Absolutely, it makes no sense in general, but I was just flabbergasted by the fact that they are so openly promoting the idea that 12/13 years old kids are mature enough to give consent for sex. They didn' t even make the distinction about sex between children or sex between children and adults. They are just going for "they have sex, that' s ok, so let them transition".

I heard about GCers thinking that this movement was just a NAMBLA 2 that managed to infiltrate not only LGB organizations but feminism and progressive circles as well, but I never really thought that it was the end goal. I just thought that some people were taking advantage of it. But now we have a legal argument that says it loud and clear and it' s ok for kids to have sex. If they win, we will have a law that will be a consequence of the argument that it' s ok for kids to have sex because they are mature enough to consent. I can see it clear how it will be exploited to give even more free pass to pedophiles. As if they weren' t treated too well already!

I hope that Bell' s legals will ask them the direct question about the age of consent, and I wonder what they are going to answer to it. If they just go "so what, kids are sexual beings" like the good vintologi creep is spreading all around, then there will be no more doubt to me that this is just pro-pedo rethoric.

Disgusting.