No, that isn't my argument. You might be better off following the exchange I had with Zokajo where the same misunderstanding occurs (which given it's happened twice, is probably not me being clear enough). But I can repeat it in summary (as I know kinja is a pain for trying to find comment threads):

No worries, we were both coming at this from different angles but there's some overlap in our thinking as well.

A further problem is bracketing paedophilia under sexual orientation, is that sexual orientation has protected status under discrimination laws.

Oh, no I wasn't being snide, when you said "I was trying to bring in what the academic and scientific communities are saying about this" I thought you might be referring to a specific paper, or had in an earlier comment thread. (If it's not in my notifications, I don't see things. Cheers Kinja). You're under no…

I think linking homosexuality with paedophilia is fairly inappropriate, personally, for a whole bunch of reasons. And yes, political, legal and social reasons are included, as well as some fairly key differences.

From what I read in your response, you were quoting NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association)? And what they believe philosophically (that children can consent?)

Good point. I haven't come across many brown trainers I guess.

Hm. That it's subjective does not make it untrue, I think.

Cheers for the links and sources for further reading.

To my mind, you haven't come across as insensitive or insulting. This is precisely the crux of what I was trying to convey in a nutshell:

A fair point.

Homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality are all sexual orientations. So I'm confused how you are not making a comparison to those by saying 'sexual orientation'. Heterosexuality, though, is an orientation that is the normative 'default'. I.e what many people consider 'normal' (which has it's own whole set of…

Personally, I haven't heard of LGBTQ groups comparing themselves to paedophiles (links would be good if you have them).

I think in rhetoric "semantics" means a distinction that is minor or irrelevant, possibly to deliberately distract from the point or matter at hand.

When you define it as a sexual orientation, and compare paedophilia to homosexuality as many people have done in this thread (from the perspective that homosexuality used to be seen as a mental disorder and isn't any more, and that the same may be true of paedophiles) then it is at the expense of the LGBTQ community.

I'd also like to expand a bit that (as well as legitimizing it as an orientation) the comparison that people often make between paedophiles and homosexuals (and how they've been labelled as having a disorder in the past) is...deeply offensive.

I don't think you have to sympathise, or that they are entitled to your sympathy after what you've been through. So I don't think you have to force yourself to try and square that (I'm not sure it can be squared).

Good point.

Interesting article.

right.