I would like to address this, for clarification purposes:
I think Dissident said it right, that when it comes to abuse, an entirely different set of standards comes into play for the sexual kind in western society, but especially in the US.
Oh, I have hardly ignored that very enormous elephant in the room that should be noticed far more often than it has been in progressive circles. I simply didn't bring it up in that post you are referring to. That is one of the drawbacks to brevity in a post (well, brevity for me, anyway!), in that you are unable to tackle every single point that is relevant to an issue. This is something I have often tried to remind those who have criticized my tendency towards lengthy and arguably overly thorough posts (you have never been one of them, Eeyore! But others I respect have had serious problems with me over it, including Tom O'Carroll, partly because he has had to moderate some of my diss-ertations on his blog). Yes, I know long posts are not palatable to everyone, and I understand why. But there are things that can be said for thoroughness too, since shortened posts will often come off as intellectually evasive because of what one does not have the space to say in them. For that reason, I sincerely thank everyone here who has never complained about my lengthiness, not to mention those who actually enjoy my posts for that reason and have openly supported me on it. With that said, I now move onto the main point at hand.
So, let me fully clarify my position here.
I have often acknowledged and criticized the homosexual community as a whole for throwing us under the bus, and for the general abandonment of their revolutionary politics of the '60s and '70s in favor of an assimilationist approach that both accepted and embraced the very status quo that had previously thrown them under the bus. The thing is, when the conservative takeover of the '80s was well underway, and they saw the mainstream liberal establishment they were connected to cowing under pressure thanks to the weight of the moral panics, the AIDS scare (which the homosexual community was often blamed for), the burgeoning metamorphosis of feminism into the profitable victimology industry that traveled on the coattails of the moral panics, well -- the great majority of the LGBT community cowed in lockstep with them and chose expediency over the firm opposition displayed in the past. My fellow Wiccans and the Pagan community as a whole did the same thing, it behooves me to acknowledge (then again, the atheists did it too, as we all know).
They also abandoned all support they showed for youth liberation during the '70s, and in fact did a complete 180 on that, fully adopting the conservative "family values" attitude towards anyone under 18. Youth liberation was a major casualty of that whole thing, though it begun an exponential recovery as of the late '90s with the advent of the Internet and its social media forums. However, the movement as a whole warily avoids anything to with the MAP community and the promotion of youth sexual rights for obvious reasons, doing their best to stay away from that issue as much as possible. I don't like that, but I must concede that the isn't yet right for that.
So, in short, they made a Faustian bargain to continue the forward movement they had successfully begun starting with the Stonewall incident near the dawn of the 1970s.
Am I angry that happened? Yes, of course. I understand why it was done, but I DO NOT condone it. Don't get me wrong; I am glad they have now pretty much achieved their emancipation and equality, even though I do not like how they did it. Despite the benefits it had for them, and despite my support for their continued freedom, that doesn't change the fact that how they did it was wrong and cowardly.
However, I also understand this, and it needs to be addressed. It will also piss off the SJWs to acknowledge this fact, which makes me all the more than pleased to do so: LGBT people are human, and are thus subject to the same flaws and potential temptations as any other groups of people (yes, including us vile and perverse heterosexual white men!). They gave into a weakness common to all groups of people when subjected to the same type of pressure. They collectively panicked when faced with a serious form of opposition, and ultimately chose to "go along to get along" rather than taking the more difficult route of committed opposition out of principle and the same revolutionary spirit that drove their movement prior to that impasse.
In other words, they caved under pressure.
So, do I resent what they did? Yes. But do I hold a grudge against the group as a whole for that? No. Why? For these reasons.
First off, because I understand despite not condoning. I am also well aware that MAPs have the very same foibles and weaknesses, and the potential to similarly cave under such pressures, with attempts by one sub-group within our community attempting to throw another sub-group under that same proverbial bus so that they can move forward at the expense of the other. I have even seen examples of it throughout my 20 years in the MAP community as an activist. This includes the way BLer's have at times (but especially prior to the present decade) rejected the rights of GLer's and girls and tried to keep academic study of MAP dynamics firmly focused on man/boy love only; and vice versa by some GLer's due to biases some of them held against homosexuality in general, with each arguing that man/boy love and man/girl love do not have the same moral equivalency. The way female MAPs have sometimes demonized male sexuality as a whole and insisted on separation from male MAPs, arguing that woman/girl love has a different moral equivalency than man/girl love (or even man/boy love) yadda yadda yadday; and sometimes vice versa, with the way male MAPs have reacted to female MAPs due to the problems they have had with adult women in general (e.g., the pressure and expectation by society to form relationships with a group they are often not attracted to). And of course, the classic tensions and moral equivalency arguments that have occurred between pedophiles and hebephiles.
Hence, we have the potential to go the same route that the homosexual community did if similar circumstances presented themselves. Yes, the LGBT community should have known better. And so should we, which is precisely my point here. This is also a firm example of what happens when we are divided rather than united.
Then, there is this reason that I refuse to avoid acknowledging by letting my anger over what the LGBT community did to us get the better of me. This concerns the late Harry Hay, in many ways the founder of the LGBT movement, which he did during a time when being openly gay, let alone a gay activist, required immense courage the likes of which LGBTs born from the '90s onward in the West can (thankfully for them) scarcely imagine in today's world of not just mainstream support but intense liberal pandering (the deluded insistence of the SJWs complaint Western LGBTs are still systematically oppressed notwithstanding; they are not concerned with righting an injustice that still needs to be righted, but taking revenge for past injustices and gaining power & entitlements in the process).
Henry Hay never stopped supporting us, and once again risked everything during the era of progressive LGBT acceptance by openly opposing his own community for rejecting NAMBLA and adoption of assimilationist policies. Not only did Hay most definitely know better, but he also had a series of mesophiliac experiences in his past, specifically experiences with older men that he sought out and initiated. And he suffered no trauma from that, in contrast to the trauma he experienced by society's oppression of homosexuality at the time, which the consensus fully approved.
Then there is the gradual number of LGBT's in the mental health profession who are starting to openly support us (to varying degrees, admittedly, but some to a quite surprising and courageous, rather than cautious, degree). Note the studies published by Allyson Walker & Vanessa Panafil (https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.springer-doi-10_1007-S10612-016-9342-7), who argued that the MAP attraction bases should be considered a legitimately "queer" sexual orientation and not a mental illness, thus should be incorporated into the LGBTQ acronym, or Brian Cash's great paper of support for us (https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/45135). I have also personally had some members of the homosexual community sit down with me and apologize for the behavior of their community, making it clear that they feel the LGBT community of today should be inclined to empathize with us rather than hate and marginalize us. In other words, that they should know better.
In short, this makes something very important clear: LGBTs are as capable of embracing negative biases and stereotypes as any other group of people (including we awful heterosexual white males!); but also like every other group, they are equally capable of insightfully and courageously rising above and overcoming such biases. The same principal on both sides holds for us.
I try to keep these things in mind for many obvious reasons.