So, the transfeminist party line on isff seems to have shaken out roughly thus:
1.) isff/suggestrogen was wrong for supporting "pedophile liberation" because pedophilia doesn't actually exist, and so she was therefore reifying the sexological paraphilia framework which posits "the pedophile" as an already-existing pre-discursive object. This is bad, because... whatever, it doesn't really matter. Here is where they make a big segue into antipsych/youth liberation talking points, and I just don't care.
2.) this was the only thing she did wrong, everything else she said was fine (or let's not talk about it, OR you're lying about what she said).
3.) ergo, the backlash to isff was yet another transmisogynist hate campaign based on nothing, where prudish sexual conservatives unfairly pedojacketed an innocent kinky transfem.
This is, to put it mildly, total bullshit, for a number of reasons. First, the idea that what people ought to object to is that isff believes pedophiles "exist" is just. I mean, come on. It is possible to be too far up your own ass when it comes to theory! Who cares about the "sexological framework;" we are talking about the obviously real phenomenon of adults who find children sexually attractive, and whether or not I'm somehow a transmisogynist because I'm repulsed by that. Sure, in a carefully negotiated kink scene, it's... fine... to explore these desires, but this ain't that. I'm involved! I'm being lectured about the content of my politics not being hospitable enough to people who are aroused by pre-pubescent children! "Pedophile liberation" is being proposed as a political strategy! This ain't that!
I find it so deeply disappointing that women I respected (and at least one former mutual) are doing this wagon-circling maneuver. It sucks, it's intellectually dishonest, and it's borderline deceptive. We can all read what was written, we can all make up our own minds, and the idea that this was all ginned up out of nowhere by suburban evangelical teenagers clutching at pearls is just not it.
