Re: And the antagonistic battles start

First off, I'm not trying to antagonize you. Alright, calling you a hypocrite may have been a step too far, and I apologize for that. At any rate, I can see how it fits into your overall philosophy at this point.

If they disagree with the term, let them say so en masse.

Ah, let's see. I believe I said the same thing with regards to children standing up for their sexual rights, only to be told they are incapable of doing so because . . . they have no rights (circular reasoning). Why are you putting the burden on them to reject your term? I know you believe kids are chomping at the bit to be able to have sex with adults, and intelligent and mature enough to deserve the full spectrum of rights adults have, but also evidently too stupid and immature to liberate themselves.

At any rate, I can agree with you that kids should be allowed to test out of minority status; the mechanisms should be in place for those kids who have both the desire and the ability to do so. But we've been over that before. What I don't agree with is us imposing our own labels and descriptors onto them. That has nothing at all to do with youth liberation. Nothing.

Please don't try to sell me some bogus argument about how it is a term of empowerment, because you and I both know it isn't. All it will do is serve to alienate those kids even more than they may already be, by slapping a 'philia' onto them which is just going to get twisted and abused by the media like 'pedophilia' has been. Kids will maintain a strategic social and psychological advantage by not having their sexuality hammered down into something that can be used by the media, mental health sector, child advocates, etc. to diagnose any kid who doesn't go along with the official view of youth normality with a convenient label that isolates them from their peers.

Yes, I understand that labels need not be negative, but when it comes to this issue we both know it will be used as a weapon to control them, not to mention we will be accused of artificially tying our plight to theirs and dragging them through our own delusional filters, as if we need yet another layer of negativity attached to us.

Now that you have decided to be one of those doing exactly as I predicted, and I can count on you to continue to do it periodically for the next few years

Don't use me as an excuse for your own stubbornness. You know you would have defended your decision regardless. You always have because you are impervious to being told no, and the more people disagree with you, the more you dig in your heels, whether you're right or wrong. I have no illusions about the fact that you're not going to be convinced by my argument, no matter how sound it is, but I am registering my complaints and hopefully showing others why you are wrong to pursue this.

I didn't back off many years ago on using the terms "hebephile" and "MAA"

Those terms are fundamentally different because they apply to us. We came up with the labels for ourselves, not for some other group. As I said, it is not our place to label them, which is a point you have not yet addressed. You just keep rehashing the same argument about why labels can be good, which is not the focus of my disagreement with you.

Let the battle begin, and you can rest assured I will fight this one as strongly as any other I ever fought against you.

No battle forthcoming. I am not out to fight with you but to demonstrate that you're going to do more harm than good. If you want to do that, go ahead. But when the media starts abusing your terms and picking a new fight with us over this crap, I reserve the right to rub it in your face forevermore. Not that I'll take much pleasure in it, because that victory will come at the expense of the kids you claim to be working on behalf of. At the very least you should wait until kids are empowered enough to offer a significant opinion on the matter. You are betraying your own philosophy more than you ever have before by insisting on this silliness.