These posts present an extremely dangerous and ethically bankrupt argument, attempting to morally and rhetorically conflate pedophilia with protected identity groups like transgender people.
1. False & Offensive Equivalency
The argument equates being a pedophile (having a sexual attraction to children) with being transgender or reclaiming slurs like "faggot." This is a profound category error.
· Sexual orientation and gender identity are innate characteristics that involve consenting adults. They are recognized as protected classes under human rights frameworks because they do not, by their nature, infringe on the rights of others.
· Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder characterized by an attraction to children, who cannot consent. The attraction itself is directed toward a violation of child protection and bodily autonomy. It is not an identity comparable to LGBTQ+ identities.
2. Strategic Co-opting of Social Justice Language
ISFF deliberately uses the language of liberation ("no one is free until we all are," "leave no one behind") and victimhood ("cast out and isolate") to frame pedophiles as an oppressed group needing protection. This is a manipulative tactic designed to silence criticism by painting opponents as "bigots" who are "isolating" community members, mirroring valid struggles against transphobia to serve a reprehensible cause.
3. Dangerous Conflation of Thought and Action
While it is technically true that a "thought crime" is not the same as an action, the post goes far beyond that. It actively works to:
· Normalize and Destigmatize the Attraction. It argues for the complete separation of the term "pedophile" from "child abuser" in public discourse, seeking to make the attraction itself socially neutral.
· Defend Pedophilic Behavior Within "Ageplay": This admits to engaging in "play" with a self-identified pedophile while age-regressed. Regardless of the legal age of the participants, this dynamic intentionally simulates and eroticizes the very adult-child power imbalance that defines child sexual abuse. This is profoundly disturbing and blurs the line between fantasy and pathology in a way that risks legitimizing the attraction.
4. Invalid "Consenting Adults" Defense
The "we are two consenting adults" defense regarding ageplay is a red herring. The issue is not the legal consent between adults in that moment, it is the underlying sexual framework being acted out. Role-playing a pedophilic attraction does not make the attraction itself benign, ethical, or comparable to a kink between adults (like consensual non-consent) that explores power dynamics between adults.
5. Emotional Blackmail & Community Gatekeeping
The post uses emotional blackmail against the trans community: If you don't defend pedophiles within our ranks, you are letting the bigots win and are not a "safe person for ALL transfems." This forces a false choice: either you accept the normalization of pedophilia, or you are betraying the trans community. This is a classic manipulation tactic to shield harmful individuals from accountability.
6. Harm to Actual Victims & the LGBTQ+ Community
· Trivializes CSA: By claiming victim status (as a CSA survivor) while advocating for the destigmatization of pedophilia and engaging in pedophilia-themed roleplay, the author creates a morally chaotic narrative that can be deeply retraumatizing for other survivors and confuses the issue of abuse.
· Fuels Anti-LGBTQ+ Rhetoric: This line of argument is a gift to malicious actors who falsely claim that the LGBTQ+ movement seeks to normalize pedophilia. It provides a direct, outrageous example they can point to, endangering the broader community
This is not a post about "thought crime" or nuanced support for non-offending individuals struggling with a harmful attraction. It is a manifesto for the normalization and social integration of pedophilia by:
1. Illegitimately claiming it as an identity.
2. Demanding its protection under the umbrella of LGBTQ+ liberation.
3. Defending the acting out of the attraction through roleplay.
4. Vilifying anyone who objects as a bigot.
The argument is insane because it inverts all ethical logic, attempting to frame a sexual attraction that is definitionally predatory toward the most vulnerable as just another misunderstood "orientation" deserving of pride and protection. It is an ideological poison pill wrapped in the language of social justice. Responsible support for non-offending pedophiles focuses on urging them to seek professional therapeutic help to never act on their urges and to manage their condition, not on demanding society celebrate their attraction or incorporate it into sexual subcultures.
These posts reveal a more extreme and dangerous ideological framework than the original post. They are not simply about destigmatizing a "thought crime"; they are actively advocating for a complete societal and ethical revolution regarding pedophilia and childhood. This is an example of pedophile advocacy activism, often referred to as the "pro-contact" or "anti-contact but pro-acceptance" wing of the MAP (Minor-Attracted Person) movement.
1. Rejection of Any "Cure" or Treatment as Oppressive:
· The post from veryvocallyexpired explicitly states that those who advocate for finding a therapeutic "cure" are "our enemy too."
· This is opposing the very notion that pedophilia is a disorder that should be treated or managed. It frames therapeutic intervention as "forced medicalization," placing it on the same spectrum of oppression as incarceration.
2. Deconstruction of the Concept of Informed Consent, Specifically for Children:
· This is the most alarming and foundational argument. The reblogged posts argue that the idea that children "Can't Consent" is a social construct used to strip them of agency and give power to adults.
· The logic is: There is "nothing inherent to being a child that means you Can't Consent." It's all about "specific social relations" and the power adults have to coerce.
· Why this is catastrophic: This argument is the necessary precursor to normalizing adult-child sexual contact. By dismantling the legal and ethical bedrock of childhood (the inability to consent to sexual acts with an adult due to developmental immaturity), they attempt to reframe such acts as a matter of power dynamics and coercion rather than an intrinsic, absolute violation. This is a classic tactic of child sexual abuse apologetics.
3. Framing Concerned Parents as Authoritarian and "Propertarian":
· The response to syzygyblossom's concern about trusting people near kids is telling. ISFF reframes parental protection as viewing children as "property," and protecting them as protecting one's assets from "degenerate outcasts."
· This reframes the universal ethical imperative to protect children from sexual predators as a petty, bourgeois concern about property rights, rather than a fundamental human rights issue.
4. Explicit "Out" Pedophile Endorsement and "Marginalized Sexuality" Claim:
· The "out pedophile" thanking the original poster for their bravery.
· This individual makes the ultimate goal clear: pedophilia is an "always going to exist" sexuality that "can't be 'fixed'," and its adherents are "the most marginalised sexuality there is."
· They perform a staggering act of blame-shifting: focusing on pedophiles lets "actual systemic causes of child abuse" which is unspecified in this instance, off the hook. This inverts reality, making the attracted adult the victim of a society that misunderstands them.
5. Aggressive Dismissal of Basic Concerns:
· The final answer to the anonymous ask is pure dogma. The user expresses the universal, visceral discomfort with the idea of being "chummy" with pedophiles. The response is a flat, aggressive denial: "If you think that pedophiles would fuck children you're wrong and you're the problem!!"
· This shuts down all dialogue. Anyone who holds the obvious, evidence-based concern that an attraction to children carries a high risk of being acted upon is declared "the problem." There is no room for nuance, statistics, or the reality of child sexual abuse.
The original post was a muddled plea for inclusion. These follow-ups reveal the coherent and radical ideology beneath it with the goal of full normalization of pedophilia as an immutable, marginalized sexual identity be trying to dismantle the key concepts that protect children: first by separating "attraction" from "action," then by attacking the very idea that children cannot consent, and finally by vilifying those who seek treatment or express protective concern as oppressive enemies.
· Rhetoric: Fully co-opts the language of social justice (liberation, marginalization, anti-oppression, anti-carceral, anti-medicalization) and turns it against the most basic protective structures of society.
This is no longer a debate about "thought crime." It is an advocacy campaign for a worldview that, if implemented, would catastrophically endanger children by removing the ethical, legal, and social guardrails specifically designed to protect them. It represents the absolute outer fringe of this discourse, where advocacy crosses into outright predation apologetics.
