I used to think that the term pedophile was burned and conjured up too many negative connotations so I was pro the idea of migrating to the term MAP.
But over recent years I've started to think that was and remains a mistake.
Here's why.
Firstly, the term MAP (Minor Attracted Person) is too focused on attraction and doesn't encompass anything else such as love, respect, feelings of equality in some ways. It boils down the sexual orientation to just attraction. For me, sure there's attraction, but this sexual orientation is much more than that. Pedophile as in the original meaning of the term is a much more accurate description since it encompasses all of that. Pedophile as in child friend or child lover is not just focused on sexual attraction. So the term pedophile is easier to defend by focusing on the definition and meaning of pedophile.
Secondly, this whole rebranding to a new term can create an impression of shape shifting, trying to rebrand to avoid the question and slip under the radar rather than defend the position. If I say I'm a MAP and not a Pedophile, what does that actually mean? If I say to someone I'm a MAP and they say to me isn't that the same thing as a pedophile, how do I respond to that?
I think a much better approach would be to double down on what the term pedophile means as a term distinct to predator. Pull in history, acedmic research, a pedophile is not and never has been something to fear any more than gay or straight is. Predators of all types are something to fear.
There has been a lot of controversy in NZ about a green party MP who represents "rainbow children" and ran an undercover account where he used the word "bussy". But this mainly looks like mainstream gay behaviour.
Press and influencers desperately dropping the MAP bomb at every opportunity.
