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

I will see if I can get hold of the book and read it. I will not be paying for it though. @YetAnotherSpartacus, I agree that the cancel culture in academia needs to be stopped and this is the only reason I will read this book, to see for myself what the narrative is.

My personal view is that pedophiles should rot in jail until they die and then hopefully go to hell. I cannot find an ounce of understanding within myself for anyone who sexually abuses a child.

For anyone who has these urges but don’t act upon them, maybe there is help, maybe there isn’t. Castration is a first step (I believe this mostly are male perpetrators) in my opinion.

I do not believe in an increased general understanding and empathy for these people. I believe that society needs to enforce how utterly disgusting these urges are and that any acting upon them will destroy the life of the perpetrator, socially, financially and lead to unlimited jail. I believe that strong social boundaries and clear safeguarding is the only way to go. But I will try to read the book.

But all these breaking down of boundaries really pisses me off. Anything that threatens a child (or a vulnerable woman) is unacceptable. I don’t care about the mental health of the people who are the threat.

One if the reasons its been posted is that many GC thinkers were saying for quite a long time that Genderism is linked intimatly with Queer Theory, which does include the legitimatisation of Peodphillia, and were band from SM platforms including this one for saying it.

Sorry that was an answer to @Kanaloa question.

Kanaloa, I believe the discussion can have different focus. Like

a) what is it with all these erosion of boundaries from certain people? Why are women and children supposed to accept this? Why are we supposed to accept the erosion of boundaries as a society? How can safeguarding help protect children in this case?

And

b) Why do these men do this? How can we help them to avoid acting upon their urges? How can society support them so they can live normal lives despite being sexually abuse pedophile creeps attracted to children.

I am all for discussing A and think it belongs on this board. B, not so much, just lock them up somewhere would suffice for me.

Whether or not the discussion should be on any specific board the numbers mean that just locking up every person who engages in the abuse of children either through contact or virtual viewing isn't possible.

So alternative solutions which keep children as safe as possible need to be sought.
These solutions need to be grounded in informed decision making.
But that decision making needs to center keeping children safe above validating dangerous adults.

There are no easy solutions but if we as woman want to engage in safeguarding our children we do need some understanding of how to do that effectively.
I don't think understanding and empathy are the same thing or need to be linked.

I think I do understand why they do it. Because the eroticisation of power makes children the ultimate thrill. They do it because they can, its that simple.

Again with the point missing @Kanaloa

the numbers mean that just locking up every person who engages in the abuse of children either through contact or virtual viewing isn't possible

That seems defeatist to me. I'd pay extra taxes to lock them up.

Ultimately it's a choice, and choices have repercussions. Once we start seeing it as a compulsion we start to feel sympathy. I don't see it as a compulsion, nobody is compelled to abuse. It is their choice to do so.

b) Why do these men do this? How can we help them to avoid acting upon their urges? How can society support them so they can live normal lives despite being sexually abuse pedophile creeps attracted to children.

I am all for discussing A and think it belongs on this board. B, not so much, just lock them up somewhere would suffice for me.

Agree. We can focus on why they do it but it doesn't change anything. We can't stop them by appealing to their better nature. It's not like someone rapes a baby and doesn't understand what they are doing. It's that they don't care.

@Fariha31

I think I do understand why they do it. Because the eroticisation of power makes children the ultimate thrill. They do it because they can, its that simple.

This ^^

@FlyingOink

the numbers mean that just locking up every person who engages in the abuse of children either through contact or virtual viewing isn't possible

That seems defeatist to me. I'd pay extra taxes to lock them up.

Ultimately it's a choice, and choices have repercussions. Once we start seeing it as a compulsion we start to feel sympathy. I don't see it as a compulsion, nobody is compelled to abuse. It is their choice to do so.

It’s not about locking up or not locking up or chemical castrations or therapy.

The reality is the tiny % we know about, who we only know about once they have at the very least been caught for viewing images of abuse if not directly abusing a child themselves, is a tiny % of the numbers of peadophiles out there.

So it’s not about what we do or don’t do to them, it’s about safeguards that protect all women and children from that tiny % and all the other peadophiles out there who will never get caught.

@FlyingOink

b) Why do these men do this? How can we help them to avoid acting upon their urges? How can society support them so they can live normal lives despite being sexually abuse pedophile creeps attracted to children.

I am all for discussing A and think it belongs on this board. B, not so much, just lock them up somewhere would suffice for me.

Agree. We can focus on why they do it but it doesn't change anything. We can't stop them by appealing to their better nature. It's not like someone rapes a baby and doesn't understand what they are doing. It's that they don't care.

For god’s sake nobody is suggesting we offer back massages and head pats to men raping babies. It’s just so ridiculous to say stuff like that.

Obviously what I was suggesting is that I believe there’s a space for those who have these issues or urges to speak out so they can be watched and possibly given options.

@verymiddleaged

Whether or not the discussion should be on any specific board the numbers mean that just locking up every person who engages in the abuse of children either through contact or virtual viewing isn't possible.

So alternative solutions which keep children as safe as possible need to be sought.
These solutions need to be grounded in informed decision making.
But that decision making needs to center keeping children safe above validating dangerous adults.

There are no easy solutions but if we as woman want to engage in safeguarding our children we do need some understanding of how to do that effectively.
I don't think understanding and empathy are the same thing or need to be linked.

AWs dedication is very empathetic though.

@Kanaloa

1. Like everyone keeps saying that already exists.

2. Rebranding in no way incases the likelihood they will access it. In fact it makes it less likely, because removing stigma removes the barriers they have to over come to justify their perversion to themselves and begin acting on it. So in other words you might as well open the door to them.

3. Rebranding does harm children because it does obfuscate and that harms the boundaries of children who will be easier for predators to target.

4. Because fantasising is what’s used to masterbate to and because images of abuse are used to fuel that, there is no such thing as a non offending peadophile. The images they will be using are abuse, and they start that at the same ages other boys are accessing porn full of adults.

Obviously what I was suggesting is that I believe there’s a space for those who have these issues or urges to speak out so they can be watched and possibly given options.

Options?

Which options would you give to someone who is telling you they want to commit a crime? Not because they're skint and need money, but because they're horny?

Please don't pathologise or medicalise sex crime. I don't even agree with your use of the word "urge". That suggests compulsion.

Who would be compelled to do something universally thought of as heinous? Where's the peer pressure or the glamourisation of paedophilia?

There isn't any. Men who do this, who abuse children or who watch children being abused and create a market for filmed or photographed abuse, are not slaves to their colossal libidos.

They are criminals breaking the law, in the full knowledge that the public support laws against paedophiles. Why give them the excuse that they are wired that way or compelled to do it or that is their natural sexuality - that suggests paedophilia is similar to homosexuality, and is abhorrent.

So it’s not about what we do or don’t do to them, it’s about safeguards that protect all women and children from that tiny % and all the other peadophiles out there who will never get caught.

I agree, I'd rather keep a baby away from rats than try to kill every rat on earth.
However if you look at the sentences men are getting for downloading child sex abuse images and videos, those sentences are getting really light. Very often non-custodial. And lots of "poor man, he's learned his lesson, he just got carried away".
We can focus on safeguarding and still take sex crimes seriously. Especially things like downloading this stuff. It's not even a "he said, she said" thing. There is an electronic paper trail proving what they did. Often there is evidence of having goaded other men on or swapping material etc. And they still get a slap on the wrist.

@FlyingOink

So it’s not about what we do or don’t do to them, it’s about safeguards that protect all women and children from that tiny % and all the other peadophiles out there who will never get caught.

I agree, I'd rather keep a baby away from rats than try to kill every rat on earth.
However if you look at the sentences men are getting for downloading child sex abuse images and videos, those sentences are getting really light. Very often non-custodial. And lots of "poor man, he's learned his lesson, he just got carried away".
We can focus on safeguarding and still take sex crimes seriously. Especially things like downloading this stuff. It's not even a "he said, she said" thing. There is an electronic paper trail proving what they did. Often there is evidence of having goaded other men on or swapping material etc. And they still get a slap on the wrist.

Oh absolutely for those caught there needs to be much much harsher sentences. Just that it doesn’t come close to ‘fixing’ the problem. And there seems to be some debate about therapeutic approach being more helpful or more severe approach needed. But that debate is somewhat redundant in that it doesn’t fix the problem, because the problem will always be much larger than the tiny % who have already offended.

Those that are caught should most definitely face very harsh sentences. But that won’t fix all those not caught, it won’t deter them, but rebranding won’t either, in fact it facilitates their abuse of children.

The only thing that can ‘fix’ any of it is to have much stronger, clearer boundaries and safeguards.

The harsher punishments should be for justice, not as an illusion it’s fixing anything.

@BloodinGutters you are right the dedication is very empathetic. It certainly isn't something I could imagine writing.

It is possible for someone to be a criminal breaking the law and also someone driven by a compulsion.
The compulsion may be driven by a wish to misuse power rather than sexual attraction but it is still a compulsion.

Not every child sex offender will be driven by strong compulsions but every one of them will have overcome however briefly the internal mental barriers to offending because their desire for gratification was stronger.

These people need effectively managed and I'm unconvinced that it is sensible to just leave it to blokes to do.

I completely agree that the viewing of indecent images of children is taken far too lightly by the courts, to the point where it is actually hard for child protection social workers to protect physical children who have contact with these men.

@FlyingOink

Obviously what I was suggesting is that I believe there’s a space for those who have these issues or urges to speak out so they can be watched and possibly given options.

Options?

Which options would you give to someone who is telling you they want to commit a crime? Not because they're skint and need money, but because they're horny?

Please don't pathologise or medicalise sex crime. I don't even agree with your use of the word "urge". That suggests compulsion.

Who would be compelled to do something universally thought of as heinous? Where's the peer pressure or the glamourisation of paedophilia?

There isn't any. Men who do this, who abuse children or who watch children being abused and create a market for filmed or photographed abuse, are not slaves to their colossal libidos.

They are criminals breaking the law, in the full knowledge that the public support laws against paedophiles. Why give them the excuse that they are wired that way or compelled to do it or that is their natural sexuality - that suggests paedophilia is similar to homosexuality, and is abhorrent.

I’ve explained upthread what I mean by options. I saw a documentary of one man who was having chemical castration as he hoped it would ‘cure’ him. Another chose to make himself known to the people in his community and the local doctors and police.

I’m obviously disgusted by the thesis’ suggestion of allowing these people to watch child sexual abuse as I feel this is the total opposite of what needs to be done.

I have at no point suggested it is similar to homosexuality, but I instead feel it’s similar to a mental illness. The action is abhorrent but there is no point saying ‘throw them all away on an island.’ Firstly it’s unrealistic, and secondly it suggests that a person needs to offend before they are thrown away. I was only suggesting that it’s a shame this professor has chosen to come down on the side of paedophile apologists instead of conducting some actual research into what can be done for prevention.

Not every child sex offender will be driven by strong compulsions but every one of them will have overcome however briefly the internal mental barriers to offending because their desire for gratification was stronger.

Yes I agree, hence the Bancroft reference in either this thread or the other one about the same topic. Their problem is that they see their wants as more important than anything or anyone else. Bancroft points out that abusers have this issue, and he also points out that abusers who have had therapy just learn a whole new vocabulary to talk about themselves and what they want, but fail to develop any empathy for anyone else.

Who would be compelled to do something universally thought of as heinous? Where's the peer pressure or the glamourisation of paedophilia?

And yes this is easy to say, as any normal decent person would never understand even thinking these thoughts for a second.

But as we sadly know some people obviously do have these thoughts. All I was suggesting is that some good research into this and into prevention would have been much more useful than a thesis suggesting the solution is to allow ‘high quality child pornography’ eg encourage more sexual abuse of children.

Kanaloa

Chemical castration was abandoned in prisons because a lot of the sex offenders taking what we know as puberty blockers decided to transition. I've also read that offenders fail to comply with the medication regime.

I don't trust someone who abuses children to take medication regularly, especially if there are side effects. Also, as we know from the existence of male sex offenders who are postoperative or who are on female hormones, making it more difficult or even impossible to achieve an erection doesn't stop offending.

I instead feel it’s similar to a mental illness

Possibly something akin to sociopathy, but there are diagnosed sociopaths who learn how to relate to others (even if they never "feel" it, if that makes sense) and even those people with a diagnosed difficulty in empathising with others have free will.
It's a choice. Either it's a choice that is culturally despised or it's a choice that we make excuses for. Either way it's a choice to commit sex crimes against children.

For what it's worth, when I was a student I knew someone who told me that he was sexually attracted to children (boys and girls but I think more girls) who were just starting puberty. He said that he had started to be attracted to same age boys in the communal showers when he was that age himself, and that as he grew older, he retained his attraction to that age group. He was also attracted to adults of both sexes to varying degrees but at that stage of his life had not had any sexual relationships.
In those days men had to go to some effort to get hold of porn (by which I mean porn of women). I honestly don't believe he used porn of any kind. He said that he felt bad about feeling that attraction, and would never act on it, but I think he did fantasise about it.
He thought that there might be a genetic element, as a member of the family had caught his father using child pornography.
I gathered that there were one or two instances in the past of men behaving badly with him - he mentioned an incident with a scoutmaster which was sexual but at the mild end of that.
He was an emotional, gentle and kind man but I do wonder whether he has managed to stay away from pornography as it has become more accessible.

@user7377

For what it's worth, when I was a student I knew someone who told me that he was sexually attracted to children (boys and girls but I think more girls) who were just starting puberty. He said that he had started to be attracted to same age boys in the communal showers when he was that age himself, and that as he grew older, he retained his attraction to that age group. He was also attracted to adults of both sexes to varying degrees but at that stage of his life had not had any sexual relationships. In those days men had to go to some effort to get hold of porn (by which I mean porn of women). I honestly don't believe he used porn of any kind. He said that he felt bad about feeling that attraction, and would never act on it, but I think he did fantasise about it. He thought that there might be a genetic element, as a member of the family had caught his father using child pornography. I gathered that there were one or two instances in the past of men behaving badly with him - he mentioned an incident with a scoutmaster which was sexual but at the mild end of that. He was an emotional, gentle and kind man but I do wonder whether he has managed to stay away from pornography as it has become more accessible.

Was he named Humbert Humbert?