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

That's not how porn works.

How many experts have said that viewing porn is a key factor in going on to commit sexual offences?

It's fuel, not a diversion. It escalates urges and provides ideas.

Apart from everything else and I know before I read all the thread that pp will have already said similar - but the bloody phrase 'child pornography'! There is no such thing and I can only think that anyone who still writes or says it instead of 'child abuse' does so with intent.
I remember when I first saw those infamous clips of PIE and thinking how utterly ridiculous and that these vile abusers wouldn't have the audacity to even consider a pr campaign in this day and age, but this is the second thread in 2 days on the topic - albeit separate situation.
Completely disgusting and not that I think they have a chance in hell but I don't want to hear any argument that is in any way pro peado.
I find it very difficult to believe that even the smallest minority of men who claim to want to be rehabilitated, can be.

How is it that we have got to a situation in the West where someone can write a PHD thesis that suggests viewing "child pornography" can lessen instances of child sexual abuse, without realising that the very act of creating that "child pornography" involves instances of child sexual abuse?

How? Did no-one point out this extraordinary error in thinking? How the hell was this person awarded a PhD? And a book deal?!

It is like saying that murderers can control their urge to kill by watching "engrossing and high quality" snuff films!

Christ on a bike, wheel me out of here. We are doomed if this level of stupidity, or sneaky moral murkiness, is reaching academic publication without anyone picking up on it.

@SocialConnection

That's not how porn works.

How many experts have said that viewing porn is a key factor in going on to commit sexual offences?

It's fuel, not a diversion. It escalates urges and provides ideas.

And legitimises them.

@PickAChew

It baffles me how calling them "minor attracted persons" destigmatises anyone. It spells out how warped and sleazy they are in plain English.

I think minor obscures what it really is. Most people think 16-17yos.

They should call themselves "child attracted persons".

arguing that pedophiles should be permitted to view child pornography as a 'harm reduction technique' or 'form of therapy' to help pedophiles 'maintain abstinence from sexual contact with children.'

So what they're actually saying is to help stop paedophiles sexually abusing children they should be allowed to watch others sexually abusing children 🤔😳

@IntermittentParps

Demonizing and stigmatising child sex abuse is our natural instinct but it doesn't help us identify who does these things, how to treat or deal with them criminally, it just drives this further underground and into the darker recesses of the internet where it is flourishing extensively. I can't disagree with this, uncomfortable as it is. Just calling it 'evil', too, makes it something 'other' and that cannot and should not be understood, which I'm not sure is the best approach.

I'm not convinced this prevents child abuse/paedophilia in anyway, or makes them more inclined to see a psychiatrist

I hope they feel as bad as possible, frankly

The professor needs to be fired. I am suspicious of anyone agreeing with her. You’re basically advocating for pedophiles to have access to children being abused for their sexual gratification.

It’s always about men getting sexual access isn’t it! At the very centre of all this is about men’s access to sex.

They are pedophiles whether they abuse or not. They can go jump off of a cliff with this whole map nonsense.

I am absolutely disgusted that people even have the nerve to suggest that pedophiles feelings should be taken into consideration so they don’t feel shamed.

No they should feel ashamed! It’s shameful and disgusting to want to harm a child. Call it by its name please! It’s child sexual abuse, and child rape and no matter how you try to pretty it up, change the words for it.. no it is Absolutely wrong. It’s vile, it’s evil and these chidlren do not deserve this ever!

I’m sick to death of people throwing children under the bus for the feelings of perverts! I don’t give a damn if these men never have their sexual urges met.

Sex is not a life requirement and guess what.. if you can’t find a consenting ADULT, then you’re going to have to just be an incel. You will be fine. You won’t die from not having sex.

The professor seems to be ignorant of the entire marketing and advertising industry - which spends millions showing us filmed images of products to make us desperate to go out and get our hands on them.
Why would images of child abuse be the only exception to this effect?

The idea that paedophiles can find a ‘safe’ outlet with child dolls and pornography may be flawed even in principle. Use of these things may well just grow the physiological sexual responses to children.

In anger -management for example, it is no longer considered right to punch pillows for relief. The first thing required rather is a stepping back, even for a few seconds, so the prefrontal cortex can take over; and daily quietening and relaxation through a sort of meditation is also recommended.

Anyway, unless the child pornography is made with animations it would entail harm to children. And even if there were animations real modelling might be used.

*They are pedophiles whether they abuse or not. They can go jump off of a cliff with this whole map nonsense.

I am absolutely disgusted that people even have the nerve to suggest that pedophiles feelings should be taken into consideration so they don’t feel shamed.*

Nobody is saying that this person is right in anything they’ve said - their opinions and tones sound massively dangerous. However, responses like this are a bit immature and childish. It’s like saying ‘I don’t care hang them all!’ How will that stop them from offending? It won’t. However, a move towards being able to go to the gp and say you feel like this might save even just one child from being abused. The problem with ‘we don’t need to know why they do it, they can all just jump off a cliff’ is that it doesn’t prevent child abuse, it’s just burying your head in the sand.

Again, not paedophile sympathy. As a mum it disgusts me to my absolute core. However, if there is a paedophile next door I’d rather I knew they were one than it was a secret.

However, responses like this are a bit immature and childish. It’s like saying ‘I don’t care hang them all!’ How will that stop them from offending? It won’t. However, a move towards being able to go to the gp and say you feel like this might save even just one child from being abused.

They can go to the GP anonymously if they feel guilty. Destigmatising such a thing makes the other ones think "I can't help it" or "it's not so bad" or think they'll be forgiven

Who cares how they feel? This empathy should be directed at the victims of such people. Being nice won't stop them.

A fair few do deserve to be killed, don't see what's childish about that.

Easy to dismiss but imagine witnessing or hearing the testimony of an abuse survivor, or hearing the stories of children who don't even survive, then tell me these people just can't help it and deserve a kind ear. These people are gross

Sorry meant to add- the "maps" even if they don't actively harm a child themselves get off on seeing it being done by others. The only reason they aren't doing it is fear of the consequences, not that they're any better

It's easy to suggest compassion when you're just thinking abstractly about this. And the reason people are able to disassociate is because of stupid phrases like "map"

@ScrollingLeaves

The idea that paedophiles can find a ‘safe’ outlet with child dolls and pornography may be flawed even in principle. Use of these things may well just grow the physiological sexual responses to children.

In anger -management for example, it is no longer considered right to punch pillows for relief. The first thing required rather is a stepping back, even for a few seconds, so the prefrontal cortex can take over; and daily quietening and relaxation through a sort of meditation is also recommended.

Anyway, unless the child pornography is made with animations it would entail harm to children. And even if there were animations real modelling might be used.

Yep ^^

Men hitting punching bag to ‘release’ anger just teaches them to associate aggression with hitting an inanimate object. Which makes it more likely they will beat their partners, not less.

@MarshmallowSwede

The professor needs to be fired. I am suspicious of anyone agreeing with her. You’re basically advocating for pedophiles to have access to children being abused for their sexual gratification.

It’s always about men getting sexual access isn’t it! At the very centre of all this is about men’s access to sex.

They are pedophiles whether they abuse or not. They can go jump off of a cliff with this whole map nonsense.

I am absolutely disgusted that people even have the nerve to suggest that pedophiles feelings should be taken into consideration so they don’t feel shamed.

No they should feel ashamed! It’s shameful and disgusting to want to harm a child. Call it by its name please! It’s child sexual abuse, and child rape and no matter how you try to pretty it up, change the words for it.. no it is Absolutely wrong. It’s vile, it’s evil and these chidlren do not deserve this ever!

I’m sick to death of people throwing children under the bus for the feelings of perverts! I don’t give a damn if these men never have their sexual urges met.

Sex is not a life requirement and guess what.. if you can’t find a consenting ADULT, then you’re going to have to just be an incel. You will be fine. You won’t die from not having sex.

Yes, all of this. Can we stop pretending that somehow on one hand men are masters of the universe but on the other hand completely beholden to their dicks? We don't change the world for opportunistic men. We call out the dangerous men for what they are and if they feel shame about that well that's a good thing.

@Kanaloa

*They are pedophiles whether they abuse or not. They can go jump off of a cliff with this whole map nonsense.

I am absolutely disgusted that people even have the nerve to suggest that pedophiles feelings should be taken into consideration so they don’t feel shamed.*

Nobody is saying that this person is right in anything they’ve said - their opinions and tones sound massively dangerous. However, responses like this are a bit immature and childish. It’s like saying ‘I don’t care hang them all!’ How will that stop them from offending? It won’t. However, a move towards being able to go to the gp and say you feel like this might save even just one child from being abused. The problem with ‘we don’t need to know why they do it, they can all just jump off a cliff’ is that it doesn’t prevent child abuse, it’s just burying your head in the sand.

Again, not paedophile sympathy. As a mum it disgusts me to my absolute core. However, if there is a paedophile next door I’d rather I knew they were one than it was a secret.

They already can go to gp and say that.

They don’t, because they like abusing little kids.

Rebranding it ‘map’ wont help anyone go to gps. It will reduce stigma to abusing children though, and so increase it.

The only thing that makes any difference is having firm safeguards. Rebrands reduce safeguards.

If the stigma around being a paedophile is removed then why would people who have these urges need to seek help for them any more?

@Bordois

If the stigma around being a paedophile is removed then why would people who have these urges need to seek help for them any more?

Excellent question. I'm sure this is what PIE and NAMBLA were pushing for all those years ago.

Actually-question for some of fwr more well read and reasoned posters:

In some of her books Alice Miller refers to a psychohistorian whose work shows that at one point in time (like centuries ago) it was believed children never remembered anything prior to 5 and because they didn’t remember it, there was no harm caused because of it. So it was routine that children were molested prior to this age. The psychohistorian whose work she quotes estimates that the vast majority of children were abused in early years. So no stigma=massively increased sexual abuse of little kids.

Anyone read her work or read the work of the psychohistorian?

I’d be interested in an informed perspective on his work, because I was only teen/very early 20s when I read Alice Millers work and don’t know it well enough to remember the details of psychohistorian literature.

Just lock the fucking perverts up and throw away the key - that'll stop them.

It won't, as they'll simply identify into prison populations of other vulnerable - and completely captive - people to abuse.

Queer theory obscures boundaries and consent so that safeguarding becomes impossible, and this applies even after convicted criminals are imprisoned.

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.

I look at this academic and the thing that springs to mind is that she was groomed. It feels instinctively so unnatural for a natal woman to be doing this work and arguing what she is and so that's where my mind goes. Her own boundaries and understanding of sexual relationships has been affected by something significant. I have no way of knowing if I'm right, but I'd bet a sizeable amount of money I am. It's not excusing what she's doing, I find it abhorrent, I just wonder how much her view of the world has been coloured by something significant that has disrupted her sense of what is ok and acceptable. This wouldn't be a feminist board if we didn't consider that.

Groomed as a young woman or child, I mean. Not groomed to be putting these views forward. I mean I think it likely that from a young age she might have been exposed to harmful male behaviour and simply not have a fully idea of what is normal and appropriate.

A lot of her book is available to read in the Amazon Look Inside feature. She says she's an abolitionist, which apparently means she wants to abolish the police and prisons and to reduce the role of courts. She says she used to be a social worker working with victims of sex crimes.