(Ed) Paedophiles infiltrating legitimate organisations

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Yes, I'm smearing pedophiles. I don't think there's anything desperate about doing so. Pedophiles are evil ******* predators that have no place in a decent society.

You're smearing Drag Queens. Are you claiming they're pedophiles at a higher rate than among non-Drag Queens? There's a good chance there's a higher/equal rate of pedophiles among married heterosexual men, clergy, and Boy Scout leaders.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

You're smearing Drag Queens. Are you claiming they're pedophiles at a higher rate than among non-Drag Queens? There's a good chance there's a higher/equal rate of pedophiles among married heterosexual men, clergy, and Boy Scout leaders.

Don’t forget the worst demographic of all for child molestation: family members and family friends.

DSH is a drop-in-the-bucket attempt to reduce non-cis-gendered bullying and bring down the self-harm rate of that group. It’s not mandatory. No one in this thread has shown that it hurts anyone beyond the anxiety from a conservative media driven moral panic.

EC has, once again, bought into the propaganda over the reality to the point she can’t even decide if she’s outraged about this situation because of pedophiles or drag queen caricatures of women.


ETA: derp. Ninja’d on the family thing.

[Robin]

Back in the early eighties the gay activist organisations were a bit like the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea.

As far as I can remember the ILGA was a splinter group from the CHE and a pretty small player back then among dozens of organisations.

Most of us weren't members of any of these groups, that's not how gay activism worked.

So an organisation got hacked by NAMBLA. And the CHE allegedly passed an amendment condemning press treatment of PIE. I can't confirm if that is true or not that they passed that resolution but the statement by the honorary president afterwards condemning PIE and pedos in general seems to be something that happened.

And as I said you can hardly blame gay activists for the fact that PIE existed for ten years. We had no control over that fact. Most of us hated them, but we could hardly stop an independent group forming an organisation.

Given the shocking amount of pedo activities in society in general it shows that the gay activist movement of the time was relatively clean.

Why was it so difficult for ILGA to get rid of NAMBLA? We'll first because when they started ILGA started as a rag tag group of people spread across the world who had no idea what they were doing, and NAMBLA was working hard to stack the organisation with allies from various countries.. That's what pedos are like, they rarely think of anything else than advancing their own ability to access children.

Also, NAMBLA had powerful friends like the preposterous Camille Paglia who worked to undermine anyone who tried to get rid of NAMBLA. Don't forget that we, along with feminists, got criticised by the right for distancing ourselves from the pedo apologist Paglia, by Christine Hoff Sommers for example. You can't win.

For my part I think it was shocking that ILGA was allowed consultative status in the first place and even more shocking that this was reinstated. I think the fact that they ever had anything to do with NAMBLA in the first place should make them forever ineligible for that position. There are many who can fill that role.

But then again we can't control who the UN gives credibility to.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

In this thread...
Female disapproves of males costumed as exaggerated stereotypes of females.
Male in this thread describes that female as "hysterical".

Verging on 2023, y'all. So progress, much evolution.

What I find hysterical is your desperate attempt to equate drag performers with pedophiles.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

What I find hysterical is your desperate attempt to equate drag performers with pedophiles.

Gay Panic 2.0

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Gay Panic 2.0

2.0 suggests it's been updated or changed in someway.

This is Gay Panic: Game of the Year Edition. Nothing changed but the packaging.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Robin

Again nonsense, you totally ignored the part I quoted from your link where it was stated that most gays were horrified by the attempts by pedos to infest the movement. They tried in the UK and never got a toehold except for a couple of irrelevant radicals. Gay activists have no power to prevent a group like PIE from existing, but there was never any encouragement. Here is a typical reaction (not that you'll read it)

I read the entire article - did you? Or did you stop as soon as you found something that supported your take on it?
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378

Quote:

A gay rights conference backs a motion in favour of paedophilia. The story is written up by a national newspaper as "Child-lovers win fight for role in Gay Lib".

It sounds like a nightmarish plotline from dystopian fiction. But this happened in the UK. The conference took place in Sheffield and the newspaper was the Guardian. The year was 1975.

Here's a link to that actual article from 1975, I suggest you read it:
https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.c...y-lib-26-8-75/

continuing from the BBC Article:

Quote:

One of PIE's key tactics was to try to conflate its cause with gay rights. On at least two occasions the Campaign for Homosexual Equality conference passed motions in PIE's favour.

...

There were divisions within progressive circles. In 1977 the Campaign for Homosexual Equality passed by a large majority a resolution condemning "the harassment of the Paedophile Information Exchange by the press".

...

But the NCCL continued to defend having PIE as a member. As late as September 1983, an NCCL officer was quoted in the Daily Mail saying the group was campaigning to lower the age of consent to 14.

Originally Posted by Robin

There are dozens of groups that spring up claiming to represent gays. You found one which carelessly allowed themselves to be infiltrated by pedos.

That you could only find one case shows we were ahead of the curve.

That one being ILGA... The enormous international organization that represented the interests of gay and lesbian people to the ******* UN itself!

But sure, we can just hand-wave that away as "just one org".

By the way = ILGA, which once again maintains consultative status with the UN with respect to LGBT issues, is once *again* campaigning to recognize the sexual rights of children and to abolish age of consent for adolescents - where "adolescent" means children aged 10 to 18.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

The dates.

WTF about the dates? The article was published in 2014, and it is covering the influence and openness of PIE in the 70s and early 80s. What the holy ******* hell is your point about the dates?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

WTF about the dates? The article was published in 2014, and it is covering the influence and openness of PIE in the 70s and early 80s. What the holy ******* hell is your point about the dates?

To remind you of your claim:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

NAMBLA and various pedophile apologists infested the gay rights efforts in teh late 70s. They were finally REMOVED in the 90s.



Public acceptance of homosexuality turned around pretty quickly once the pedophiles were removed from the efforts.

The biggest change in the rights of homosexuals was the decriminalisation of homosexuality, which happened in 1967, years before the period your article covered.

PIE and the other disgusting groups were gone long before the likes of section 28.

There is no causality between peadophile advocating groups attempting and then failing to coattail the campaign for equal rights for homosexuals and the change in “public acceptance” of homosexuality.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I read the entire article - did you? Or did you stop as soon as you found something that supported your take on it?

So if you read it then why did you fail to mention the part which contradicted your take on it?

Quote:

Here's a link to that actual article from 1975, I suggest you read it:
https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.c...y-lib-26-8-75/

1. The journalist's source is a pedo. It may surprise you to learn that pedos are not the most reliable of people.
2. The article relates to the alleged (by a pedo) happenings of a meeting of 80-100 people in a town in England on one night 45 years ago>
3. I have already pointed out the condemnation of PUE coming from the top of CHE.

Quote:

continuing from the BBC Article:

NCCL ain't a gay organisation as far as I know, so, irrelevant.

Quote:

That one being ILGA... The enormous international organization that represented the interests of gay and lesbian people to the ******* UN itself!

1. I have no idea how "enormous" that little group became by 1994 (probably not very), but it was and is a miniscule part of gay activism generally.
2. The fact that they convinced a. UN body to grant them consultative status doesn't change the point that they are a miniscule part of gay activism generally.

Quote:

But sure, we can just hand-wave that away as "just one org".

Again you didn't read what I wrote. I said it was shocking that this organisation (a miniscule part of gay activism generally) was infiltrated by NAMBLA and that it somehow has consultative status in a UN body when there are so many more that could represent us better. We don't control the UN.

So, yes, you did find just one gay organisation, a miniscule part of gay activism generally, that got infiltrated by NAMBLA for 10 years before managing to kick them out.

Why do you continue to pretend that this is representative of gay activism generally?

Certainly that is one organisation too many and ten years too long.

But why won't you acknowledge that pedos have been active infiltrating organisations and groups in all walks of life and have been considerably more successful in non gay organisations than in gay ones. The Catholic Church for example.

And child rape apologist Camille Paglia, shunned by feminists and gay groups continues to be lionised by the new liberal haters, Breitbart, Quillette, Jordan Peterson, Steven Pinker and the so-called "Intellectual Dark Web" generally.

Remember she was one of the people who tried to make it difficult for ILGA to expel NAMBLA and their cronies

She doubled down on her support of child rape for long after only making a partial half hearted walk back in 2018. Do you have no criticism at all for the IDW figures who continue to support her?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

To remind you of your claim:




The biggest change in the rights of homosexuals was the decriminalisation of homosexuality, which happened in 1967, years before the period your article covered.

PIE and the other disgusting groups were gone long before the likes of section 28.

There is no causality between peadophile advocating groups attempting and then failing to coattail the campaign for equal rights for homosexuals and the change in “public acceptance” of homosexuality.

Ahh, I see where you've become confused. You see, my original discussion related specifically to the US. You're using one article referencing a similar type of infiltration in the UK as if that somehow overrides the history of support for gay rights in the US.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Ahh, I see where you've become confused. You see, my original discussion related specifically to the US. You're using one article referencing a similar type of infiltration in the UK as if that somehow overrides the history of support for gay rights in the US.

The ILGA is an even more marginal organisation in the US than it was in Britain or Europe. And there is no correlation between advances in LGBTQ rights and 1993/94. In fact rights started going back for a while at that time.

[Robin]

And again, there was no infestation of pedos in Britain.

An account by a pedo of a meeting of 80 -190 people in Sheffield 45 years ago is pretty pathetic as evidences goes.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Robin

And again, there was no infestation of pedos in Britain.

An account by a pedo of a meeting of 80 -190 people in Sheffield 45 years ago is pretty pathetic as evidences goes.

80-100 people in Sheffield 45 years ago I mean.

[Stacyhs]

Someone is sure giving the impression of trying to link homosexuality with pedophilia while proclaiming not to have a problem with homosexuality

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Ahh, I see where you've become confused. You see, my original discussion related specifically to the US. You're using one article referencing a similar type of infiltration in the UK as if that somehow overrides the history of support for gay rights in the US.

The confusion is your claim that the attempts by peadophila advocacy groups to coat tail the campaign for equal rights for homosexuals is linked to the “public acceptance” of homosexuality. There was and there is no such causal relationship.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Robin

And again, there was no infestation of pedos in Britain.

An account by a pedo of a meeting of 80 -190 people in Sheffield 45 years ago is pretty pathetic as evidences goes.

I became politically active in the early 1980s, by that time the likes of PIE were long gone as having any kind of influence in regards to campaigning for gay rights.

For those that are wondering why there was ever even a tenuous link between two very different campaign groups you have to remember how the law stood after the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967. That removed sex between men being a criminal act regardless of consent but it still treated homosexuality differently to heterosexuality and one of the main differences was in the age of consent. The age of consent for heterosexuals was 16, the age of consent for homosexuals was 21. Someone like myself who became sexually active before they were 21 could still be prosecuted and face a criminal conviction (and that was still happening in the 1970s and the 1980s). So there was a lot of campaigning to equalise the ages of consent. It was this point that the likes of PIE tried to exploit to insert themselves into legitimate campaign groups.

Sadly approach used by the likes of PIE and NAMBLA has become mainstream, and that is the use of the word pedophilia being widened so it will be used to describe someone having sex with someone aged 15 years and 363 days old. That helps cloak the utter horror of pedophilia, which is acts like a babe in arms being raped by an adult.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

2.0 suggests it's been updated or changed in someway.

This is Gay Panic: Game of the Year Edition. Nothing changed but the packaging.

It's Gay Panic Expansion Set.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

It's Gay Panic Expansion Set.

Yep. Lock up yer kids!! It's Reefer Madness for the 21st Century!!

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Someone is sure giving the impression of trying to link homosexuality with pedophilia while proclaiming not to have a problem with homosexuality

You make a good point. I stand by my statement quoted in the now-OP.

“I’m not homophobic, but…” always ends homophobic.

To summarize EC’s now cross-thread argument that got us here, parents are justified in being worried that drag queens who read stories to children might be pedophiles because in 80s (give or take) there was a gay rights organization that didn’t kick NAMBLA out until the 90s.

The foundation of her argument that drag queens are likely pedophiles is based on an incorrect hasty generation made by a bigoted moral panic from 40 years ago. Most parents of story-hour aged kids probably weren’t even alive or old enough to remember that moral panic first hand. Any that continue to hold that misinformed bigotry were likely taught it.

So, are drag queens (or transvestites) more likely to be pedophiles or harm children than the general population? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have seen no data presented in any of the split threads that supports this claim

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

You make a good point. I stand by my statement quoted in the now-OP.

“I’m not homophobic, but…” always ends homophobic.

To summarize EC’s now cross-thread argument that got us here, parents are justified in being worried that drag queens who read stories to children might be pedophiles because in 80s (give or take) there was a gay rights organization that didn’t kick NAMBLA out until the 90s.

The foundation of her argument that drag queens are likely pedophiles is based on an incorrect hasty generation made by a bigoted moral panic from 40 years ago. Most parents of story-hour aged kids probably weren’t even alive or old enough to remember that moral panic first hand. Any that continue to hold that misinformed bigotry were likely taught it.

So, are drag queens (or transvestites) more likely to be pedophiles or harm children than the general population? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have seen no data presented in any of the split threads that supports this claim

Ha! Who needs data when you've got the full force of no-holds-barred radical feminism* behind you?!




* And woe betide any male who dares challenge the radical feminist orthodoxy - cue strident hysterical accusations of "misogyny" and "how dare a male tell females how to think" incoming.....

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

...snip...

So, are drag queens (or transvestites) more likely to be pedophiles or harm children than the general population? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have seen no data presented in any of the split threads that supports this claim

We do know that most children are abused by their parents or close family and close family friends. Given that these readings are done in public and with parents present it seems hard to see how drag performers could be an increased risk to kids. It is sad to say but if you want to try reduce the access to children by those that would abuse them you would have to start with removing males, so no fathers at these events. But considering the low risk to any individual child of being abused at these events that would to me be a disproportionate reaction to the actual risk. Just as it would be a disproportionate reaction to band drag performers from reading to children.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Darat

We do know that most children are abused by their parents or close family and close family friends.

I get what you’re saying. I’ve pointed this out myself, but just because “transvestites R pedophiles” is not the biggest problem, it doesn’t mean it couldn’t be at least a problem. The thing is, we haven’t even established it is even true, let alone part of the problem.

At one point, in a different thread, EC declared that the number of pedophile drag queens was “not insignificant”. I’m still waiting on the source of that claim. My internet searches found less than a handful of stories and no actual numbers.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Darat

We do know that most children are abused by their parents or close family and close family friends. Given that these readings are done in public and with parents present it seems hard to see how drag performers could be an increased risk to kids. It is sad to say but if you want to try reduce the access to children by those that would abuse them you would have to start with removing males, so no fathers at these events. But considering the low risk to any individual child of being abused at these events that would to me be a disproportionate reaction to the actual risk. Just as it would be a disproportionate reaction to band drag performers from reading to children.

Yes. Suffice it to say that when parents take their young children to readings by drag queens in the local library... the people in the room who statistically represent by far the highest risk to the children are not the drag queens.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Darat

We do know that most children are abused by their parents or close family and close family friends.

What? I think this wild claim is going to need some evidence.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

What? I think this wild claim is going to need some evidence.

I think it was some lazy wording from Darat and it should read...

Most children who are abused are abused by parents, close family or close family friends.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by The Don

I think it was some lazy wording from Darat and it should read...

Most children who are abused are abused by parents, close family or close family friends.

Better phrasing thanks.

[Upchurch]

I have been reading an uncomfortable amount information about child sexual molestation. For example, https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/...ople/sexabuse/

When it comes to strangers, they almost all describe predators as people who don’t stand out, who don’t draw attention to themselves. Nothing in there points to transvestites and especially not drag queens. It’s just not supported.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

What? I think this wild claim is going to need some evidence.

Is this a poorly indicated attempt at sarcasm? Numerous studies indicate that less than 10% of sexual abuse is perpetrated by strangers.
Around 30% of sexual abuse is down to immediate family members, while non-related acquaintances (i.e. family friends, neighbours, babysitters at cetera)

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I have been reading an uncomfortable amount information about child sexual molestation. For example, https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/...ople/sexabuse/

When it comes to strangers, they almost all describe predators as people who don’t stand out, who don’t draw attention to themselves. Nothing in there points to transvestites and especially not drag queens. It’s just not supported.

Exactly. The hysteria over drag acts is pure bigotry and prejudice.

[Carrot Flower King]

What on earth would some folk have made of my erstwhile colleague who I mentioned earlier in the other iteration of this who did a Marilyn Monroe drag act. This was in certain of the gay clubs in Sheffield and this lad was gay.

Oh, did I mention where we worked and met? The adolescent psychiatric in-patient unit in Sheffield. He was one of the qualified nurses and I was a nursing assistant...The bairns all loved him and one of the female charge nurses kept trying to get off with him, as, and I quote, he had a nice arse.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Is this a poorly indicated attempt at sarcasm? Numerous studies indicate that less than 10% of sexual abuse is perpetrated by strangers.
Around 30% of sexual abuse is down to immediate family members, while non-related acquaintances (i.e. family friends, neighbours, babysitters at cetera)

That’s not what Darat said though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

That’s not what Darat said though.

Quote:

We do know that most children are abused by their parents or close family and close family friends.

Entirely supported by the evidence.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Entirely supported by the evidence.

Which you never, ever ******* quote.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by lionking

Which you never, ever ******* quote.

I did. Does that help?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by lionking

Which you never, ever ******* quote.

Sigh.
Maybe you could go and research for yourself?
Start here perhaps;

Quote:

The majority of perpetrators are someone the child or family knows. As many as 93 percent of victims under the age of 18 know the abuser.

Seriously, in this day and age, does anyone believe most abusers of children are strangers?

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

That’s not what Darat said though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hope this helps clear any possible confusion:

Originally Posted by The Don

I think it was some lazy wording from Darat and it should read...

Most children who are abused are abused by parents, close family or close family friends.

Originally Posted by Darat

Better phrasing thanks.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Robin

Again nonsense, you totally ignored the part I quoted from your link where it was stated that most gays were horrified by the attempts by pedos to infest the movement. They tried in the UK and never got a toehold except for a couple of irrelevant radicals. Gay activists have no power to prevent a group like PIE from existing, but there was never any encouragement. Here is a typical reaction (not that you'll read it)


This was the real reaction to the PIE infiltration attempt.



And I'm pointing out that it ain't true.


There are dozens of groups that spring up claiming to represent gays. You found one which carelessly allowed themselves to be infiltrated by pedos.

That you could only find one case shows we were ahead of the curve.

Don't forget the Catholic Church was enthusiastically encouraging priests to rape children at the time, the film industry was producing big budget mainstream films glorifying child rape.

The only time I met a member of PIE was when I was introduced to him by a straight couple who were completely unaffiliated with the gay movement.

Again no. Support had been growing since the 1960's at least. The biggest breakthroughs happened in the early '80s.

Read this article about Brooke Shields in.... American Home. Mainstream media was truly horrible about this in the 70s and 80s.


https://www.reddit.com/r/awfuleveryt...t=share_button

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Entirely supported by the evidence.

Entirely unsupported by any evidence.

First thing to support: “most children are abused”. Let’s get that out of the way before we move on to who abuses them.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Entirely unsupported by any evidence.

First thing to support: “most children are abused”. Let’s get that out of the way before we move on to who abuses them.

What are you doing?