Time(36:45) https://youtu.be/R-kg4QRa3lc?si=smGYFdGTSmJYrB7F&t=2205
I don't think it's necessary a supportive statement, although I am usually happy when I hear such things. He probably recognizes queer as something "dissenter" to certain social order and by then conceptualize this with some queer background about sexuality will made nearly impossible to not consider minor attraction as such.
On academia they have the habit of strongly denying any correlation or just not talk about and keep intellectual honesty. That's, of course, when they, after a MAP supportive statement, are not target by conservatives or liberal regressives and and answer LOUDLY throwing all queerness on the trash in order to self preserve themselves:
You are a pedophile! You are defending pedophilia
No. I'm not a pedophile (what's the problem if you are?). I strongly condemn child sexual abuse (Don't endorse statement made by them. You know we are most non-offending) and sexual attraction to children (What are you saying? You are like Peter Denying Jesus)
I don't know who will conduct us to a MAP Revolution (Revolution? Sounds stupidity of my part). I don't expect support, specially from LGBTQIA+ people. They have a considerable strong lobby, but i ask myself at what cost. They are nearly predestined to always be a minority. Queer people are contained, but it just makes them an even small group and despite the fact that struggles against sexual repression have been taken place in the last 50 years, it's an illusion to think we live in a society that’s is open to the possibility of new differences to come out and exist. We instead live in a society that just ensure these differences. They are ensured when feminists conceptualize minor-attraction as a urge of male dominance instead of a sexual orientation. They are ensured when conservatives perpetuate sexual violence in the image of the pedophile (sexual deviant). And they are ensured when even people who are considered queer in the past – as Lee Edelman remind us in his book - reach tolerance just to embrace social order (reproductive futurism) and burn anyone behind them on the queue.
https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Gays_Against_Groomers
However, Dr. Edelman’s Work, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, is pretty rich and elucidate on this matter. Just conceptualize the sexual desire towards children - if it would be considered a sexual desire to children instead of a desire to violate the weak in first place - as the most disgusting and vicious deserving unprotected discrimination, constant regulatory gaze and many other types of violence even if it’s abstain from practical sexual contact, it’s negate the possibility and recognition of positions who are in the dissent (queer) to come out and say they real feelings. It also negates the recognition of these people's dignity ensuring the sovereign image of the capital C Child who no one has the right to complain or signify without the innocence that maintain a social order and perpetuate cisheteronormativity. And in the end, a whole discursive body to say that this social order is right and we will be on their side throwing a sexual minority under the bus, because they have nothing related to us.
All politics, however radical the means by which specific constituencies attempt to produce a more desirable social order, remains, at its core, conservative, insofar as it works to affirm a structure, to authenticate a social order, which it then intends to transmit to the future in the form of its Inner Child.
