What's not productive is bashing anybody who disagrees with you. How can it even be a discussion if opposing views aren't welcome?

I was not bashing everyone who disagrees with me. I had pointed out that the one trick pony opinion trotted out by the anti-label enthusiasts was beside the point of the discussion, was not going to halt the discussion, and I had already explained in Part 1 of my essay why I think labels are not intrinsically bad depending on how they are used. If you still want to trot out the one note anti-label spiel, then go ahead, but since it was already addressed by me in Part 1 of my essay, it was not productive waste bandwidth by trotting it out when I had already pre-rebutted it.

You suggest that anyone on the 'anti-label' side is only 'parrotting' their response, or that my responses are invalid because you 'pre-rebutted' them.

Make an original statement not said over and over and over again, with nothing else preceding or following it, from the anti-label camp and I will recant my assessment that you alluded to above.

How has having a label helped us?

It has hurt us because it was used in a malicious manner. The fact of the matter is, it's true that there are adults who have a preferential sexual, emotional, and social attraction to children and/or adolescents. Hence, the labels "pedophile" and "hebephile" when used in the simple, judgement-free context I described above are accurate, and trying to deny it and hoping people won't notice this distinctive aspect of ourselves if we do is disingenuous. The point is, labels can be used in a positive way as a sense of identity that can confer pride in an aspect of humanity that makes unique in a certain way, and they have been used in a way to unite minorities in fighting for their rights, which helps establish a blow in favor of accepting diversity in a general sense. It turned out to be much more positive and honest for gay people to say, "I'm gay and proud of it!" rather than taking the tactic, "I'm not gay, nobody is actually gay, just like nobody is actually straight, we're all the same as everyone else in our preferences and emotional needs, so with that mandated, can we all get along now that we know there are no differences to fight over?"

It only gives a name to who they hate.

So if we decided that no labels were to be used, that would make the differences that need to be acknowledged and accepted vanish? No, what we need to do, IMO, is to take back control of the labels used on us, as the gay community did with various words once used in a derogatory manner towards them (e.g., "queer"), and use them to instill pride for the facet of our being that makes us different from others.

Giving a classification for minors attracted to adults to rally around will only be used against them.

If used improperly, yes. But as history as shown, it can also be used to unite them and create an awareness amongst them that they are a distinct minority group who have the right to be what they naturally are, and to instill pride in them. Sans an identifying moniker, they have lacked unity on the political field, and thus are helpless before the stigma. For all the bad things you say about the labels applied to us, they have at least served to unify us, instill us with a sense of pride in what we are, and enabled us to begin organizing together, which is now gradually beginning to creep offline. I am simply asking you to see the positive side of using labels, as I am fully aware of the negative aspects that can result from improper usage.

Any minor who identifies themselves by whatever label you devise will be subject to the same sort of brainwashing therapy as minors who are found to be in relationships with adults. I don't see where that gets us or them.

The thing is, and this is important: not all people who have this particular preference are minors. As I noted explicitly in Part 1 of my essay, there are a great many younger people in the age range of 18-early 20s who have this attraction base--just as they did as minors--who are capable of legally rallying and fighting for their right to be accepted for their attraction base, and to loudly argue that they don't have these feelings because of "issues." Because these youths are legal adults, they cannot be thrown into brainwashing "therapy" by "concerned" parents and/or social workers. The sense of pride instilled by such a movement and identity will galvanize underagers into not feeling guilty or bad about the similar feelings many of them have, and will further encourage them to support youth liberation.

Also, and equally important: the acknowledgement of this attraction base will make it clear to the antis that one of their most frequent and cherished claims against us--that are our attraction to youths is entirely one-sided--is nothing but wishful thinking on their part, which it is.