[quote DontLikeCrumpets]@264MyShirt
I realize I saw the reference to Cantor awhile ago elsewhere when the question was first raised whether KD's claim that Genspect was linked to paedophilia was true. Given that the answer to that question was so succinct and thorough I am posting it here as it clarifies what happened that created this unfortunate confusion:
"It's a weak link. Aaron Kimberly and Sasha Ayad, advisors of Genspect along with the member Stella O'Malley have all interviewed Michael Bailey, the author of The Man Who Would be Queen (Aaron's interview here and Sasha and Stella's interview here .
They've also interviewed Ray Blanchard (here and here .
Both Bailey and Blanchard are listed as supporters on the Virtuous Pedophiles about page (Wayback Machine link to that page here virped.org/our-supporters.html) Also listed is Cantor who wants to throw a parade for pedophiles who make the huge sacrifice of not abusing a child...). It seems like most mainstream sex researchers are on the destigmatize-pedophile-train, including Debra Soh who is also listed as a supporter."[/quote]
Thank you DontLikeCrumpets - that's really helpful!
(I searched for "Debra Soh who is also listed as a supporter" and found the original discussion on Ovarit, which was also useful.)
The nature of this "weak link" makes the whole thing even more bizarre.
Where it ends up is with "Virtuous Paedophiles" website - incredibly creepy-sounding and rather suspect.
Placing those two words next to each other will inevitably create a semantic link between "virtue" and "paedophilia", ie. not just making it sound like being sexually attracted to children is a good-thing but conditioning the brain to link the concept of "virtue" with "paedophilia". Not a million miles from the attempted "rebranding" of child molesters as "Kinds".
Even if the mental association does not go that far, there is also the suggestion that these are "good people" per se, which is obviously ridiculous. I am sure any parent would be glad to know that their child was not raped before being murdered but that hardly qualifies the murderer to be considered "virtuous", ie. if they confess that they wanted to rape as well as kill but kindly (!) restrained themselves from violating the child!
"Non-offending" would be a better description because it is objective and refers to actions, or lack of action.
I find it hard to trust the motives of a group of self-confessed paedophiles who set out their stall as being "virtuous" people.
It makes my skin crawl and I can't be the only one who feels this way, so it makes me wonder if that "branding" might be self-defeating?
However, if - BIG IF - their aim is genuinely to prevent children being abused and raped AND they achieve that aim, then that has to be a good thing.
Whether they are going the right way about it to achieve that aim is another thing altogether and needs separate consideration. For example, it was found that the Sex Offenders Treatment Programme being used in UK Prisons for many years only succeeded in increasing the rate of offending post-release.
What I meant by "the nature of this weak link" above, is that to portray it as "concerning" or indicative of any meaningful link between Genspect and paedophiles is thoroughly contrived.
All the people mentioned as "links" in this "guilt by association chain" (Bailey, Blanchard and Cantor - B,B&C) are researchers whose work and views inform current understanding of the various, possibly unrelated, phenomena grouped under the labels "transgender", "transsexual", "gender dysphoria", "gender identity disorder", etc. etc.
That does not mean that they are now, and have always been, correct in their understanding of these phenomena. They are scientists, fallible humans, not divine oracles.
In a contested field of study, unless and until their research is proved misleading and worthless, their views are important and need to be aired, alongside those of the long list of other researchers interviewed by individuals involved with Gensepct.
However, the suggestion from Genspect's critics seems to be that, due to B,B&C's research and views in a different area of "Sexology" (paedophilia), that B,B&C should be "No Platformed" by individuals involved with Genspect.
At the same time, these critics claim to be "free speech" advocates and protest vociferously (rightly IMHO) when they are "cancelled" and "deplatformed" by those who regard their views as dangerously ill-informed.
Both KD and SW have been banned from various social media platforms for their actual views, which I think is wrong. Yet they criticise Genspect for a contrived association between three "Genspect" individuals, operating in a different capacity, via B,B&C with some possibly dubious organisations or individuals.
So a very weak link, rather than anything to do with views actually articulated by Genspect or members of the Genspect team.
This position and situation is ironic. By this reasoning, there is also cause for Sierra and Karen to be shunned by all right-thinking people, irrespective of the value of what they have to offer.
I am NOT suggesting that either should be shunned for this reason, only that their position looks rather shaky, hypocritical even.
For example, they also lambast Benjamin Boyce for having interviewed Bailey, Blanchard and Cantor. BB is therefore evil! However, they both clearly had a whale of a time being interviewed by BB, Ex three times.
Did they not do due diligence to discover BB's links to BB&C? Did they know but not care, selling their souls for greater visibility on a more popular YouTube channel? So off with their heads too? (sarcasm)
ps. I note that Fieldofgreycorn has suggested a possible motive for KD and SW's "seek and destroy" mission against Genspect and/or Stella. That is, if I have understood correctly, that KD and SW expect everyone involved in this area to be "GC Activists" and that if they are not then they are the enemy. The same tension, between "campaigners" and "service providers", plays out in many areas.
I saw it play out in a leading organisation that provided support and services for people whose lives were marred by serious substance abuse. It was "taken over" by infiltration of "campaigners". Within 18 months of the first appointment of a "campaigner" all funding had been diverted to campaigning and all support and services for individuals had been closed down.
There is room, and need for, both activism/campaigning and advocacy/service provision in this area too.
It is a tragedy when the energy and imagination of activism/campaigning is turned against allies. It weakens all of us.
I really feel for the parents caught in the cross-fire. It is not even as if KD and SW are rivals of Genspect, ie. offering to provide alternative advocacy/services.
There was a quote about Thatcher that I am struggling to remember, along the lines of, "If you destroy all those around you, do not be surprised when find yourself alone in the wilderness".
The tragedy is that, without the likes of Genspect, it is parents who will find themselves again alone in the wilderness. KD and SW have nothing to lose in going after Genspect. The parents who support and rely on them have everything to lose.