I stated what points of either side of the "stay/get out of the toybox" issue that I agree or disagree with here, so I won't waste bandwidth by reiterating any of them.

Regarding Dante, his concerns may be similar to my own regarding family, friends, employer, etc. But beyond that, I will let him speak for himself on this matter.

What I do not agree with, by any means, is that the Virped MAPs are getting more done than those who take, for instance, a neutral stance. B4U-ACT has gotten a lot of positive attention and support by many MHPs, and while they evince no pro-choice stance, they also do not push the scientifically unverifiable anti-choice stance.

Several members of B4U-ACT have been interviewed, and many MHPs are associated with that org. Further, several MHPs do not agree in full with the anti-choice stance, and have said so, including (but by no means limited to) Okami, Rind, Tromovich, Green, Sandfort, Franklin, Bailey (about various matters), etc. In fact, some of the MHPs who do support Virped are controversial and disliked by other minority groups more accepted by society at the present time, particularly Blanchard and Cantor, both of whom are vilified by those who are transgendered. And no, they didn't forgive the two for authoring The Man Who Would Be Queen. They were very unpopular, and challenged quite harshly by many in the mental health profession, for much of what they put in the newest edition of the DSM. I will gladly provide a plethora of linked sources for any of the above if you so request.

As for those who are pro-choice: I can't see large numbers of them being asked to do interviews at the present time, but that sure as hell doesn't mean that those who do not discuss the more contentious issues and simply support advancing the common humanity of MAPs and establishing public dialogue are not being interviewed in the same numbers. Some of them are pro-choice, others are not, but the former are certainly not hated or rejected by the Non-MAPs who are aware of their stance.

There are many Nons who do not demand being placated with a mainstream stance that they are aware cannot be verified by scientific evidence, no matter how they may feel about it on a personal level. Suggesting otherwise, I believe, is condescending to Non-MAPs in a general sense. Many Non-MAPs are quite open-minded and well-read regarding the literature, and do not simply disregard that which they do not agree with. I can personally attest this as a MAP who is out within my own social and professional circle.

Any MAP who is a member of a MAP support org conducting public work can expect to be interviewed at one point or other, regardless of what their stance is. In fact, Bailey, to his credit, even said this in regards to the wealth of data, including the work of Sandfort and others quoted at length, in his review of Tom O'Carroll's book Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons: "I do not feel convinced by his argument, but I do not believe that I have a better argument than he does. Existing scientific data simply are not definitive and those which exist do not convict the pedophile" [emphasis mine]. Source. This is why MHPs like Bailey can readily be reached with a neutral stance, and why he was supportive of a book by O'Carroll that promote an overt pro-choice stance via quoting available scientific data, even after admitting that his feelings do not coincide with the scientific data.

I do not believe a stance that one sincerely believes to be true, especially if not refuted by any available scientific data, should be completely abandoned because it's not popular with public sentiment. Nor should a popular stance that is not backed up by any real scientific evidence be promoted simply to gain public support, since that is done on the basis of pandering and intellectual dishonesty.

Rather, I believe that a stance which is very unpopular, but which is not refuted by any available science, should be neither overtly promoted nor derided. This is why I think the stance that B4U-ACT takes of having no official position on the more controversial issues is the best way of making a reasonable compromise with society at large, the scientific community, and the MAP community, and of being open to MAPs of all ideologies.

That is where I stand on the matter, and those are the areas that I variously agree and disagree with you on.