Not everyone desires to be outed, hence some are more careful with their information.

A fair position to take, of course. But then don't pretend to know more of life when out than those who are out.

I was referring to this reply, since I assumed you had read the thread to have sufficient information

He replied to freedomday that he keep posting. He didn't reply to Rainbow claiming an expertize in dealing with own and LGF families when out, that he didn't have.

You made the claims KBA was a good person/GL.Why they are necessarily true, despite evidence against them, such as the behavior here and on VoA?

Because being an asshole with words does not a bad person make.

He has helped and defended girls for years, at times at danger to himself. He fought for his right to be out against his own family. From the time he was a minor himself.

Yes, that is not the life for everyone, and I recognize that. But he has consistently, with his chosen life path, tried to do the best he can for girls, and to help girl lovers who have girls in their lives to be better for them too.

I care more about that than about him being an asshole or a smooth talker.

And yes, part of his being an asshole are his strong opinions about what GLers should and shouldn't do. To that degree, I disagree with him: there isn't a single way to be a GLer. But he does speak from experience and what he says is intended to make situations better for girls and GLers.

Why would I not want that? Why would that be bad?

Tell that to KBA and other snowflakes, not me! Their behavior does nothing to solve the problem we face.

Right. The next time Cantor publishes something, I will reply:

"I don't need to be lectured by some "activist" so utterly devoid of ethics."

That will surely make him change his mind.

I'll do the same with Ethan and the rest of Vichy.

And, in the age when Twitter bans half of the alt right, cinema sites ban negative criticism of Black Panther, Facebook bans intactivism, and so on... I'm not particularly convinced of anything by "zomg X was banned from a site".

(Markaba was banned for a year, stayed out for almost two years, and more than one GCer wanted him banned for longer, even forever. That didn't turn him pro contact.)

They are publicly out, to virtually the entire world, with the consequences, including stress, that results from that. What necessarily disqualifies them? Trivialities, such as their possible number of child friends[?]

For God's sakes, what on earth is so difficult to grasp?

Rainbow isn't asking for advice on whether he will be able to rent a house, run for public office, be admitted to college, travel abroad, or work in a certain post or industry.

He is asking for advice on what to do with the parents of his LGF!

Damn right, it's not a "triviality" their number of child friends, current and former. Even as no two situations are the same, experience does matter, and both being out and having LGFs are relevant variables for asking and answering what to do with the parents of your LGF.

What is hard to grasp of that? Why is this even debatable? What other life issue wouldn't we want advice from people who experienced it? If instead of a little girl, it had been an adult, and Rainbow was just facing parental opposition for any other reason, not her age; who is supposed to give advice: someone who has been engaged and married, or someone who has never had a real, serious partner?

or the fact they don't live in the US?

Now this is irrelevant. Not 100% irrelevant, for cultural and social factors which vary among countries and among social groups inside each country; but overall it is irrelevant.

As neither Tom nor Ed favors dehumanizing language, would you consider them emasculated too?

I've never seen them lock down because someone posted at them "shut up! you don't know who you're messing with!" and take refuge on calling them unethical because of those words regardless of what other contents are behind them.

"Save deer, shoot a pedo" isn't replied with "zomg you're unethical!" And they realize it.