This is outrageous. At least I hope it is. Writing on the blog of the American College of Pediatricans, a contributor – not bylined for professonal ethical reasons – gives us his thoughts on what he expects to be the next plank on the platform of the sexual/gender revolution: warming us up for pedophilia.

Driving in this morning, he writes, I began to wonder. Why isn’t the movement of LGBT not the PLGBT movement: “P” for pedophile?

When I look at the origins of the transgender movement I find John Money and Harry Benjamin, both bisexuals, who failed to condemn pedophiles, and freely associated with them.

When I look at the data from Donald Paul Sullins taken from the Add Health Survey, I see a 7 fold increase in child sexual abuse when lesbian couples get married, compared to when they stayed unmarried. Incest is a form of pedophilia.

When I look at sexual minorities studies examining for a history of childhood sexual abuse, I see rates as high as 75%. They were victims of pedophilia. Some of them do engage in pedophilia. In addition, we know that victims of child sexual abuse engage in same sex behavior at higher rates, averaging 4x, but up to 7x higher than their non-victimized peers, depending on the study.

When I look at criminology data on adult or juvenile sex offenders, I see many of them were childhood victims of pedophilia or incest. Juvenile offenders that sexual abuse minors preferentially select the sex of the victim to be the same as the one that sexually victimized them.

When I look at sex education in schools, I see Alfred C. Kinsey, and his colleagues, and I see pansexuality and an embracing of pedophilia, along with bestiality.
Child pornography exploits children. It is the worst sort of exploitation in the age of the internet and storage of images. 

If pedophilia becomes the new norm, the explosion of exploitation will be unparalleled.

In one sense, it could be argued that the LGBT movement is only tangentially associated with pedophilia. I see that argument, but the pushers of the movement, the activists, I think have pedophilia intrinsically woven into their agenda. It is they who need to be spoken to and against.

What should be adding to our unease and outrage is highlighted in another American article, this time by Lauren Richardson, truthuncensored.net, posted on 11 June. Her story is not new to Garvan Hill readers. We highlighted it here some months ago when the Daily Telegraph’s Andrew Gilligan drew our attention to an academic conference held at the University of Cambridge last July was told that pedophilia interest is “natural and normal for males”, and that “at least a sizable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children, and normal males are aroused by children.

The conference took place last year to discuss the classification of sexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the standard international psychiatric manual used by the legal system.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, had been locked in battle over whether hebephilia should be included as a disorder. 

The proposal arose because children are going through puberty at a younger age and the current definition of pedophilia – attraction to pre-pubescent children – was missing ever more young people.
The revelation came after an investigation by The Telegraph journalist Andrew Gilligan, who says that the conference, entitled “Classifying Sex: Debating DSM-5″, featured a number of speakers who spoke in favor of sex with children, which, in essence, is supporting pedophilia.

Attendees included Tom O’Farrell, a known child sex offender and campaigner for the legalization of sex with children, who wrote on his blog that the conference had been “wonderful” and “it was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!” he added.