In particular, I find it funny how the author of the linked article tries so hard to portray his side as the ones being victimised, despite the fact that western society is as hateful as ever towards MAPs and minor-attraction in general:
I wish that was true.So far this has been rather effective in helping normalize hooking up, same-sex marriage, and now transgender children. Perhaps it can work with the age of sexual consent and the moral legitimacy of sex between minors and adults.
I suspect it will work, eventually, since Americans seem particularly invested in deriving what they ought to do from what appears socially normative. And what’s normative in the domain of sex and sexuality is simply downstream a few years from what is empirically demonstrable. Obergefell proved that.
Anyway, apart from questioning self-reports, appealing to the idea of "Adolescents" being incapable of making sexual decisions involving intercourse or intimate activities with adults, and relying on the power imbalance talking point to try to bolster his case, there's all there is to his arguments. Now, I do agree with him that consent isn't enough to be the ultimate standard to determine which sexual mores are right or wrong, but not only he fails to engage with Rind's findings, but also never tries to prove that intergenerational intimacy is inherently harmful, nor why we shouldn't determine sexual ethics based on empirical findings alone. Sure, self-reports may not be immutable, but that alone wouldn't prove that the source of a person's problem lies with their sexual debut with an adult when they were a minor.