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

@YetAnotherSpartacus

It was a literature review. AW was reviewing the literature to see what it said about the topic. Literature reviews are meant to be neutral.

My point is that what AW said has been wildly twisted.

I've skim-read the thesis and whereas there are elements of it I disagree with I also think that the reporting of it has been really skewed.

There’s nothing neutral about not addressing the extreme bias in a term like predisposed individuals.

If the literature review was about cisgendered individuals it would be reasonable for the reviewer to acknowledge that it’s a highly divisive and controversial term that implies belief in innate gendered identities, and that the reviewer is neither agreeing nor disagreeing by referring to the term cisgender within the literature review.

The neutral thing would be to express something similar about the term predisposed individuals. Not doing so implies agreement and that is most definitely not neutral.

Do we seek to understand why other RAPE attracted men are ‘predisposed’ or ‘wired that way’

I have no idea. I haven't read the recent research on rape or why men rape.

AW is not advocating for the 'predisposed' or 'wired that way' thesis by the way. The word appears once in the thesis in the context of that quote.

If the literature review was about cisgendered individuals it would be reasonable for the reviewer to acknowledge that it’s a highly divisive and controversial term that implies belief in innate gendered identities, and that the reviewer is neither agreeing nor disagreeing by referring to the term cisgender within the literature review.

Personally, if the word was in a quote and it wasn't the immediate topic of interest (as it wasn't in that quote taken from another article).

My main point is that AW was not (as far as I can see and I have only skim read it) advocating the use of porn, high quality or otherwise in the thesis (I can't speak for the book because I have not read that).

What was interesting to me in the chapter called. “Am I a Monster” was not the author’s term MAP or any other euphemism the author wrote, it was what the interviewed

people said about themselves. These particular people in this chapter are not speaking about acting on their twisted feelings in any form. They consider themselves to be all wrong.
I don’t know how the book continues though.

I would be interested to know what rapists of adults think too and anything in their development from child to adult.

Not knowing won’t make them go away.

Not knowing won’t make them go away

Exactly.

Probably in a similar way to the thesis.

academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2285/

I'm shocked that AW has been put on leave. This is just more evidence of a cancel culture in academia driven by a mob who probably hasn't even read the book or thesis!

Walker book is entitled: 'A Long Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity'

A. Walker uses the term MAP, not paedophile. B. That seems like a very sympathetic title to me.

I cannot comment on Walker's thesis. But the title of the book seems a clear attempt to rebrand and destigmatise. Do you disagree @YetAnotherSpartacus and @ScrollingLeaves?

I cannot comment on Walker's thesis. But the title of the book seems a clear attempt to rebrand and destigmatise. Do you disagree

I'm not going to give a yes or a no - why don't you read the thesis and make your own mind up?

I've read the first few pages. I have no sympathy for men who want to sexually assault and rape children. That's what you're defending.

Do you think we should have understanding and support groups for men who would very much enjoy raping and hurting women? Do you feel they too are unfairly stigmatised?

@ScrollingLeaves

What was interesting to me in the chapter called. “Am I a Monster” was not the author’s term MAP or any other euphemism the author wrote, it was what the interviewed people said about themselves. These particular people in this chapter are not speaking about acting on their twisted feelings in any form. They consider themselves to be all wrong. I don’t know how the book continues though.

I would be interested to know what rapists of adults think too and anything in their development from child to adult.

Not knowing won’t make them go away.

Knowing won’t make them go away.

Nothing will make them go away.

What helps protect children is robust safeguards, unambiguous language and harsher sentences for those involved in any aspect of it, from viewing images of abuse to hands on abuse.

What won’t help children be safeguarded and what doesn’t help those of us who have been victims is minimising it by claiming it’s an attraction and they can’t help being wired that way.

The horror is there isn’t enough horror.

This is the dedication.
I'm glad she's been suspended. I don't think people who defend paedophiles should be teaching young people.

Clymene, I'm not answering your questions because you haven't read the whole thesis and you are attempting to back me into a corner.

I do think that a young person, young man or older man or anyone else who desires therapy for whatever inappropriate sexual urges they have, including those that are dangerous to others, should be encouraged to seek therapy if they wish to stop having these urges. I also think that treatment should happen as early as possible.

But I also think that journalists should report accurately and mobs should fact-check before they leap baying for blood into the fray (and that obviously goes for those who seek to twist and distort what GC feminists are saying).

Signing off now.

What won’t help children be safeguarded and what doesn’t help those of us who have been victims is minimising it by claiming it’s an attraction and they can’t help being wired that way

And AW is not saying that.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

What won’t help children be safeguarded and what doesn’t help those of us who have been victims is minimising it by claiming it’s an attraction and they can’t help being wired that way

And AW is not saying that.

AW is using the term MAP of her own accord, in the title.

That’s massively minimising and ambiguous.

That leaves more children at risk.

Right. Well that was a really useful conversation

I have not suggested - and do not believe - that paedophiles are not entitled to therapy. I've referenced on this thread or possibly the other one the Lucy Faithfull foundation more than once.

I have not read the thesis. I've read the first few pages of the book which I've been very clear about.

I do not believe men who find the idea of raping and sexually assaulting children erotic are any more worthy of respect than men who find the idea of raping and sexually assaulting women.

I can absolutely see why someone who believes in queer theory thinks they are. I don't believe it's a position that is compatible with being gender critical.

And AW says in that interview that MAPs don’t ask to be sexually attracted to children, which is very close to predisposed or wired that way etc.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

What won’t help children be safeguarded and what doesn’t help those of us who have been victims is minimising it by claiming it’s an attraction and they can’t help being wired that way

And AW is not saying that.

And AW is definitely calling it an attraction. It’s in her title.

What we do know is that is models based on holistic social support from non offenders do seem to reduce reoffending rates.

circlessoutheast.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/10-Year-Journal.pdf

I understand it is unpalatable to many to support offenders but it reduces the risk of further children being harmed.

Personally I don't think we know enough to understand with certainty why some people are sexually attracted to children.
There isn't even agreement about how many offenders are primarily sexually attracted to children and how many primarily to the sexual offense.

My chief concern with the academic in question is that the abuse of children seems to have been forgotten completely in wish to understand and support the sex offender. Which is both dangerous for dc and unhelpful for a group of offenders who struggle with accepting the damage of their actions.

So is what he is really saying that he is a paedophile who wants to be able to legally watch videos of children being sexually abused because paedophiles can't help their urges?

@IncompleteSenten

So is what he is really saying that he is a paedophile who wants to be able to legally watch videos of children being sexually abused because paedophiles can't help their urges?

She not he. (Biological female who id as non binary trans)

But no she’s not, not directly.

I’d think it’s really concerning that anyone wants to rebrand peadophilia though. I can’t image how anyone could possibly have good intentions to need to rebrand it something that minimises and dismisses it in this way.

My mother, despite working with abused children, was always highly compassionate to peadophiles in a similar vein.

She continually brought men into my life to abuse me, intentionally, knowingly handed me over to be raped, and at the very least played a part in distributing the images produced.

So anyone rebranding peadophile as an attraction, or suggesting some don’t act on it (including using images of abuse in acting on it) would send red flags off to me.

The dedication @Clymene posted reads a lot like the bs my mother would spout socially, and be fawned over for, so imho more red flags.

• or they/them.

Wasn’t meant to misgender, just to be clear about the sex of AW.

Please don’t delete MN, edit if needed

[quote BloodinGutters]@Kanaloa

Feminism doesn’t need to have a solution to help predators not offend. Appealing to female socialisation to fix males who are violent isn’t going to work on a feminist board.

Feminism would say it’s men’s responsibility to fix violent and predatory men. Feminism would focus on having strong boundaries to protect women and girls, hearing and amplifying women’s voices about our experience at the hands of men, robust safeguards to protect us.

(I’m beginning to think I should just repeat this on every post i make. What should be the obvious on a feminist board doesn’t seem to be to some posters)[/quote]
I wasn’t suggesting feminism should be about using female socialisation to stop men offending.

I was simply stating that childish shouts of ‘no we shouldn’t talk about paedophilia! They’re all bad men, they should be sent to an island where we can beat them up! Yucky yuck I don’t want to talk about it!!!’ Is unhelpful and makes you sound stupid.

I was expressing disappointment that a conversation that could be helpful and interesting (in the case of this thesis which could have opened a discussion on solutions for paedophila could be had) was ruined as the professor decided to express their views as a paedophile apologist.

It may not be a pleasant subject but it’s one that people need to be able to look at and talk about.

And yes, perhaps it is men’s responsibility to fix these issues. Perhaps we should just sit quietly and not make a fuss until they do so.

The sheer numbers of children who will experience sexual abuse from somewhere is important as well.
From memory around 1 in 11 kids. I used to think about that when I picked up dc from school, two kids in their class and every other class in the school would experience a sexually abusive incident as a minimum.

@Kanaloa

You seem to have missed the point again.

This is the feminist board, not the place for understanding why men rape women. It is the place for focusing on women’s and children’s safeguards. If we focused on that then we wouldn’t need to carry the emotional labour of men never addressing male violence.

Yes it is most definitely stupid that so many on a feminism board don’t understand this basic tenet of feminism and seek to centre the needs of men in discussion here.

[quote BloodinGutters]@Kanaloa

You seem to have missed the point again.

This is the feminist board, not the place for understanding why men rape women. It is the place for focusing on women’s and children’s safeguards. If we focused on that then we wouldn’t need to carry the emotional labour of men never addressing male violence.

Yes it is most definitely stupid that so many on a feminism board don’t understand this basic tenet of feminism and seek to centre the needs of men in discussion here.[/quote]
Then why has this been posted? We’re supposed to discuss a trans Professor writing about paedophilia without discussing paedophilia as an issue? Right.