Your previous post says: the pro-choice stance takes the principle that claiming to have no self-hatred or condemnation of your feelings, but then saying you feel your feelings would be toxic to youths in your respective AoA if expressed, is doing a disservice to the first claim.
I took "disservice" to mean that it means the first claim isn't true. What I hoped to convince you of was that whether or not those beliefs about non-iatrogenic harm are true, it does not have to undercut the claim to having no self-hatred or self-condemnation. Did I convince you of that?
You convinced me that is what you meant to say. But I nevertheless maintain my stance that believing my feelings would be inherently harmful to act upon is not good for self-esteem.
And you ... go by a common sentimental, moralistic belief of female fragility, only transposed onto particularly younger females in this case. And your suggested solution is total prohibition ... which reeks of a draconian solution to a largely moral issue.
The next issue I'd like to address here is moralism. I don't believe my opinions on this matter are a matter of moralism, I think they are opinions about objective human nature. Do you have any reason to think my objections are moralistic rather than scientific?
Yes. They are based on assumptions and generalizations, with the dreaded "erring on the side of caution" concern adding up to an absolutist stance that does not take individual merits and nuance into consideration. There is no scientific evidence in many objective studies that says the harm factor is inherent, or divorced from iatrogenic and sociogenic harm. It is, therefore, a belief based on moralistic precepts, not a scientific evaluation based on empirical data.
As evidence against moralism being my motive, I would point to some of my beliefs: that childhood masturbation and sex play are just fine, that minors who do engage in sexual activity should not be convinced it was wrong if they don't think so, and that in some cases we know that adult-child sexual activity is not harmful.
Which will lead to your "erring on the side of caution..." stance, and with "some" being a euphemism on your part for "not very often, based on a lot of strongly emotional anecdotal claims."
To rephrase, you think I am wrong about objective human nature, but do you have reason to think there is a moralistic anti-sex component to my beliefs too?
Yes. Because all you ever give are assumptions, with your ideal solutions always throwing out consideration for nuance and individual merits with an absolutist ideology that demands these considerations be ignored. No law has proven to serve justice when it's absolute. Thus, justice and fairness is not your concern or goal; the imposition of personal ideology on all is your goal.
Objective human nature is also a very loaded concept to present, because all humans are different, and an ideology based on always assuming the worst in everyone "just to be safe rather than sorry" is not objectivity, but also based on assumptions and the "erring on the side of caution" rationalization for an absolutist stance. That stance is against anyone doing something that goes against your sentimental values. Hence, yes, I see your stance as being primarily about moralism, not objectivity or science in any way. Otherwise, I think you would be accepting of compromise in both directions, and willing to consider solutions that take nuance and individual merits into consideration.
I think the best possible compromise along those lines at the present time is Robert Epstein's suggestion of a test to determine a young person's merits, but you told me during your less cordial days that you "weren't impressed" by it, despite the fact that it addresses genuine concerns for both protecting those from harm who are proven to require that protection, and support of agency for those who have proven they have the merits to justify it. By totally denying a compromise that takes both sides into consideration, that makes it clear that you are against the awarding of agency even to those who provide ample evidence they are fully capable of it. That strongly suggests a moralizing ideology that takes a stance based on protecting a certain belief system rather than actual people.
I think it's excellent and believe the guy's claims. What do you think of it, at whatever level of generality or specificity you care to address it? Nothing there argues directly on the issue at hand, but your reaction could give me a sense of where you are regarding nativist explanations more broadly.
Much of what he said was interesting, and a lot does stand up to scientific empiricism, I think. But what he doesn't address is that human beings are not slaves to any type of instinctual behavior. Nuance and diversity rule the roost in terms of human behavior and desire, far more so than with any other animal species. And these diverse preferences often supersede matters of convenience, social acceptability, the need for a species to reproduce, etc. Notice, for example, how Ted never mentioned or considered homosexuality, and how the dynamics of attraction work between members of the same gender, why that preference may have developed despite not being conducive to reproduction or most of the other rules he was explaining from an evolutionary process, etc. he also didn't explain why our society expects people of the same age group to form romantic bonds together, even though men of any age forming such bonds with older women are not conducive to reproduction, and older women do not have the reproduction consideration when choosing a mate any longer. In other words, human desire and nature is far more complex than he gave it credit for.
He also doesn't consider or mention how economic factors had much to do with the development of monogamous marriage, the structure of the family unit, the manner in which dependence is formed with others, what group of people have rights at any given time and who doesn't, etc. This is a major factor that also has no significant analogue in any other species of animal, including those as intelligent as cetaceans.
Much of this evolution he described is socio-cultural, not genetic, and humanity is unique among species on this planet in our complexity and ability to create a civilization based on many factors that have no relevance in the lives of animals that live purely wild. There are similarities with us and our closest relatives, the great apes, of course; but there are also levels of diversity you don't see with them. Further, this Ted guy left out the discussion of bonobos, who are truly our closest non-human relatives in the animal kingdom and primate family, as males of that species do not fight each other for females or food, but both genders and all ages in their social units utilize sexual contact as a means of pacification and achievement of harmonious relations by way of giving and receiving pleasure. Hence, sexual activity is not used by them mainly just for reproduction, and homosexual and pedosexual behavior is common amongst them.
It should also be noted, though Ted didn't, that the main reason males in our modern society are usually stronger than women is because women feel it's unattractive to build up their physical acumen, and are not expected to be aggressive, but to be "ladylike." yet they still compete fiercely amongst each other not only for men, but for status within their cliques, for job opportunities, etc.
So what Ted didn't say was every bit as interesting as what he did say; and what he didn't say ended up leaving as many questions raised by his speech as answers he provided.
Finally, could you get for me the references to the very best scientific work arguing for no non-iatrogenic harm? I'm aware of two Rind studies. The name "Tromovich" gets mentioned, but I'd ideally like some pointers to papers where the full text is available. Then if we address that issue, we'll know we're reading the same evidence.
It would take far too much time to find links to each study, especially since many of them now require a $30.00+ purchase to get more than the abstract, so I'll include a link to a bibliography of many such research projects, as well as a few links to reviews of recent books on this subject where the MHP author made their stance clear:
This extensive list️ ↗ makes it clear how much research has gone into the subject, making it clear that there is not a universal consensus among MHPs and other social scientists on this issue by a long shot.