I subscribe to the daily combined letter list, and this is the first time I have tried to post. The subject was mentioned yesterday as a question about what to do about the [[childlove]] and associated pages that were being interpreted as providing a possible platform for justification of pedophiles attempting to change public perception of pedophilia. User Erich alerted me today and suggested I help edit on this issue. He provided a link to a recent JAMA article that represents the mainstream medical viewpoint on this issue as well as that of our small band of wikidocs.
I am writing to point out an additional risk to this that has not to my knowledge been mentioned publicly. I am a pediatrician and cannot afford for all the obvious reasons to be participating in a project that could be construed as providing a forum for justification or for separating some kinds of pedophilia as "not so bad" or of allowing separate articles for support and for criticism. Please do not think that I imagine that WP revolves around me, but I may not be the only professional person who is unwilling to risk association in the name of "free speech" or "allowing all sides to have their say."
I am supporting someone's excellent idea that we maintain a single article on this topic. Within that article we can provide the detached observation that "some groups advocate recognizing different forms of pedophilic behavior, or argue that some forms do warrant the social opprobrium... etc etc" so that the fringe point of view is represented within an article that clearly presents the overwhelming consensus of western society. Allow no other detached articles where uncriticized "milder" or "harmless" forms can be advocated. Think of it as a social smallpox containment unit.
In my opinion this is a defensible compromise (however "unfair") and I hope you would rather lose those offended because "childlove" is presented as a face of "pedophilia" rather than gamble as to how many other contributors will be lost if WP attracts any public attention as a platform for this type of taboo opinion. I won't even argue at the article.
Thanks for considering. David Langdon, MD