Yes, they're trying to normalize pedophilia

Where's the limiting principle?

A growing number of people are attempting to give pedophilia a rebrand, and pretty much the only time you give something a rebrand is because you want to make it more acceptable to more people. Here’s Pennsylvania licensed therapist Miranda Galbreath, for instance, arguing that the term “pedophile” is a “a judgmental, hurtful insult;” instead, she advocates the term “minor-attracted person,” because that, you know, sounds nicer.

Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok

🚨 Licensed counselor and sex therapist advocates for “MAPs” (minor attracted persons). She says they are “vilified” and “marginalized” and shouldn’t be referred to as pedophiles

You might argue that this is just a fringe example of a one-off lunatic and that this doesn’t represent the current or gathering consensus on redefining pedophilia. Well, Miss Galbreath is an LPC at the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; it’s not like she’s out on some commune in the stillwaters of Kansas or something. And she clearly feels comfortable enough redefining pedophilia to broadcast it on the Internet.

And no, it’s not a one-off. Earlier this year a postdoc from Old Dominion University publicly advocated re-defining pedophilia as “minor attraction;” she was subsequently let go from ODU, after which she was quickly hired by “a Johns Hopkins University center aimed at preventing child sexual abuse.” This wasn’t even the first time this individual had taken this position: She wrote a few years ago that “there exists overwhelming evidence that minor attraction is a sexual orientation” and that “the prevalence of attractions to prepubescent children alone mirrors numbers of other sexual minorities.” So a child sex abuse center at one of the most prestigious universities in the world is perfectly fine hiring an individual who wants to rebrand pedophilia as “minor attraction” and a “sexual orientation.” How far outside of the mainstream do you think this opinion really is?

If rebranding pedophilia as “minor attraction” sounds like a good idea to you, consider a counter-example: Suppose you met someone who wanted to rebrand the psychopathic desire to rape women as, say, “non-consensual sexual enthusiasm.” This person would argue that the term “rape” or “rapist” constituted a “judgmental, hurtful insult,” that the men who want to rape women were being “vilified” and “marginalized,” and that this stigma was precluding genuine treatment for aspiring rapists. Would that sound like a morally compelling argument? Or would you immediately think, “Gee, this person wants to make it easier and more acceptable for men to rape women?”

Of course it would be the latter. There’s no other reason to re-define an accurate and damaging qualifier than to make more people amenable to the thing being qualified. And we should note that, whether or not you think the individuals at the helm of this effort are too small to make a difference, ultimately nobody really seems to care either way; the apathetic response to these perverted efforts tells you pretty much everything you need to know. If Johns Hopkins had hired an academic who wanted to re-define rape in order to make rapists more sympathetic, or if the state of Pennsylvania were employing someone who defended rapists as a “marginalized” and “vilified” population, we’d obviously and appropriately be seeing waves of protests, demands for resignations, demands for firings. Here, in contrast, we have radio silence from all but a handful of conservatives. What that tells you is that many if not most people are more or less okay with these efforts, and that the push to re-define pedophilia will probably be easier than most anyone can foresee.

“Pedophile” is an accurate term that both correctly describes a thing and imparts the appropriate level of revulsion and rejection on it. Ask yourself what kind of people would want to soften that response, and why. And ask yourself—really ask yourself—what you think is going to come next if they succeed.