>'You don't even believe your own claims about feminism, or their implications.'

>Not all feminists think alike, and not all feminists agree with each other, this is the point I always make, ad nauseam.

If feminism (including as defined by you) is so ill-defined you can't be consistent within a small number of posts, why speak about it at all, not to mention defend it from reasonable criticism, as you have done?

>I don't identify as a feminist

I judge posts by their content. The self-indentification trend is both silly and, for the most part, destructive in the wider context.

>That being said, I know of many 'feminist' GLers, but they don't tend to come here or voice their opinions because they know how contentious the issue is.

Feminists, claiming to be GLers or BLers, are not exactly rare. Simply search and you'll find them, often praising anti-pedophilia. Reverse searching for misandry is also fun.

>It seems to me that you're assuming that no girl-lover can, or should, be a feminist

The issue lies in what we might call core feminism - the idea that feminists, traditionally old jealous women, should be in control of the sexual market. This dates back well into the 19th century, before 2nd or 3rd wave feminism.

Why would it be controversial for men loving girls to defend the rights of men and girls against it?

>Not every feminist attacks pedophilia and a lot who do attack it are not feminists.

Yet, you refuse to list them and consider the relative errors. Does the feminist hostility, relevant to your defense, go away when you fallaciously introduce non-feminist hostility?