape those you find attractive. Most people would just not dream of it.

That desire, to sexually violate, is not something that should be de-stigmatised. IE normalised, no longer seen as a bad thing.

Do we need another word for those with a strong desire to sexually violate?

Note in the piece about Germany they could not measure whether the approach was successful. They are hoping.

If a man doesn't want to attack a child then he won't. Same as men who don't have sex with women don't all go out and rape.

Sexuality is in no way connected to being a sex offender apart from in who they want to attack.

Nobody is saying it should be normalised. Just that there is a place for a conversation about whether it would help if these people could come forward and say ‘I have these feelings and thoughts’ and have options to seek help. If nothing else it would at least move the secrecy which many sexual abusers thrive in.

But absolutely nobody is saying it shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing.

Currently the term stigma is used an awful lot. And is seen as a bad thing. De-stigamatising is very important.

The word stigma in the current context does come with definite connotations.

Stigma is bad.
It results in discrimination and unfair treatment.
It's rooted in values from religion/ old fashioned views and that's obviously something to fight against.
Etc etc.

There is a massive context here that can't be ignored.

Stigma is sometimes good

@CheeseMmmm

Currently the term stigma is used an awful lot. And is seen as a bad thing. De-stigamatising is very important.

The word stigma in the current context does come with definite connotations.

Stigma is bad.
It results in discrimination and unfair treatment.
It's rooted in values from religion/ old fashioned views and that's obviously something to fight against.
Etc etc.

There is a massive context here that can't be ignored.

I totally agree. Along with “de-stigmatising”, there’s the concept of “shaming” someone that’s crept in over the last few years. Drawing attention to behaviour you consider unacceptable, intolerable, unethical, dangerous etc is viewed as “shaming” someone - ie it’s WRONG to call out bad behaviour of any kind because you’re making the perpetrator of the behaviour you deem unacceptable feel uncomfortable. The perpetrator then becomes the victim of your “shaming”, and YOU become a “horrible person “ for making the perpetrator feel uncomfortable.

In the meantime, the behaviour/act gets lost or ignored or disregarded, the perpetrator feels entitled to continue, and the person who draws attention to the bad behaviour is shut down.

There are times when someone NEEDS to feel ashamed of their behaviour or of themselves, and their actions need attention - often urgently. Again, it’s about breaking down (necessary) boundaries and legitimising, on a moral level, the perpetrator’s behaviour.

@FrancescaContini
Re: the words ‘stigma’ and ‘shame’ losing their meaning

Now that, through the modern usage of the words, a ‘stigmatised’ or ‘shamed’ person
might be seen as poor victim who needs support rather than condemnation, can you think of a better, more forceful condemnatory word? This is a genuine question.

@Manderleyagain

The extracts from the thesis in the mail don't back up the claim that the academic advocates for paedophiles to watch child sex abuse pornography. It's a bit of a literature review describing how another academic has argued that, and then a bit describing the evidence for whether watching that kind of material leads to abuse of children (beyond the offence of watching it). If the thesis actually argued for this the mail would have shown it.

I don't agree with trying to de stigmatise or rebrand this at all, but I don't think the mail & others misrepresenting what the person has actually argued is helpful. It's dangerous actually. I suspect dodgy motives of anyone trying to destigmstise, but my objections are on instinct, queesiness and moral grounds, not empirical ones because I have no knowledge. The question of how to treat paedophiles so as to reduce their offending is an empirical one so it's right that some researchers look into it. I now distrust any 'queering' type research methods because they often seem to like breaking down boundaries as if that's good in itself, but I think this area does need someone researching it.

The uni employed them knowing their publications, research area and the kind I thing they argue (eg the thesis). They should either stand by their employee on academic freedom grounds, or should never have employed someone working in this area in the first place. I would imagine their safety is now at risk, but I don't think the worst charges are warranted. The uni distancing itself from the lecturer leaves them more at risk imo.

Thank god for the voice of reason. This is a great post @Manderleyagain.

[quote ScrollingLeaves]@FrancescaContini
Re: the words ‘stigma’ and ‘shame’ losing their meaning

Now that, through the modern usage of the words, a ‘stigmatised’ or ‘shamed’ person
might be seen as poor victim who needs support rather than condemnation, can you think of a better, more forceful condemnatory word? This is a genuine question.[/quote]
Perhaps you have misunderstood my post - I really dislike the way the word “shaming” is thrown back on the accuser as if he/she is wrong for calling attention to a perpetrator’s behaviour. Do you mean - can I think of a different word for what the accuser does, or for what the perpetrator feels?

FrancescaContini
I may have misunderstood.
Somewhere earlier I said that it is good that paedophilia is stigmatised and considered shameful.

Then CheeseMmmm said stigma was the wrong word because a ‘stigma’ suggests an unfounded societal prejudice. Then she or you seemed to be saying that ‘shaming’ puts the accuser rather than the shamed one in a bad light.

Hence I was wondering what words can be used to say something is completely outlawed, despised etc in our society.

@Wheresmywoolyjumpers 10.56
I agree that you have made a very reasonable argument.

@BloodinGutters

This is the person so many are defending the views of on the other thread.

Because the poor peados didn’t ask to be ‘sexually attracted’ to children and it must be so hard to have these urges and not use images of abuse or touch kids, but be unable to go to gp to get help for their ‘affliction’ because stigma. So we need ‘disease’ rebranding to help them cope with their urges.

Because sexual urge is paramount above all else in life. That's a very male attitude to desire.

@ScrollingLeaves

FrancescaContini I may have misunderstood. Somewhere earlier I said that it is good that paedophilia is stigmatised and considered shameful.

Then CheeseMmmm said stigma was the wrong word because a ‘stigma’ suggests an unfounded societal prejudice. Then she or you seemed to be saying that ‘shaming’ puts the accuser rather than the shamed one in a bad light.

Hence I was wondering what words can be used to say something is completely outlawed, despised etc in our society.

Yes, I was saying that re the word “shaming” - which is why I don’t like it. The accuser is “told off” for “shaming “ the perpetrator - when this happens, the accuser is then castigated for causing the perpetrator to feel “shame”.

Too bloody right the perpetrator should feel ashamed.

AW wants to reposition paedophilia as a type of sexuality. I don't think a university should have have employed them in the first place. But I agree their views must have been known.

I also don't know why anyone is surprised the DM is sensationalising the story. It's been their modus operandi for years.

From the Guardian 2017, and the numbers will have escalated in the last four years.

A “horrifying” number of people in the UK are looking at images of child abuse online, according to one of the country’s leading police officers.

Dave Thompson, the chief constable of West Midlands police, told the Commons home affairs select committee that society at large needs to discuss the issue, which is about much more than law enforcement. I am staggered by what I see in terms of the operations the force carries out on the peer-to-peer sharing of images and more sensitive covert policing techniques we carry out,” he said. “The amount of men in this country who appear to show an active interest in this area is horrifying and the scale of it, I think, takes my breath away.”

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/24/police-chief-number-of-uk-child-abuse-voyeurs-horrifying

There are evidently a huge number of paedophiles in our midst ( even if they don’t all act on it outside their pornography viewing).

ScrollingLeaves although that is awful, I'm not surprised.
I don't think there's anything special about paedophiles. I don't think there is a paedophile gene, or a paedophile chemical imbalance, or even a paedophile sexuality.

I think, and I don't care how Daily Mail it may sound, that these men are just cruel and evil. There's no "beating a dog to death" sexuality, yet men seem to do that quite often too.

Paedophilia/child sex abuse is rightly seen as a particularly heinous crime, but as I mentioned earlier I have read the number one risk factor is overcrowding in the home. Girls (the vast majority of victims) who don't have privacy, who share rooms or beds with men and boys.

I think it's almost a comfort to assume paedophiles are particularly clever or sneaky. They do groom children, and their parents too, but they aren't tortured geniuses, they're just criminals looking for an opportunity. Some criminals climb in an open window, others spend years planning a heist. Still the same thing.

We spend a lot of time as a society looking at serial killers as if they are all particularly clever or interesting too, when in actual fact most of the time they are openly misogynist, tell the police how much they hate women, and go uncaught for years through luck, incompetence and a lack of concern for their victims (often prostituted women etc).

I admit there might be some value in studying paedophiles but how many studies do we do until we work out they're just fucking evil and they do it because they can?

I have read the number one risk factor is overcrowding in the home. Girls (the vast majority of victims) who don't have privacy, who share rooms or beds with men and boys.*

I have done regular training on risk factors for child sexual abuse over the last 20 years and have literally never heard this mentioned. Poor boundaries sure, but lack of space - no.

I admit there might be some value in studying paedophiles but how many studies do we do until we work out they're just fucking evil and they do it because they can?

You dont really see the value if you can reduce it to that. Many offenders are just looking for someone vulnerable to hurt. And I am not sure any research will be able to stop that, unless it is about how law enforcement notices people sooner. But how does 'evil' explain the sexually abused 13 year old who goes on to abuse others (average age of first offence)? And why most abuse victims don't go on to abuse others? Or how to stop people with these urges carrying them out (which a sizable number manage). If there is a chance of stopping this, then we should throw research money at it.

Wheresmywoolyjumpers I'll try to find the source. I am not saying there's no value, and yes of course it's worth researching, but I get frustrated with what looks like justification. And frankly a 13 year old is capable of doing wrong, knowingly. I accept that in some cases the individual might have had a horrendous start (someone like BK in Ireland for example) but I don't even think victims make up a large percentage of those who go on to offend. (I'll try to find that too).

[quote PandorasMailbox]Oh dear, how very sad.

Don't let them back in!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10210713/Trans-professor-placed-leave-controversially-defending-pedophiles.html#comments[/quote]
I believe that being a attracted to children is a form of sexuality, it's who them find appealing despite it being absolutely heinous and disgusting.
So I do think there need to be some form of treatment and find a way to target the offenders before it takes place, some way to spot the indicators because they won't ever stop so there has to be a way ether it be through some form of therapy or keep them in a community and ban from being close to children obviously.

Sexuality is which sex a person is attracted to, children are not a sex so obviously it can’t be a sexuality @Mumoftwo1990

I don’t think anyone still rattling on about targeting them before the offend has read the thread.

Have you met a 13 year old boy in this generation that isn’t exposed to porn already? Those who get excited by the thought of raping little kids use images of child abuse as porn. Images of child abuse is offending. We are real children on the other end of that.

“RedCarpetRebellion
Sexuality is which sex a person is attracted to, children are not a sex so obviously it can’t be a sexuality @Mumoftwo1990”

Isn’t it a deviant sexuality though? A paedophile might still have a preference within that deviant sexuality for either girls or boys, or both.

In a way it is a moot point, in that whatever it is it is an outrage against humanity to hurt children this way.

Definition of paedophilia from the organisation Stop It Now:

“What is ‘paedophilia’?

The tenth edition of the International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (ICD-10) classifies paedophilia as a disorder of sexual preference. A disorder of sexual preference involves unusual sexual urges and fantasies that are strong and recurrent, and which lead the person to act out the urges or be distressed by them.”

Sexuality =sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation does not equal sexual preference, including deviant ones.

The difference matters because the map crowd are aiming for the same argument they pop up with every 10 yrs or so- that it’s just the same as homosexuality and we should stop being so phobic.

The distinction matters.

It isn’t an orientation in the same way homosexuality or heterosexuality is because it is deviant and disordered.

There is no way it can be considered equivalent. But if a paedophile has sexual feelings towards children I think they are orientated towards them in the literal sense (looking at them, thinking of them.)

I think ‘Philia’ used in the sexual context always denotes perversion and deviancy. So I hope MAP never takes over.

Speaking about rebranding.

It seems ‘sex offender’ has negative impact on those who are ‘sex offenders’. In Colorado they are to be ‘adults who commit sexual offences’.

twitter.com/bravojourno/status/1462563844677640193?s=21

You dont really see the value if you can reduce it to that. Many offenders are just looking for someone vulnerable to hurt. And I am not sure any research will be able to stop that, unless it is about how law enforcement notices people sooner. But how does 'evil' explain the sexually abused 13 year old who goes on to abuse others (average age of first offence)? And why most abuse victims don't go on to abuse others? Or how to stop people with these urges carrying them out (which a sizable number manage). If there is a chance of stopping this, then we should throw research money at it

Thank you for your voice of reason in saying this. I have highlighted the bits I see as the most important.

If there is a chance of stopping this, then we should throw research money at it.

Yes

Hence an earlier post of mine that got lost in the froth where I emphasised the importance of early intervention. This (and I suspect many other sexually inappropriate desires and behaviours) start relatively early in life around puberty and mainly in boys. We need to understand these and act to address them before they cause more damage to the individual and others.