Trans-professor defended pedophiles now has job at John-Hopkins university that works against it

[kieronsmum]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10813233/Trans-professor-DEFENDED-pedophiles-minor-attracted-persons-hired-Johns-Hopkins-center.html

That’s disturbing.

In theory I sort of get the idea of destigmatisation enabling men to ask for help except I’ve also seen the ‘MAPs’ on twitter discussing what age they are attracted to and clearly getting turned on by being able to have those conversations in plain sight so not stigma needs to stay

I understand the point that not all people with paedophilia tendencies will act on them but it doesn't mean they aren't paedophiles. If they are sexually attracted to children under 13, that is the correct terminology. . Maybe a new term is needed for those who do act on their urges rather than trying to make out that for those who don't, it is a harmless tick.

I searched this person recently and it seems they never were suspended from previous role/university.

I wonder what the argument for 'reducing stigma' is, or is it more of a slogan without much thought behind it.
Is there 'help' available for paedophiles who'd rather not experience those desires? Or would that fall under conversion therapy.?
If so, a simple notice in the Dr's surgery etc telling people where to seek help, promising no judgement, should be enough.

Then, we can retain the stigma, which is good for two reasons. It's probably ineradicable among normal people anyway, as everyone feels visceral disgust towards those who want to hurt the most vulnerable among us, and no amount of social engineering will change that, only divide society even more.

Secondly, the stigma probably has a protective effect, there's a proportion who'll be held back from acting because of it.

Provide information that help can be sought in a low key manner and we can keep the stigma and any pedophile who wants treatment can do so.

What am I missing?

I searched this person recently and it seems they never were suspended from previous role/university.

She wasn't formally disciplined (and there would probably be no basis to do so), just sent home because of the controversy, then resigned (presumably with a pay off).

There is nothing sackable about exploring what pedophiles think in academic writing. The reason she's so reviled is she only focuses on pedophiles rights, not victims (in terms of published work and views) and her proposals for changing child protection systems are considered likely to increase abuse rates by other academics and professionals in that area.