When they try to normalize pedophilia, believe them

Here is a concise summary of the issue at hand: In 1993 the Minnesota legislature amended its voluminous Human Rights Act to include coverages for sexual orientation. Within those amendments the legislature noted that, whatever else its qualifiers, sexual orientation “does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult,” i.e., pedophilia. So for thirty years the state has pointedly noted that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, and thus pedophiles have no claims under state anti-discrimination laws qua their pedophilia. This month, however, “transgender” legislator Leigh Finke—a man who believes he is a woman—attempted to remove that language from the statute.

As I wrote earlier this month, there is no need to play dumb about this sort of thing and indeed there is every need to be harshly blunt about it. This legislator is attempting to move the needle on pedophilia, to make sexual attraction to young people by adults more politically acceptable. No point in being coy about it. Being coy about this sort of thing is what leads to the mass sexual assault of children. Speaking on this effort, the Minnesota GOP House Minority Leader whined: “The Democrats’ decision to strike this language is disturbing and inexplicable.” Weak, pathetic, craven Republicans, always half on the defense, unable to muster even the necessary outrage at an effort to rape children.

There are two ways that you can be very sure that this is what’s happening. The first is simply that you’re sure. You know it in your bones. Something doesn’t feel right here, in fact something feels hideously wrong. You don’t need to justify that feeling anymore. You don’t need to try and play politics with it because you’re afraid you’re going to bother someone. Imagine that in the end this leads to the population-scale exploitation and horrific sexual abuse of children. Will you say to yourself: “Well, that’s bad, but at least I soft-pedaled it?” “Well, it’s horrible what’s happened, but at least I didn’t rush to judgment and upset some LGBT activists?” Don’t ignore that sick feeling in your gut. It’s there for a reason. Millions of years of evolution have converged on this point to make you feel queasy. You don’t have to go along with this.

The second way you can be sure is that the justifications given for this proposal are bullshit. You can easily tell they are. Finke said his proposed amendment "updates outdated language that incorrectly ties pedophilia to a person's sexual orientation." This is a lie: The original provision in the Human Rights Act explicitly decoupled pedophilia from a person’s sexual orientation. The state law, in other words, said that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. Finke is falsely suggesting that it did say that, and he’s using that falsehood as a pretext to scrubbing the provision altogether. Here’s an ironclad rule: People lie because they want to do something that you wouldn’t let them do if they told the truth.

Elsewhere he argued:

“The language never should have been included in the statutory definition in the first place. Crimes against children are located in Minnesota’s criminal statutes, and again, they remain unchanged."

This, too, is a misdirection, meant to baffle and confuse you into frustrated retreat, the sort of thing where you fall silent, pursing your lips together in a thin frustrated line as you shrug your shoulders and exhale breath quickly out of your nose: “Oh, I guess he’s right, I got this wrong, I’m embarrassed, I should back off.” Don’t do that. You see what he did here? The anti-pedophile provision in the state’s Human Rights Act said nothing about “crimes against children.” It did not move to address criminal statute in any way. It only stipulated that pedophiles cannot cite their own sick sexual fixations under state anti-discrimination law. For instance: Under current law, if a pedophile applied to be a den leader for a Cub Scout troop, the troop could easily refuse him on the grounds that he is a pedophile, and he himself would have no recourse to anti-discrimination law in order to force the troop to hire him. This is but one of a thousand scenarios we could postulate in which the law’s original language was meant to apply. It’s not a matter of “criminal statutes.” It’s a civil protection against potential crimes. That’s how it’s meant to function.

Finally he argues:

"Nothing in the bill changes or weakens any crimes against children, or the state's ability to prosecute those who break the law.”

This is, again, a sneaky misdirection. The Human Rights Act did not address “crimes against children” and never purported to do so. It merely ensured that pedophiles would not be able to utilize human rights laws to gain access to vulnerable children. That’s it. Repealing this provision of the law can really only mean that you want to make it easier for that to happen. There is no other meaningful way to interpret it.

House Republicans managed to get Finke’s provision stripped from the relevant bill, so this effort mercifully looks dead in the water, for now. But in the end you might still be tempted to argue that this wasn’t nefarious, there was no ulterior motive here, Finke was just trying to clarify or streamline state law instead of pervert it. Do not lull yourself to sleep like that. Don’t try and ignore the facts here simply because they make you uncomfortable. If you don’t care about it, nobody will. Nobody cares already. A state legislator is very openly and clearly trying to move the needle on child rape and all we have to show for it is a pretty weak report from Fox News and a few scattered indignations at a few conservative blogs. Nobody cares. This is the direction in which things are moving, and very rapidly so. Don’t be one of the ones who doesn’t care. Care.