If you're gonna make a choice between reading what I write, or reading the article linked below, read the article. If you read either my words, or the words in the article, and feel compelled to hit the mute option, I implore you to do-so -- I don't want to associate with pedophiles, or people who are okay with pedophiles.
https://hollymathnerd.substack.com/p/next-step-in-the-war-on-kids
Got it? Good.
Why does the term "minor attracted adult" even exist? It means the same thing as "pedophile." It's really only been used in academia in the not-so-science departments; but, it's been tricking down.
Is it because it's true that pedophilia is, if we're gonna be completely deliberate with our words, not a crime. Pedophilia is a psychological problem. Some pedophiles live their entire lives without harming a child. But, pedophiles, just like psychopaths, have mental illnesses that make them much more likely to cause harm to other people. Still, we don't see academics playing with language in regard to psychopaths -- we don't see the term, "restraint deficient" tossed around in order to clarify the reality that psychopathy is a mental illness, and not a crime.
The whole MAP thing isn't a push for understanding what pedophilia really is. If it were, people wouldn't be manipulating the language. The MAP thing is about changing language in order to make pedophilia more socially palatable -- I'm against that.
What we're dealing with here is a case of, "If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile." Good, reasonable people have probably given a kilometer at this point. I'm at as much fault as the next person trying to play defense in the red zone right now. I haven't been brave enough. I know that most of us are probably doing too little too late; but, defending reality over narratives is one of the few hills I'm willing to die on.
The resurgence of the concept of the AAM (adult attracted minor) is the logical conclusion to leftist gender ideology.
Now, this is where people are gonna wanna shout "Transphobe!" at me for the millionth time. Okay. I get it. You're not smart people. Trans people have talked about this problem, too. This isn't about transgenderism as a thing that exists in the world, and not being an asshole to those who are trans. This is about the ideology that several, not trans people, have created that says that you can't trust your own eyes or brain in order to understand reality. Basically, the idea that you can only know a person gender if he or she or they or zie, or whatever tells it to you. Couple that with the idea that twelve-year-old girls can consent to elective surgeries to look more like boys, and you've got a powder keg.
The problem here is that we've built an ideology around the idea that the truth can only be told to you, and that it's not something that you can deduce for yourself.
Of course, this is incoherent in practice, because wokeness is a religion. Trans-anything is wildly accepted on the left with the exception of trans-race. The few remaining honest journalists and scientists who are looking at this phenomenon have deduced (probably correctly) that this is because leftists view race as a sacred thing, not to be appropriated -- you can't rail against "cultural appropriation" and be okay with Rachel Dolezal.
Gender isn't sacred to them. Age isn't sacred to them. So, being trans-age is okay to them.
The thing is, when it comes to age, our eyes and brains actually do get it wrong far more often than gender. Hell, since I started my job, it's almost been a weekly thing that somebody was surprised to find out that I'm thirty-seven, and not in my twenties. People regularly don't "look their age."
Still, try to be honest with yourself. If you think that you can only know a person's gender by asking, and that it's transphobic to make assumptions, and that any person can decide what his, her, their, zir, or whatever's truth is, and that we should all that as truth as stated -- why not apply that to age? Hell, for all I know, the person that I perceive to be a twelve-year-old could be Benjamin Button, and really be eighty. Still, his, her, they, zie, or whatever's chrono age may not be what he, she, they, zir, or whatever identifies as.
Moving on to consent.
Kids can't.
I said it. It's true. Kids can't consent. Kids don't have the capacity to understand what long-term implications are. That's why an adult having sex with a minor is always rape, and the adult should always be tarred and feathered, castrated without anesthesia, and thrown in a cage for the rest of his life if he survives. (Oh, sorry, "thrown into a cage for the rest of his, her, their, zir, or whatever's life if he, she, they, zie, or whatever survives." didn't mean to be intensive.)
If it's okay for kids to be putting dollars into performers g-strings, and to be attending drag shows with "It won't lick itself" highlighted in the background, or for kids to be performing in sexually suggestive drag shows themselves, or for kids to have body altering surgeries (all of which involve adults touching their private parts in case you don't know how surgeries work), and we can't know anything about anybody unless he, she, they, zie, or whatever tells us, how can you condemn statutory rape? Seriously, how is your brain not falling out of your fucking head?
This isn't any one thing pushing toward a disgusting end, it's a cluster fuck of dumb ideas that have lead people off a cliff. People want to feel like they're advocates for the minority, for the oppressed, for the disadvantaged, and that's not necessarily a bad thing -- it's usually a good thing. Still, we can't let our commitment to that cloud how we see reality, or force us to double, triple, quadruple, quintuple, sextuple, septupule, so-on down on the logic just to maintain a semblance of consistency.
It's possible to be a loving, caring, tolerant, accepting person while still having a functioning brain, understanding reality for what it is, and using logic. We needn't succumb to this religion. We must not succumb to this religion.