"Almost Everything the Media Tell You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong"

[Aštra’el]

Very, very sad that you should say so. You are saying -- directly and succinctly -- that given your druthers (i.e. not scared witless of God's punishment), you'd really rather be cruel to others.

I'm an atheist, and not at all troubled by fears of your God, and I dislike the idea of hurting people very much. The bible gives you your values, I have mine by nature.

I worship YHWH. I am still a sadist.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We can continue to argue "choice" in orientation until the cows come home, but I rather suspect that many who are arguing for it are confusing "orientation" and "response to orientation." That is, I might be oriented so as to find males attractive and not females, but I can choose to act on that orientation, or to act against it.

The argument for "choice" means that it should be possible for anyone to alter their orientation. This does not mean suddenly sleeping with your own gender, it means "from this day forward, I will cease to find the opposite sex attractive, and be only physically and sexually attracted to my own gender."

I would like to hear anyone who sees themselves as oriented in a particular way (straight or gay, but not, for this purpose, bi-sexual) make that argument, and say how they would do it.

For me, I believe that my orientation is innate, and while I can act against that orientation (that is, I can function with the opposite sex), because it is contrary to my orientation I will be living an inauthentic and therefore deeply unsatisfying life.

Why anyone would really wish to spend a lifetime been inauthentic and unsatisfied beats the hell out of me.

 

[columbus]

I worship YHWH. I am still a sadist.

Dang.
You must be annoyed at missing The Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust and stuff.
Tom

 

[MountainPine]

I worship YHWH. I am still a sadist.

Interesting....

 

[SomeRandom]

Perhaps none. I don't read it as the way you are framing it. I read it as instead of suggesting the Catholic priest issue is/was pedophilia, it is better understood as homosexuality. That doesn't make for anti-gay.

If the priests are going after prepubescent boys and they are adult males, that makes them a pedophile. End of story. Not heterosexual, not homosexual not even bisexual. A Pedophile.
If they have an adult sexual orientation (which doesn't have to line up with the "preferred" sex of the victim, ie they exclusively target male children but attracted to adult females) they're a regressed pedophile and can be more opportunistic. Meaning though they can have a preferred sex as a pedophile, they normally target the sex they have most access to. If they do not have an adult sexual orientation they cannot be called homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or even pansexual. Since those are specific to adult or similar age bracket attractions only. They are a fixated pedophile sometimes called a "pure" pedophile.
So no, suggesting that this issue is better understood as homosexuality is a load of bollocks. And only suggested by those unfamiliar with the clinical definitions of pedophilia and adult sexual orientations. The relationship between the two is murky at best.
Linking the two is often done as a way to "poison the well" as they say. A common tactic used by anti gay proponents. I don't mean to pretend to read this guy's mind, maybe he was just a little ignorant and that's all. But given that he's supposed to be in the industry of psychology, I'd assume he of all peeps would know better than to say something so completely.........well laymen.

If said priests are attacking children beyond puberty (which is not really present when discussing this specific issue, but can happen I guess) there is more credibility to labeling such actions as homosexual. But even then sex crimes experts like to have more specific terms like hebophile and ephebophile (who comes up with these names? Like sheesh!)

That's fine. I do the same thing when certain public health scientists release their reports (or even studies). They've shown themselves to have a bias, so I see their science as questionable, reason to be scrutinized/downplayed. The fact that is championed by others as 'scientific' just strikes me as an inherent problem with science. Which I brought up in my first post on this thread.

Fair enough.

I think we agree that by claiming homosexuality includes choice that this doesn't make for anti-gay sentiments.

Yes that's fair.

I think it possible for laypeople to see it as both. I find it worthy to enter any argument and be prepared to argue it is both regardless of the audience. But understanding the audience, I find, is helpful. If this were Christian only subforum and all were saying it is 100% choice, I'd be challenging that. Especially if 'conversion' and or condemnation were up for discussion.

I agree with that.

 

[Acim]

If the priests are going after prepubescent boys and they are adult males, that makes them a pedophile. End of story. Not heterosexual, not homosexual not even bisexual. A Pedophile.
If they have an adult sexual orientation (which doesn't have to line up with the "preferred" sex of the victim, ie they exclusively target male children but attracted to adult females) they're a regressed pedophile and can be more opportunistic. Meaning though they can have a preferred sex as a pedophile, they normally target the sex they have most access to. If they do not have an adult sexual orientation they cannot be called homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or even pansexual. Since those are specific to adult or similar age bracket attractions only. They are a fixated pedophile sometimes called a "pure" pedophile.
So no, suggesting that this issue is better understood as homosexuality is a load of bollocks. And only suggested by those unfamiliar with the clinical definitions of pedophilia and adult sexual orientations. The relationship between the two is murky at best.

All of this doesn't make for anti-gay, nor even anti-pedophile. The key point you are missing.

Linking the two is often done as a way to "poison the well" as they say. A common tactic used by anti gay proponents. I don't mean to pretend to read this guy's mind, maybe he was just a little ignorant and that's all. But given that he's supposed to be in the industry of psychology, I'd assume he of all peeps would know better than to say something so completely.........well laymen.

You'd have to find evidence that McHugh had intention/demonstrated intention to poison the well. Until you do, perhaps you're the one with a bias?

If said priests are attacking children beyond puberty (which is not really present when discussing this specific issue, but can happen I guess) there is more credibility to labeling such actions as homosexual. But even then sex crimes experts like to have more specific terms like hebophile and ephebophile (who comes up with these names? Like sheesh!)

I'm under impression McHugh was not labeling the actions as homosexual, but saying that because of so much allowance (more like a push) of homosexuality in the culture, this problem arose.

Personally, the problem I see with using the Catholic pedophile angle is to assume that as an inherent problem. I realize how controversial that type of statement reads, but a) I'm considering it, I think, from psychology perspective and b) I'm not about to shy away from the controversy because certain people want to score political points - and by certain people, I mean all those who wish to put people into neat little categories and use one as inherently offensive and the other as inherently non-offensive. I think going to any length to ensure this is not framed as being about adult sexual orientation (be that hetero, homo, or bi) and then saying it is only about pedo, is problematic. Inherently. But given the ongoing witch hunt mentality that exists around pedo, which thus far has accomplished next to nothing, I find the issue is challenging to discuss openly. So, with all that said, if this is what passes for anti-gay and there can be no reasonable discussion, then I'd rather not discuss this with (inherently) unreasonable people. Not directing this to anyone in particular, and would willingly discuss this with anyone, but honestly, I have found so few that can discuss it without wrapping their words in language of "attack" and drawing upon emotions.

 

[SomeRandom]

All of this doesn't make for anti-gay, nor even anti-pedophile. The key point you are missing.

Maybe not necessarily. But why even bring up homosexuality when discussing pedophilia if not to link the two, which IS a common anti gay tactic?
This is an all too common line of attack, to various degrees of "harshness."
Sometimes it's just ignorance, sometimes it's just trying to associate the two, sometimes it's done to argue against homosexuality.
Sorry, but anytime someone uses that, especially if they're in a field that ought to give them knowledge to know better, doesn't exactly endear me. I see such things as anti gay, maybe not in the sense of calling for their deaths or calling them sinful/abominations, but anti gay all the same.
If he was discussing this is a debate like setting, then I'm willing to buy that he was just prodding the issue intellectually. If he was studying the correlation or something like that and simply sharing his thoughts on the matter, then fair enough.

You'd have to find evidence that McHugh had intention/demonstrated intention to poison the well. Until you do, perhaps you're the one with a bias?

Perhaps I am? Humans are flawed like that. Besides I'm not a very trusting person.

I'm under impression McHugh was not labeling the actions as homosexual, but saying that because of so much allowance (more like a push) of homosexuality in the culture, this problem arose.

Why would "allowing" homosexuality cause this problem? Pedophilia is it's own category altogether. It is not linked with homosexuality in any way shape or form. They've been studying and dismissing this link since the 70s.
And this problem stems back to the goddamned 50s! At least that's how far we can trace victims who are willing to talk about it. God only knows how many victims there really are during human history of this scandal.
Tell me how accepting the 1950s was of homosexuality again?
I'm sorry I can see correlation, but not causation.
And if we should see the tie of homosexuality in this, what about investigating the tie in of heterosexuality? There are priests who do abuse young girls as well.
I mean, equality and all right?
I just don't get it, what does one have to do with the other? It's not like during the days when homosexuality was outlawed the issue of pedophilia was non existent. Just not acknowledged. I mean for example, just how many abortions were performed in America before Roe vs Wade?
Nobody knows, because you got it secretly so as to not go to jail.
So did Roe vs Wade cause more abortions? Or did the case simply force abortions to come out from the shadows?

You could argue that the correlation between the more "celebrated" status of homosexuality and pedophile priests is simply a more open and frank culture where instead of parents sweeping the effects of sexual abuse under the rug, it is not only talked about, but brings with it criminal persecution. Which happened to coincide with a more accepting culture towards homosexuality. Churches did and some still do simply move around pedophile priests without consequence. So the community is starting to hit back with more calls for accountability under the law. In Australia this often comes in the form of a Royal Commission.

Personally, the problem I see with using the Catholic pedophile angle is to assume that as an inherent problem. I realize how controversial that type of statement reads, but a) I'm considering it, I think, from psychology perspective and b) I'm not about to shy away from the controversy because certain people want to score political points - and by certain people, I mean all those who wish to put people into neat little categories and use one as inherently offensive and the other as inherently non-offensive. I think going to any length to ensure this is not framed as being about adult sexual orientation (be that hetero, homo, or bi) and then saying it is only about pedo, is problematic. Inherently. But given the ongoing witch hunt mentality that exists around pedo, which thus far has accomplished next to nothing, I find the issue is challenging to discuss openly. So, with all that said, if this is what passes for anti-gay and there can be no reasonable discussion, then I'd rather not discuss this with (inherently) unreasonable people. Not directing this to anyone in particular, and would willingly discuss this with anyone, but honestly, I have found so few that can discuss it without wrapping their words in language of "attack" and drawing upon emotions.

I can agree with this. The witch hunt does not help discussion. There are lots of things that just aren't properly discussed. Like children's abilities to orgasm, for example. This happens, this is even used as a way to condition the child to accept the abuse. Yet to even utter such a statement is enough to get someone labelled as a pedo. Emotions run high and often the topic just isn't discussed logically, because we are instinctively protective of children.
But regardless of any ties to homosexuality (I'm still not convinced) there are certain jobs that just attract pedophiles. That's just how it is.
We don't know what causes regressed pedophilia, the only thing they've come up with is that they suffer through a long series of crushing personal problems, causing them to seek out control. Often in the form of grooming and controlling children. (Now I need a shower, eww.)
This problem is not just in the form of priesthood, it's in all areas of children's welfare, from teachers to scout leaders. It's kind of like a chicken and egg scenario.
I assume the Church gets the most brunt because it goes around proclaiming itself as Holy and righteous.
Just recently (like last year or perhaps a few years ago, there's lots of these unfortunately) where I live there was a Royal Commission that investigated claims of sexual abuse from as far back as the 50s and 60s in a children's welfare home, where the victims were mostly aboriginal. I suppose interracial attractions also should be investigated?
How does homosexuality fit into this equation exactly? As far as I can see pedophilia both types are an entirely different issue.

 

[Acim]

Maybe not necessarily. But why even bring up homosexuality when discussing pedophilia if not to link the two, which IS a common anti gay tactic?
This is an all too common line of attack, to various degrees of "harshness."
Sometimes it's just ignorance, sometimes it's just trying to associate the two, sometimes it's done to argue against homosexuality.
Sorry, but anytime someone uses that, especially if they're in a field that ought to give them knowledge to know better, doesn't exactly endear me. I see such things as anti gay, maybe not in the sense of calling for their deaths or calling them sinful/abominations, but anti gay all the same.
If he was discussing this is a debate like setting, then I'm willing to buy that he was just prodding the issue intellectually. If he was studying the correlation or something like that and simply sharing his thoughts on the matter, then fair enough.

Honestly, I'd want more than a little bit of context of where he said what he said brought into the discussion, cause I don't take it as an attack (on homosexuality). I do take it as a bias he likely holds, but I find that true for pretty much all scientists of the behavioral sciences. It usually shows up, especially if the subject has any political implications (which of the stuff I choose to pay attention to, it usually does).

I honestly don't think there is a way for scientists to get around this given the nature of scientific method (hypothesis) and epistemology (scope). For science, I think it is about testing / analyzing within a scope that may not be welcomed by all aware of political implications, but I really don't see that changing.

Perhaps I am? Humans are flawed like that. Besides I'm not a very trusting person.

I think for us laypeople/non-scientists, the whole confirmation bias aspect is what gets our intellectual juices flowing. If some scientific type is putting out report that contradicts our biases, it will be met with claims of "that ain't science." Well, not that alone, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to explain in short. I see it as all science, and that science (in some of its branches) has educated practitioners making their biases well known.

But I highly doubt the practitioners would agree that it equals an 'anti' type bias. More like, they wish to expand the scope to include what their experiments and analysis has determined to be evidence.

Why would "allowing" homosexuality cause this problem? Pedophilia is it's own category altogether. It is not linked with homosexuality in any way shape or form. They've been studying and dismissing this link since the 70s.

I disagree that pedophilia is in its own category. I do not understand it as a sexual orientation. So, one that has such a preference likely has an orientation (homosexual, heterosexual, bi). To say it is not linked with sexual orientation in any way shape or form I think is not reasonable, or rather is inaccurate. What I think you are saying is that it isn't exclusively linked to say homosexuality. And I would think McHugh would concur. But this would be another reason why discussing his words in context rather than overlaying interpretation of what (one thinks) he was implying would not be helpful.

And this problem stems back to the goddamned 50s! At least that's how far we can trace victims who are willing to talk about it. God only knows how many victims there really are during human history of this scandal.
Tell me how accepting the 1950s was of homosexuality again?
I'm sorry I can see correlation, but not causation.
And if we should see the tie of homosexuality in this, what about investigating the tie in of heterosexuality? There are priests who do abuse young girls as well.
I mean, equality and all right?
I just don't get it, what does one have to do with the other? It's not like during the days when homosexuality was outlawed the issue of pedophilia was non existent. Just not acknowledged. I mean for example, just how many abortions were performed in America before Roe vs Wade?
Nobody knows, because you got it secretly so as to not go to jail.
So did Roe vs Wade cause more abortions? Or did the case simply force abortions to come out from the shadows?

You could argue that the correlation between the more "celebrated" status of homosexuality and pedophile priests is simply a more open and frank culture where instead of parents sweeping the effects of sexual abuse under the rug, it is not only talked about, but brings with it criminal persecution. Which happened to coincide with a more accepting culture towards homosexuality. Churches did and some still do simply move around pedophile priests without consequence. So the community is starting to hit back with more calls for accountability under the law. In Australia this often comes in the form of a Royal Commission.

I'd be surprised if McHugh argued or suggested that homosexuality was the cause. Instead I believe he is saying within the scope of catholic priest pedophilia the push for 'homosexual acceptance in society' is the correlation that helps explain the rise. Not sure if that's accurate, but from what I recall reading, it is kind of what I got from it.

can agree with this. The witch hunt does not help discussion. There are lots of things that just aren't properly discussed. Like children's abilities to orgasm, for example. This happens, this is even used as a way to condition the child to accept the abuse. Yet to even utter such a statement is enough to get someone labelled as a pedo. Emotions run high and often the topic just isn't discussed logically, because we are instinctively protective of children.
But regardless of any ties to homosexuality (I'm still not convinced) there are certain jobs that just attract pedophiles. That's just how it is.
We don't know what causes regressed pedophilia, the only thing they've come up with is that they suffer through a long series of crushing personal problems, causing them to seek out control. Often in the form of grooming and controlling children. (Now I need a shower, eww.)
This problem is not just in the form of priesthood, it's in all areas of children's welfare, from teachers to scout leaders. It's kind of like a chicken and egg scenario.
I assume the Church gets the most brunt because it goes around proclaiming itself as Holy and righteous.
Just recently (like last year or perhaps a few years ago, there's lots of these unfortunately) where I live there was a Royal Commission that investigated claims of sexual abuse from as far back as the 50s and 60s in a children's welfare home, where the victims were mostly aboriginal. I suppose interracial attractions also should be investigated?
How does homosexuality fit into this equation exactly? As far as I can see pedophilia both types are an entirely different issue.

I don't see it as entirely different issue. Again, the scope he went with and what it actually says, I don't see as anti-gay, but do realize that if homosexuality is (in last 50 years) gaining acceptance as viable, loving relationship between two consenting adults, then identifying that as an element within a series of pedophilia episodes, is playing political hot potato. It won't bode well for the discussions that could ensue among lay people who will likely bring in own scope and not have any readily identifiable methodology to back up their claims. Just use it as an attack as you say.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think for us laypeople/non-scientists, the whole confirmation bias aspect is what gets our intellectual juices flowing.

As someone working on their degree towards becoming a scientists, we simply do not give a **** about laypeople think. We don't think for you, we don't feel for you, we don't know about you. We gather data, compile it, and share what we gathered with other scientists who have been schooled and trained in the field of science we are researching/writing for.

But I highly doubt the practitioners would agree that it equals an 'anti' type bias.

The US Civil Rights Commission has stated that "religious freedom" laws as of late are really nothing more than code-word for anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination and Christian supremacy. No, of course those advocating such bills won't call it anti-gay, but the Nazis most certainly would not label die Endlösung as a severe violation of human rights and basic dignity, but their views on the matter do not make it any less appalling.

 

[Acim]

As someone working on their degree towards becoming a scientists, we simply do not give a **** about laypeople think. We don't think for you, we don't feel for you, we don't know about you. We gather data, compile it, and share what we gathered with other scientists who have been schooled and trained in the field of science we are researching/writing for.

As someone with a degree in Philosophy, what science is up to vs. what science pretends like it is up to is something I feel deserves ongoing scrutiny. Cause science (especially the behavioral sciences) really does pretend to think for people and pretends to think it has the best methodology for providing answers on most topics (in this branch of science). Knowing that (all) scientific understanding ultimately rests on faith, I find helpful.

The US Civil Rights Commission has stated that "religious freedom" laws as of late are really nothing more than code-word for anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination and Christian supremacy. No, of course those advocating such bills won't call it anti-gay, but the Nazis most certainly would not label die Endlösung as a severe violation of human rights and basic dignity, but their views on the matter do not make it any less appalling.

Okay.

 

[SomeRandom]

Honestly, I'd want more than a little bit of context of where he said what he said brought into the discussion, cause I don't take it as an attack (on homosexuality). I do take it as a bias he likely holds, but I find that true for pretty much all scientists of the behavioral sciences. It usually shows up, especially if the subject has any political implications (which of the stuff I choose to pay attention to, it usually does).

I honestly don't think there is a way for scientists to get around this given the nature of scientific method (hypothesis) and epistemology (scope). For science, I think it is about testing / analyzing within a scope that may not be welcomed by all aware of political implications, but I really don't see that changing.

Apparently it's taken from here
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/adopting_chaos

I disagree that pedophilia is in its own category. I do not understand it as a sexual orientation. So, one that has such a preference likely has an orientation (homosexual, heterosexual, bi).

But fixated pedophiles literally do not have adult sexual orientations. They either feel aversion against other adults or no sexual attraction for other adults.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/LitReview/1_4_JJ_TypologiesOf.pdf

Now granted I do not keep up on my Sex Crimes research. So perhaps I'm just using outdated data. But to be fair sex crimes is just not something I tend to be into, honestly.

I'd be surprised if McHugh argued or suggested that homosexuality was the cause. Instead I believe he is saying within the scope of catholic priest pedophilia the push for 'homosexual acceptance in society' is the correlation that helps explain the rise. Not sure if that's accurate, but from what I recall reading, it is kind of what I got from it.

Well that's his perspective. Personally I still don't see how one could affect the other. I don;t even know how the two would even be linked, except through the free sex generation?
The better understanding and more willingness to discuss/punish sexual abuse and a more concrete age of consent the West has agreed upon (which has increased over the century) would explain the "rise."
But ya know, I'm just an idiot layman.

 

[Acim]

Apparently it's taken from here
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/adopting_chaos

Same link as before. Oh well.
All just confirms for me the inherent biases found (consistently) in behavioral sciences. I wish it were otherwise, but for me this just discredits science (at that branch), because the biases are IMO very well documented on many issues.

But fixated pedophiles literally do not have adult sexual orientations. They either feel aversion against other adults or no sexual attraction for other adults.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/LitReview/1_4_JJ_TypologiesOf.pdf

Now granted I do not keep up on my Sex Crimes research. So perhaps I'm just using outdated data. But to be fair sex crimes is just not something I tend to be into, honestly.

So, this doesn't really dispute what I put forth.

Well that's his perspective. Personally I still don't see how one could affect the other. I don;t even know how the two would even be linked, except through the free sex generation?
The better understanding and more willingness to discuss/punish sexual abuse and a more concrete age of consent the West has agreed upon (which has increased over the century) would explain the "rise."
But ya know, I'm just an idiot layman.

Personally, I don't see it as 2 separate issues that ought to be in no way linked. That strikes me as anti-science, and highly inconsistent with what I see in other fields. When drawing such sharp distinctions (i.e. you are either born that way, or it is choice given the environment - but it absolutely cannot be both), it just feeds a political battle that I really see no one winning and I believe we currently live in that type of reality. Staunch opinions that some science backs up and some refutes. Therefore, clearly science is not the credible source it is made out to be on these type of matters.

To me, this type of debate shows up as logic that would assert: Hillary is absolutely (and always) right BECAUSE Trump is wrong, or vice versa: Trump is absolutely (and always) right BECAUSE Hillary is wrong.
That's how bizarre this rhetoric shows up to me. I consider it all who fall for this as 'rationale' (even if they are scientific types) as practicing grade-school philosophy.

 

[SomeRandom]

Sorry, got distracted.

Same link as before. Oh well.
All just confirms for me the inherent biases found (consistently) in behavioral sciences. I wish it were otherwise, but for me this just discredits science (at that branch), because the biases are IMO very well documented on many issues.

Yeah, I don't really know what to make of behavior science.

So, this doesn't really dispute what I put forth.

I'm saying the link between pedophilia (it being a paraphilia with some wanting to classify it as it's own orientation, like that B4UACT movement thingy) and adult sexual orientations is rather shaky.
How can you blame a pedophile being gay when, for example, by their own admission they only like prepubescent girls? (Now I really need a shower.)
Isn't male homosexuality more to do with finding masculinity attractive? If that is the case, what about prepubescent children, even males, is actually masculine?

I just don't see how acceptance of homosexuality causes more instances of pedophile priests. I can see a more open environment that encourages sexual discourse (like the youth nowadays really are rather nonchalant about a lot of sexual issues, at least outside of America) causing more instances of children speaking out against pedophile priests. And really, out of all the institutions that have faced such scandals the Church are the only institution who have in the past and arguably today have gone out of their way to protect pedophiles. Or at least they have been caught doing so the most.
I mean I'm all for trying to protect peoples' reputation if an allegation like this crops up, in case it is false. But most institutions at least place said accused person on paid suspension until the matter is dealt with. They don't move them to another state or parish quietly and tell no one of the previous allegations. Which is what got the Church in a whole lot of hot water to begin with. I mean they could have just blamed it on the fact that such jobs attract pedophiles looking for easy access. Which would probably get support from sex crimes experts. But no. It's cause of the gays? More gays? I honestly don't know anymore.
This insistence that homosexuality might have some correlation is nothing more than a deflection tactic to absolve them of their transgressions. I would legitimately be far more forgiving if it appeared to be a sincere attempt to debate such an issue academically. But it never seems to be framed in such a way. At least from my perspective.
For me it's more about the sheer audacity. When even in 2016 there are STILL Royal Commissions investigating the institutional responses to sexual abuse allegations, at the moment I think it's the Church's response to the allegations made against John Joseph Farrell during the 80s and 90s. Not exactly a good time to be gay, mind you. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/paedophil...ctivity-royal-commission-20160918-grj80l.html
http://brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/393
http://www.childabuseroyalcommissio...,-john-joseph-farrell,-september-2016,-sydney

But to even think about responding like "oh society likes to promote gay people" is beyond despicable. That is not the question being asked ever during any of this sort of scandal. At least not right now. It's asking what the hell are you doing not responding appropriately (allegedly) when it's a literal crime not to. No one cares about what you think of gay people or how you will vote on the "issue" of gay marriage, people give a damn about your actions. What you are doing to follow the law and follow your duty of care of children. Because even if homosexuality was to blame for the rise of pedophile priests, that does not excuse moving them quietly and allowing them unfiltered access to a number of extra victims under the care of your institution. You could blame Oscar Wilde for all I care, the responsibility of failing to protect children still falls squarely on those who did not respond appropriately not anyone else.

Personally, I don't see it as 2 separate issues that ought to be in no way linked. That strikes me as anti-science, and highly inconsistent with what I see in other fields. When drawing such sharp distinctions (i.e. you are either born that way, or it is choice given the environment - but it absolutely cannot be both), it just feeds a political battle that I really see no one winning and I believe we currently live in that type of reality. Staunch opinions that some science backs up and some refutes. Therefore, clearly science is not the credible source it is made out to be on these type of matters.

I just can't see the link. Perhaps you could help me out and show me one? I'm not saying there's no debate here, but I'm saying I just can't see it. Especially since most of the current allegations are actually from times when it was either illegal to be gay or attitudes towards the gay community were well behind today's.

 

[Acim]

I'm saying the link between pedophilia (it being a paraphilia with some wanting to classify it as it's own orientation, like that B4UACT movement thingy) and adult sexual orientations is rather shaky.
How can you blame a pedophile being gay when, for example, by their own admission they only like prepubescent girls? (Now I really need a shower.)
Isn't male homosexuality more to do with finding masculinity attractive? If that is the case, what about prepubescent children, even males, is actually masculine?

It's an interesting question you raise, but I would say no, that's not what homosexuality has more to do with. It is simply framed as sexual attraction to one's own biological sex. Thus, your preceding question is not so challenging to address how the link could be made. But in such a discussion it is both fair and I would say entirely accurate to say heterosexuality does have equal link. Whether the results are equal, we may never know. I do think McHugh could be read as him thinking it is only a link to homosexuality. I truly think that would be unfair to what McHugh was actually stating.

I just don't see how acceptance of homosexuality causes more instances of pedophile priests. I can see a more open environment that encourages sexual discourse (like the youth nowadays really are rather nonchalant about a lot of sexual issues, at least outside of America) causing more instances of children speaking out against pedophile priests. And really, out of all the institutions that have faced such scandals the Church are the only institution who have in the past and arguably today have gone out of their way to protect pedophiles. Or at least they have been caught doing so the most.

So, this is where we sharply disagree. Pretty much all of it. But perhaps the least disagreement I have with all the above assertions deals with what McHugh was getting across. You read it, I think, as McHugh is saying acceptance of ANY part of homosexuality causes more instances of pedophile priests. I think that very unfair, but because we really don't have much to go on with what McHugh believes, we may never know. I see McHugh saying that the exponentially increasing push for accepting open gay lifestyle has direct association with why the church was caught off guard with pedophilia scandal. Arguably, pedophilia was happening long before the scandal in the church. I mean within the church, it had possibly occurred long before the exponential push. Whether or not McHugh or those who fully support his take on things would agree doesn't matter a whole lot, but does matter a bit to McHugh's point.

I think McHugh's point somewhat boils down to idea that the culture (human or American) was becoming increasingly sexually permissive. And doing this partially, to perhaps mostly, through asking everyone to be okay with gay lifestyle. How all look at that will be different. Me as bisexual, am probably going to look at it differently than mono sexual people, be they homosexual or heterosexual. From McHugh's perspective, I do think such spectacles as gay pride parades are primary example of his take on the matter. Once again, I think the take on that would vary by person. I personally see that as asking society to be very permissive, and in some ways shoving it down people's throats. But I also process that as saying screw being ashamed, we're done playing that role for society, and we're coming out as a group to be who we wish to be, with pride and a command for respect.

This insistence that homosexuality might have some correlation is nothing more than a deflection tactic to absolve them of their transgressions. I would legitimately be far more forgiving if it appeared to be a sincere attempt to debate such an issue academically. But it never seems to be framed in such a way. At least from my perspective.

McHugh is providing an attempt to debate it academically. And it is so far being met with lots and lots of political resistance, and I would say misinterpreting the correlation. I don't think it helps that McHugh was apparently entrenched with the other side of the political debate, that seemingly has no issues with shaming homosexuals.

And to me, it's just bizarre, that intellectual types, who are so obviously overly concerned with political ramifications are framing it as it is either rampant homosexuality as the primary way to understand the problem or it is best understood as having zero association with homosexuality. I see it in a gray area in between those. I think both of those are extreme positions that really don't help the honest, intellectual discussion to be had.

even if homosexuality was to blame for the rise of pedophile priests, that does not excuse moving them quietly and allowing them unfiltered access to a number of extra victims under the care of your institution. You could blame Oscar Wilde for all I care, the responsibility of failing to protect children still falls squarely on those who did not respond appropriately not anyone else.

Mostly agreed. For sure the first sentence here I agree with. I don't see the pedophilia issue like most others that I've encountered, and rather not get into that because of how much of a hot button / witch hunt type issue it is. I see McHugh bringing up a point that is misinterpreted a bit (and I think intentionally so) and that for either side of the political debate, it isn't really about the children. To me, they are (yet again) just being used as pawns by adults for another battle being fought. One that strikes me as childish.

 

[SomeRandom]

It's an interesting question you raise, but I would say no, that's not what homosexuality has more to do with. It is simply framed as sexual attraction to one's own biological sex. Thus, your preceding question is not so challenging to address how the link could be made. But in such a discussion it is both fair and I would say entirely accurate to say heterosexuality does have equal link. Whether the results are equal, we may never know. I do think McHugh could be read as him thinking it is only a link to homosexuality. I truly think that would be unfair to what McHugh was actually stating.

Okay I can agree with that.

So, this is where we sharply disagree. Pretty much all of it. But perhaps the least disagreement I have with all the above assertions deals with what McHugh was getting across. You read it, I think, as McHugh is saying acceptance of ANY part of homosexuality causes more instances of pedophile priests. I think that very unfair, but because we really don't have much to go on with what McHugh believes, we may never know. I see McHugh saying that the exponentially increasing push for accepting open gay lifestyle has direct association with why the church was caught off guard with pedophilia scandal. Arguably, pedophilia was happening long before the scandal in the church. I mean within the church, it had possibly occurred long before the exponential push. Whether or not McHugh or those who fully support his take on things would agree doesn't matter a whole lot, but does matter a bit to McHugh's point.

Well........... it kind of was actually happening before the "exponential push."
In Victoria/New South Wales
Gerald Ridsdale was convicted (several times, first in 1993) after an expose of sorts by the group Broken Rites. I think a Royal Commission happened to look into why he was actively protected by his superiors for more than 30 years despite more than 50 victims (some as young as 4) and numerous complaints made to his Church (bear in mind the Royal Commission for us is sort of like above the Supreme Court. An ombudsman of sorts. They look into cover ups and it's various impacts on victims specifically.) In 2013 subsequent revelations revealed that he was allegedly abusing children as early as 1955. A time when homosexuality was legally punishable by life imprisonment
Victoria repealed the sodomy laws in 1981.
From New South Wales you have the Marist Brothers, who's school protected them for decades even after numerous complaints from numerous parents of sexual misconduct.
Darcy John O'Sullivan aka "Brother Dominic" was convicted for sex crimes against children stemming from 1971 to the early 80s.
Francis William Cable aka "Brother Romuald" was convicted for sex offences against children that occurred from 1960 to 1974 although according to Broken Rites at least, it is suspected he started abusing boys as early as the 1950s. Again, a time when homosexuality was literally outlawed in Australia.
Thomas Joseph Butler aka "Brother Patrick" has allegations against him going back to the 1960s. Although had his teaching position from the 1940s so ya know, not everyone comes forward and all.
Then there's the St Gerard Majella Society (now disbanded thank Jesus!) Operated from 1958 till I think 1994 and has accusations of sexual abuse going back to at least the 1970s as well as numerous complaints not forwarded to the police. It was an organisation that "trained" young priests and used this training as a way to groom young boys.
Father John Joseph Farrell or Father F was convicted of sex crimes against children from around 1981 to 1987. I think he even has a 4 Corners "investigative report" about his particular cover up.
Father Frank Derriman. Abused girls from 1960 to 1967. Fathered a child with one victim. Another, known as "Joan" went through a thing called "Towards Healing." A Catholic run investigation into sex crimes of the Church. Alleges to have been "re victimized" by the experience as it was allegedly just a tactic to cover up the crimes.
NSW didn't repeal the sodomy laws until 1984.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Australia
http://brokenrites.org.au/drupal/

And those are just a few examples in Australia that arguably only resulted in actual justice (according to our system at least) because of a rabid organisation called Broken Rites that started in like 1993, which has apparently dedicated itself to exposing various sexual abuse cover ups done by the Catholic Church. And the Australian Government (prompted by ever increasing outcry to do something) stepping in and forcing the Church to actually comply with the law for a change. Poor Catholic Church, scrutinized just like every other organisation in the world. Diddums.
Now I realize that the repeals are not like a pin point accurate representation for how society viewed gay rights at those times. But it's rather interesting that during times when homosexuality was literally illegal, the church was covering up sex crimes against children. Like actively. So I, for one, am quite wary of this proposed link. Again, I have no issue with debating it intellectually.

Now McHugh, his statement just got caught up in politics. Fine whatever.
So is he saying that the link should be investigated further? I mean it has, like thoroughly, by numerous researchers in numerous fields. But fine, we can always afford to take a closer look.
I have no problem with such a statement.

McHugh is providing an attempt to debate it academically. And it is so far being met with lots and lots of political resistance, and I would say misinterpreting the correlation. I don't think it helps that McHugh was apparently entrenched with the other side of the political debate, that seemingly has no issues with shaming homosexuals.

And to me, it's just bizarre, that intellectual types, who are so obviously overly concerned with political ramifications are framing it as it is either rampant homosexuality as the primary way to understand the problem or it is best understood as having zero association with homosexuality. I see it in a gray area in between those. I think both of those are extreme positions that really don't help the honest, intellectual discussion to be had.

I can agree with that.

Mostly agreed. For sure the first sentence here I agree with. I don't see the pedophilia issue like most others that I've encountered, and rather not get into that because of how much of a hot button / witch hunt type issue it is. I see McHugh bringing up a point that is misinterpreted a bit (and I think intentionally so) and that for either side of the political debate, it isn't really about the children. To me, they are (yet again) just being used as pawns by adults for another battle being fought. One that strikes me as childish.

Yes, it's all scoring points for your side. No one gives a real damn about the actual kids.

 

[Acim]

it's rather interesting that during times when homosexuality was literally illegal, the church was covering up sex crimes against children. Like actively. So I, for one, am quite wary of this proposed link. Again, I have no issue with debating it intellectually.

Now McHugh, his statement just got caught up in politics. Fine whatever.
So is he saying that the link should be investigated further? I mean it has, like thoroughly, by numerous researchers in numerous fields. But fine, we can always afford to take a closer look.
I have no problem with such a statement.

Snipped a bunch of your post, but kept what I felt was directed at me.

Is it not also interesting that the scandal emerged (more prominently) when the push/promotion occurred? I'm not saying "amazing interesting" but a little peculiar, no?

IMO, lots of society was covering up, and arguably still is, on same front. As one who has experience of being on the receiving end of this issue (when I was around 12), and watching a whole lot of otherwise sane, forthright adults cover things up, I think I have an informed perspective on the topic. It wasn't just the 'let's sweep this under the legal rug' thing that I didn't understand, but why not confront the person? And I am (surely) not saying confront to attack, as I see that as, I dunno, zealotry. There were 3 adults involved in my situation (2 were looking out for me), all three were teachers, and the two looking out for me were relatives. Seems that whatever lesson the adults were trying to teach me, I didn't get. The older I've gotten, the less reasonable I find how it was handled. Yet also the older I got, the more I realize I was far from being unique in terms of having that type of experience as a minor. Now that we live in a world where confront to attack is seemingly (fully) justifiable and confront to condemn is almost the norm, I actually think covering up is rather sane. Seems very few adults want to address the situation with what I'd call maturity.

Yes, it's all scoring points for your side. No one gives a real damn about the actual kids.

Another thing about my getting older, is my getting wiser. I see the kids as literally us. We are them, and at the very least, we were them (without any known exceptions to that assertion). I think there's a bit of a rabbit hole to this issue that goes kinda deep, but that condemnation/shaming and/or guilt is not having us readily explore. Oh well.

 

[gsa]

"A major new report, published today in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges the leading narratives that the media has pushed regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.

Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.

The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that “some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.”

Here are four of the report’s most important conclusions:

1. The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

2. Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

3. Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.

4. Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.
​

The report, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” is co-authored by Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh. Mayer is a scholar-in-residence in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University."
source​

WOW! Don't know if this is going to bode well for GLBTs or not. What do you think?


.

I have no idea how this will bode for the groups you mention. I am, however, not surprised to see this level of analysis from professionals whose standing demands that they endorse the same groups that deny tens of thousands of years of genetic separation and varying hominid admixture levels have not produced human biodiversity that matters.

I say open the floodgates and allow racial and ethnic differentiation to be studied with the same scrutiny that is currently applied to sex and sexual orientation. Combine this with insights from social network analysis and we will begin to see, I think, the varying roles of genes and culture. In an open and honest way that is fittingly uncomfortable for everyone.

 

[SomeRandom]

Is it not also interesting that the scandal emerged (more prominently) when the push/promotion occurred? I'm not saying "amazing interesting" but a little peculiar, no?

Technically the scandal took place during the 50s-80s. Again, during times when it was illegal to be gay.
It only rose to prominence in the 90s due to the aggressive actions taken by the advocacy group Broken Rites. At least in Australia, I can't speak for other countries. So not peculiar at all really. A support network is set up, presumably from victims wanting to help others. It's inundated with stories from a number of victims. It campaigns, eventually it succeeds in raising enough awareness and generating enough public outcry for something to be done. More and more victims come forward, bolstered by the publicity and encouraged by this fact that they are not alone. Rinse and repeat. Almost robotic in a way. I mean I'm not saying there's no correlation at all. But another correlation with the push/promotion arose. A culture that actively encourages children to speak out if they are being sexually abused. Hell there's an entire curriculum in the public school system specifically designed with this purpose in mind. It's part of Sexual Education.

IMO, lots of society was covering up, and arguably still is, on same front.

I agree.

As one who has experience of being on the receiving end of this issue (when I was around 12), and watching a whole lot of otherwise sane, forthright adults cover things up, I think I have an informed perspective on the topic. It wasn't just the 'let's sweep this under the legal rug' thing that I didn't understand, but why not confront the person? And I am (surely) not saying confront to attack, as I see that as, I dunno, zealotry. There were 3 adults involved in my situation (2 were looking out for me), all three were teachers, and the two looking out for me were relatives. Seems that whatever lesson the adults were trying to teach me, I didn't get. The older I've gotten, the less reasonable I find how it was handled. Yet also the older I got, the more I realize I was far from being unique in terms of having that type of experience as a minor. Now that we live in a world where confront to attack is seemingly (fully) justifiable and confront to condemn is almost the norm,

I'm in the same boat, as it were. And I get what you're saying. This gungho approach might be seen as admirable, but it can be rather a bit "too much" so to speak. There are perhaps better ways to handle it, though it probably does depend on the specific circumstances.

I actually think covering up is rather sane. Seems very few adults want to address the situation with what I'd call maturity.

I wouldn't call it sane. I see it as cowardice.
In saying that however, I dunno. If someone, a teacher, a scout leader, priest whatever has accusations, then they should be quietly suspended, every child under their care might go through one of those PCYC programs about appropriate adult child relationships that we seemed to have all the time in school anyway and if they are found guilty by a thorough investigation carried out by a totally independent body, well I would like to think that such person would be tried in a court of law. If nothing comes of it they can go back to work and the accuser and the accused should remain anonymous until it is proven by the legal system one way or the other. Anyway that's what I think should happen. Not a perfect solution, but what is really?
But you're right. Very few people seem to be able to discuss the issue logically. Very few issues with this are properly addressed.. Like the fact that some children aren't traumatized by the experience, some seek it out, some act it out. No one wants to deal with the reality of the various ways children umm I guess "deal with it" if that makes sense?

 

[Acim]

Technically the scandal took place during the 50s-80s. Again, during times when it was illegal to be gay.
It only rose to prominence in the 90s due to the aggressive actions taken by the advocacy group Broken Rites. At least in Australia, I can't speak for other countries. So not peculiar at all really.

I would say it wasn't technically a scandal prior to it rising to level of prominence. But let's go with 'rising to prominence' as the point I was addressing.

I mean I'm not saying there's no correlation at all. But another correlation with the push/promotion arose. A culture that actively encourages children to speak out if they are being sexually abused. Hell there's an entire curriculum in the public school system specifically designed with this purpose in mind. It's part of Sexual Education.

If you are saying there is some (even a tiny bit) of correlation, then I'm not sure what the dispute is. I don't think McHugh has made a strong link, nor do I actually think he thinks that. Perhaps he does. But we really don't have much to go on, do we?

I'm in the same boat, as it were. And I get what you're saying. This gungho approach might be seen as admirable, but it can be rather a bit "too much" so to speak. There are perhaps better ways to handle it, though it probably does depend on the specific circumstances.

I agree. The principle of the matter matters to me more than circumstances, but circumstances do matter.

I wouldn't call it sane. I see it as cowardice.
In saying that however, I dunno. If someone, a teacher, a scout leader, priest whatever has accusations, then they should be quietly suspended, every child under their care might go through one of those PCYC programs about appropriate adult child relationships that we seemed to have all the time in school anyway and if they are found guilty by a thorough investigation carried out by a totally independent body, well I would like to think that such person would be tried in a court of law. If nothing comes of it they can go back to work and the accuser and the accused should remain anonymous until it is proven by the legal system one way or the other. Anyway that's what I think should happen. Not a perfect solution, but what is really?
But you're right. Very few people seem to be able to discuss the issue logically. Very few issues with this are properly addressed.. Like the fact that some children aren't traumatized by the experience, some seek it out, some act it out. No one wants to deal with the reality of the various ways children umm I guess "deal with it" if that makes sense?

I think the cowardice is sane given the circumstances. We are discussing adults who have lynch mob mentality, and I think cowardice (or great caution) is sane response to that. Take out that witch hunt mentality and erase the justification for zealous condemnation, and I'll likely say cowardice is no longer sane.

Your solution (above) is too reactionary for my tastes. It essentially allows the perceived problem to go on, and implies that penalty/condemnation is effective way in dealing with the perceived problem.

Because of how huge the issue is, and plausibly wide spread, I think adults need to have a serious discussion whereby condemnation is off the table during that. Without that, I'd be making rhetorical (but effective) accusations that children are getting used and abused by a whole lot of adults in ways that I think are self evident, but are currently allowed to fly because, well some people think their stuff doesn't stink. There are so many nuances to this larger discussion that I don't think one or two points being addressed would cover it. Like tangential, but IMO related to the topic is why is it verboten for minors to be exposed to sexuality, but seemingly very okay (for sure permissible) for them, really us, to be exposed to violence? That's a nuanced item, I'd want on the table for discussion. Consent would be another one. All this nonsense of "can't legitimately consent" sounds great, but if applied to ANY other thing that adults may ask of kids, that's suddenly framed vastly different (as in we adults are helping them grow). Also seems to be some general trust for certain adults and less trust for others, which directly relates to the church scandal. If adults were serious about this issue, and aren't going to have the discussion I mentioned above (where condemnation is off the table), then it would be reasonable IMO to say no adults can be trusted and have that be the starting point. When I say zero, I mean zero, which would ultimately mean that a sane adult would have to admit that they cannot be trusted to be left alone with a child. If they are unwilling to admit that, and condemnation is on the table, then all such adults ought to be condemned first, and questions asked later that allow us to understand why they are for sure able to be trusted. And given that condemnation is seen as reasonable, I highly doubt that any adult could make a case (even if they are the parent of the child) for why they are to be trusted being left alone with a child. In fact, I'd love to hear that case being made while condemnation is seen as reasonable. I believe all adults, ever, would fail.

 

[SomeRandom]

I would say it wasn't technically a scandal prior to it rising to level of prominence. But let's go with 'rising to prominence' as the point I was addressing.

Fine. Still stands that most of it was the aggressive tactics by Broken Rites. Homosexuality became a link in our political discussions much later. I dunno, maybe Mardi Gras had something to do with that.

If you are saying there is some (even a tiny bit) of correlation, then I'm not sure what the dispute is. I don't think McHugh has made a strong link, nor do I actually think he thinks that. Perhaps he does. But we really don't have much to go on, do we?

Doesn't correlation simply mean two things happening at the same time? Or am I using the word wrong?

I think the cowardice is sane given the circumstances. We are discussing adults who have lynch mob mentality, and I think cowardice (or great caution) is sane response to that. Take out that witch hunt mentality and erase the justification for zealous condemnation, and I'll likely say cowardice is no longer sane.

Very well it's sane. I still contend it's cowardice. But perhaps that's my Eastern version of ethics/honor coming into play. I'm not saying go out and hang the accused. I'm saying try them in a court of law, like civilized people and let them be judged fairly by a jury of their peers like every other accused crime is supposed to.

Your solution (above) is too reactionary for my tastes. It essentially allows the perceived problem to go on, and implies that penalty/condemnation is effective way in dealing with the perceived problem

I'm not saying condemn anyone. I'm saying that an accusation of sexual misconduct, whether that is an adult against a child or an adult against another adult, should be investigated. Is that wrong? What would you suggest?

Because of how huge the issue is, and plausibly wide spread, I think adults need to have a serious discussion whereby condemnation is off the table during that. Without that, I'd be making rhetorical (but effective) accusations that children are getting used and abused by a whole lot of adults in ways that I think are self evident, but are currently allowed to fly because, well some people think their stuff doesn't stink. There are so many nuances to this larger discussion that I don't think one or two points being addressed would cover it.

Well I would agree with that. They've tried with the B4UACT thing, which I personally supported. But people threw a tantrum and accused scientists of protecting pedophiles.

Like tangential, but IMO related to the topic is why is it verboten for minors to be exposed to sexuality, but seemingly very okay (for sure permissible) for them, really us, to be exposed to violence?

:
That's more of a purely American phenomenon really. So I can't really comment on it one way or the other.
I mean many places in Europe are quite open about sexuality with children, England is quite open about sexuality with children. Australia sits somewhere in between, with vulgar language and sexuality being more common place in our media than America's. A little more Prudish than say the French but no where near as anti sex as America. I mean we even have nudist beaches, both official and unofficial but still left to operate. With children attending without so much as a second glance.
We have our Helen Lovejoys and Nanny State soccer mum types, but we don't really give them the power that they seem to have in America. We simply throw them a bone every now and then to shut them up. Like that time Target stopped selling GTA:V despite it being available readily in at least 7 big name chains regardless. Though it could be argued that they are starting to gain some traction.

Consent would be another one. All this nonsense of "can't legitimately consent" sounds great, but if applied to ANY other thing that adults may ask of kids, that's suddenly framed vastly different (as in we adults are helping them grow). Also seems to be some general trust for certain adults and less trust for others, which directly relates to the church scandal. If adults were serious about this issue, and aren't going to have the discussion I mentioned above (where condemnation is off the table), then it would be reasonable IMO to say no adults can be trusted and have that be the starting point. When I say zero, I mean zero, which would ultimately mean that a sane adult would have to admit that they cannot be trusted to be left alone with a child. If they are unwilling to admit that, and condemnation is on the table, then all such adults ought to be condemned first, and questions asked later that allow us to understand why they are for sure able to be trusted. And given that condemnation is seen as reasonable, I highly doubt that any adult could make a case (even if they are the parent of the child) for why they are to be trusted being left alone with a child. In fact, I'd love to hear that case being made while condemnation is seen as reasonable. I believe all adults, ever, would fail.

Well there's a difference between intellectually understanding something and emotionally understanding something. There is natural sexual curiosity among kids, I would not dispute that. I would even agree that there is a certain sliding scale as it were when "dealing" with sexuality in relation to adults.
Some legitimately report that they were not affected and liked the experience. But some are so confused and overstimulated that they may have meaningless sex and are unable to trust anyone ever again. Some are somewhere in between. It depends largely on the child and some might argue the overall culture can influence feelings of guilt, shame and anger.
I agree that there are many issues that are never truly addressed by the overall public who are very much about stringing up the offending adult by the balls and are too squeamish to talk about such nuances.
But still, I cannot fully agree that children can legitimately give consent to sexual encounters. If that is what you're arguing, I apologize if I misunderstood you at all.