..
Trans university professor sparks fury after claiming sexual attraction
to children isn't always immoral: Wants to destigmatize
pedophilia and use term 'Minor-Attracted Persons' instead
By CHRISTINA COULTER and JACK NEWMAN FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 21:55 EST, 16 November 2021
A university professor has sparked outrage after claiming it is not immoral for adults to be sexually attracted to children and saying pedophiles should instead be called 'minor-attracted persons,' or MAPs.
Allyn Walker, who is transgender and teaches sociology and criminal justice as a tenure-track assistant professor at Old Dominion University in Virginia, has penned a controversial book attempting to destigmatize pedophilia titled A Long Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity, published by the University of California Press.
Walker, who uses the pronouns they/them, said in a recent online interview with the Prostasia Foundation, a child advocacy group that promotes child sex doll usage for pedophiles (OMG):
'A lot of people when they hear the term “pedophile,“ they automatically assume that it means a sex offender, and that isn't true. And it leads to a lot of misconceptions about attractions toward minors.'
Walker earned their PhD at CUNY Graduate Center in 2017, according to the university's website, and specializes in mental health, court systems, queer criminology and 'resilience to offending.'
'From my perspective, there is no morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone because no one can control who they're attracted to at all,' Walker said during the November 7 interview.
'In other words, it's not who we're attracted to that's either OK or not OK. It's our behaviors in responding to that attraction that are either OK or not OK.'
An online petition calling for Walker to be fired has attracted thousands of signatures as of Tuesday, with current students at the college branding their remarks 'gross' and 'weird.' Since it was launched three days ago, the professor has deleted their Twitter account.
Students plan to hold a protest at the school today at 4.30 pm over Walker's work and recent interview.
But Old Dominion has so far rejected the clamor to remove Walker, only distancing itself from the comments and saying it 'does not endorse or promote crimes against children.'
Neither Old Dominion, University of California Press nor Walker have responded DailyMail.com's requests for comment.
Allyn Walker, a transgender professor at Old Dominion University in Virginia, has penned a controversial book
attempting to destigmatize pedophilia titled A Long Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity
An alumni of Old Dominion said they were 'disgusted' at the university's decision to 'protect someone that is an advocate for pedophiles.'
Thus far, the Change.org petition calling for Walker's removal from the school's staff has amassed more than 3,000 signatures.
'Pedophiles do not deserve sympathy or a platform of any sort,' wrote petition backer Kimberly Price. 'They thrive off power structures. Giving them the opportunity to be seen and heard will only put more children in danger. This person does not deserve to teach if this is their ideals.'
An Old Dominion student has said that the university is not only distancing itself from Walker's message, but actively 'trying their best' to 'cover up' unrest about the professor's comments on campus:
'They have been removing and washing chalk written on sidewalks calling for their firing, as well as the campus rock that is free for students to paint,' wrote @kimbreadly. 'They know they’re in the wrong and are working hard to cover up.'
Walker later clarified that child sex abuse is 'never, ever OK' but said sexual urges toward minors are not necessarily immoral, as long as they are not acted upon. They said the term 'minor-attracted persons' will help destigmatize people who do not act upon their urges.
They continued: 'We have a tendency to want to categorize people with these attractions as evil or morally corrupt. But when we're talking about non-offending MAPs, these are people who have an attraction they didn't ask for.
'So, their behaviors are moral. But they're still being subjected to this same idea that they're bad people and they've often internalized that for themselves.'
I am inclined to believe that people are not born with a sexual attraction to children, that it comes about as a consequence of my oft-mentioned principle that 'Sin is Progressive'! Pornography, for instance, tends to evolve into younger and younger victims and more and more violence. When we open the door to pornography, there is no telling what else the cat will drag in with it.
I find it hard to believe that someone who is attracted to children will never act upon that lust. Child pornography is acting upon that lust and results in the sexual abuse of more children.
Walker's book, published in June, gives voice to 'non-offending MAPs' and consists primarily of interviews with self-identified pedophiles and vignettes from their lives, according to the book's description online.
Walker's PhD thesis, titled 'Understanding Resilience Strategies among Minor-Attracted Individuals' takes another shocking stance on the treatment of pedophilia, arguing that pedophiles should be permitted to view child pornography as a 'harm reduction technique' or 'form of therapy' to help pedophiles 'maintain abstinence from sexual contact with children.'
'Among some groups of predisposed individuals, easy access to a wide variety of engrossing and high-quality child pornography could serve as a substitute for involvement with actual victims,' Walker wrote.
Just as I thought! Walker considers viewing child porn as not harmful to children. I wonder how they think child abuse materials are made? It takes a spectacularly stupid person to not realize that they are supporting child abuse when watching kiddie porn.
Criminologist Evin Daly, CEO of Florida-based child advocacy agency One Child International Inc., told DailyMail.com that he felt 'the professor would be smart to readdress the terminology that they are using.'
'There is no de-stigmatization of people who are sexually attracted to children,' he said.
'Their overall theory is correct, their wish to redefine pedophiles is correct – there’s a difference between fantasy and behavior. But their terminology is leaning in a way that is trying to destigmatize pedophilia - how do you destigmatize wanting to have sex with children?'
'Any sexual activity with children is rape. That's like calling an adult rapist who rapes women by some soft and gentle term.'
As for Walker's graduate thesis, Daly didn't mince words.
'They speak about child pornography as if it’s some abstract idea. It isn’t,' Daly told DailyMail.com
'The generation of child pornography is a crime... Discussing viewing it even in a intellectual way is discussing how a crime will benefit a criminal - viewing it is a crime as I have said. Even conducting research would involve a crime as described.'
Walker's comments were met with immense backlash after being shared on social media.
'We do not need to change the "terminology" for pedophiles, read Dr. Walker's book, or receive lessons about giving 'pedophiles dignity,' Mikiah Everett, who identified as an ODU alumnus in the petition for Walker's removal, said.
'I am disgusted at their response to protect someone that is an advocate for pedophiles and affiliated with the organization Prostasia (a pedophilia advocate group under the guise of a children protection organization.) Dr. Walker has crossed a line and has dressed it up in academic jargon.'
A slurry of Twitter users were baffled and appalled by Walker's stance:
'Allyn Walker [thinks] it's okay to be sexually attracted to minors as long as you don't act on it,' wrote @DJDeMario1.
'This psycho must be fired and committed. Sick.'
'You've got an open pedophile pos working in your school, @ODU,' wrote @SaveTeamCasey. 'Allyn Walker promoting sexual attraction to kids... Do something.'
Another user posted a picture of the professor defending their thesis, standing beside a PowerPoint presentation with the work's title: 'Understanding Resilience Strategies among Minor-Attracted Individuals.'
User @ConceptualJames renamed the presentation: 'Understanding groomers and the direct connections between Queer Theory, "comprehensive sex education," pedophilia, and grooming in government and private schools.'
Texas Senator Ted Cruz also waded into the debate, saying: 'Holy c***. What the hell is wrong with ODU?'
The professor put out a statement Saturday along with the Old Dominion University in a bid to clarify the controversial remarks.
Walker said: 'I want to be clear: child sexual abuse is an inexcusable crime.
'As an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice, the goal of my research is to prevent crime.
'I embarked on this research in hopes of gaining understanding of a group that, previously, has not been studied in order to identify ways to protect children.'
The professor said they had counselled victims of sexual violence, which had helped form their views.
But college officials distanced themselves from the comments: 'Following recent social media activity and direct outreach to the institution, it is important to share that Old Dominion, as a caring and inclusive community, does not endorse or promote crimes against children or any form of criminal activity.'
Walker has taught at the college since 2019 and some students said they were disturbed by the comments.
Jaelan Jackson told WTKR: 'Honestly it just sounds gross. Just because you're not acting on it, to acknowledge it is weird and not okay at all. It feels uncomfortable to know that someone's like that on campus.'
Jonathan Mukmuye added: 'I don't think that it reflects poorly on the school, but I do think it's weird that we have a professor that would think that.'
Canada's Liberals to introduce tougher version of bill
to ban gay conversion therapy
The government is committed to a "complete ban" on conversion therapy
The Canadian Press ·
Posted: Nov 18, 2021 1:56 PM ET
Canada's LGBTQ community has for years been calling for a ban on conversion therapy. The Liberal government has promised to make that a priority during the next Parliament. (Michaela Neuman Photography)
The Liberal government is set to introduce a tougher version of its earlier bill to ban conversion therapy, which failed to pass before Parliament was dissolved for the election.
Nicholas Schiavo of the advocacy group No Conversion Canada said he has spoken with the federal government about the new bill, and that it will "leave less room for loopholes."
The coming proposed legislation would make it illegal to try to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity through a discredited practice known as conversion therapy.
A previous bill, known as C-6, would have made it a criminal offence to force adults to undergo conversion therapy against their will.
Which I completely agree with as you cannot force someone to change their sexual preference. Yes, God can change them, but not if they don't want to be changed!
The Liberals promised to reintroduce a version of the bill within the first 100 days of a new mandate, which began when cabinet ministers were sworn in last month.
A spokesperson for Justice Minister David Lametti said the government is committed to a "complete ban" on conversion therapy.
Schiavo said his organization expects the new version of the bill to be stronger than the last.
"Our expectation — what we have heard — is that upcoming legislation will introduce a complete ban on conversion practices without any loopholes for age, gender identity or faith," he said.
Bill C-6 was heavily amended and opposed by more than half the Conservative caucus the last time around. It was strongly supported by other parties.
So, the key item to take away from this is that the new legislation seems to want to stop all conversion therapy, even if the gay person wants to undergo therapy. The consequence, if it is enacted as such, will result in increased suicides by gays who realize what they have done.
British school cancels JK Rowling and Churchill
18 Nov, 2021 14:07
© AFP / Daniel Leal-Olivias and Reuters / Carlo Allegri
A British primary school has removed the names of wartime leader Winston Churchill and ‘Harry Potter’ author JK Rowling from two of its houses, in a bid to make the school more “diverse.” Parents are furious.
Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School in Richmond decided in October to rename two of its pupil houses – named after Winston Churchill and J.K. Rowling – in honor of black footballer Marcus Rashford and nurse Mary Seacole, a heroine of the Crimean War who was also black.
According to the Daily Mail, the school made the change during Black History Month, and parents are furious that they weren’t consulted.
“A lot of us are quite shocked that the school authorities have decided that the contributions of Churchill and Rowling deserve to be erased from the records without so much as a consultation with parents,” one parent told the newspaper. “Presumably this has happened partly due to the supposed thoughtcrimes committed by these two national figures.”
While Churchill’s leadership is credited with saving Britain from Nazi aggression during World War II, his views on race and empire are considered “problematic” by woke activists nowadays. Historians argue that Churchill could have done more to alleviate the 1943 Bengal Famine, and he reportedly described Indians as a “beastly people with a beastly” religion, Islam as “as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia [rabies] in a dog,” and the white race as “a stronger race, a higher-grade race” than the indigenous peoples they colonised in America and Australia.
Rowling’s ‘Harry Potter’ series is loved by readers young and old, but her views on transgender issues have landed her in hot water. Rowling has spoken out against gender-neutral language, arguing that it “erases” the concept of sex and therefore the concept of womanhood. These comments earned her backlash from LGBT groups and most recently saw her passed over by the producers of a TV special commemorating the 20th anniversary of the first ‘Harry Potter’ film.
The school, which educates children aged between three and 11, told the Daily Mail that the changes were made at the request of pupils themselves.
“The changing of our school’s house names was an activity that our children began discussing last year as they did not feel the names reflected the diverse community of our school,” Head Teacher Ms. Bateman told the newspaper. “It is important that childrens’ voices are heard and this is why we supported their choice to have our house names reflect diversity, equality and the environment.”
As opposed to historical and literary heroes. Small children probably wouldn't understand that and it appears the teachers are not intelligent enough to understand Churchill or Rowling.
The school’s two other houses, named after conservationist Sir David Attenborough and suffragette activist Emmeline Pankhurst, remain unchanged.
Courts rule against Christians in favour of gays. This is a big step toward Sodom.
Christian Florist agrees to pay $5K to end lawsuit
over refusal to serve gay wedding
Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene's Flowers announces retirement
By Michael Gryboski,
Christian Post Reporter Twitter|
Thursday, November 18, 2021
Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, speaks as supporters rally around her in November 2016. | (Photo: ADF/Screengrab)
A Christian florist has agreed to pay $5,000 to end a yearslong legal battle centered on her refusal to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding ceremony. She has also announced that she will retire so that her flower shop can be run by her employees.
Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, was sued by Rob Ingersoll, a man she had done business with in the past, because she refused to provide a floral arrangement for his same-sex wedding in 2013.
Stutzman was represented by the conservative legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom, while Ingersoll was represented by the progressive group the American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU argued that Stutzman’s refusal was a violation of state discrimination law. The florist suffered legal defeats in lower courts before her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected earlier this year.
A settlement has been reached in the legal case that allows Stutzman to avoid having to pay crippling fines and legal fees.
As part of the agreement, Stutzman will pay the same-sex couple $5,000 while the ADF will, in return, withdraw a petition to the Supreme Court for reconsideration.
During a Zoom call organized by ADF Thursday afternoon, the 77-year-old great grandmother announced retirement and plans to sell Arlene’s Flowers to her employees. She also intends to support others dealing with religious liberty legal battles.
“I’ve never had to compromise my conscience or go against my faith. I’ve met so many, many kind and wonderful people, who’ve generously offered me their prayers and encouragement and support,” she stated in a statement posted online after the Zoom call.
“There is a great deal of division at work in our country today, but God has shown me again and again that His love is stronger than the anger and the pain so many are feeling. And He’s given me countless opportunities to share His love with others along the way.”
In 2013, Stutzman refused to make flowers for the wedding of Ingersoll and Curt Freed because of her belief that the Bible describes marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman.
It's not 'her belief', that's actually what God said.
In response, Stutzman was sued by the same-sex couple, with a county court issuing a fine of $1,000 and deeming her liable for thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Stutzman appealed the ruling, and the Washington Supreme Court ruled in February 2017 that she violated state antidiscrimination law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation when she refused to make the floral arrangement.
In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the ruling against Stutzman and sent the case back to the state supreme court for further consideration.
The Supreme Court cited its 7-2 ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The justices ruled that baker Jack Phillips was mistreated by the Colorado commission when he was punished for refusing to design a cake for a same-sex wedding in 2012. Same-sex marriage was not legal in Colorado at that time.
However, Washington’s high court reaffirmed its earlier ruling against Stutzman in June 2019, stating that her conduct “constitutes sexual orientation discrimination.”
In July, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch believing the nation’s high court should have accepted the appeal.
“After Curt and I were turned away from our local flower shop, we cancelled the plans for our dream wedding because we were afraid it would happen again,” said Ingersoll in a July statement.
“We had a small ceremony at home instead. We hope this decision sends a message to other LGBTQ people that no one should have to experience the hurt that we did.”
ADF General Counsel Kristen Waggoner said that the settlement should not be seen as a “surrender of Barronelle’s beliefs.”
“Over the last eight years, Barronelle stood for the First Amendment freedoms of all Americans, even those who disagree with her about a deeply personal and important issue like marriage,” Waggoner said. “And in so doing, she’s inspired millions of others in their own public and personal battles to live their faith without government interference.”
Waggoner further stated that Stutzman “laid the groundwork” for the Supreme Court to take on similar religious freedom cases.
Stutzman specifically mentioned her support for Christian web designer Lorie Smith and her company, 303 Creative. Smith pushed back on a Colorado law that she felt would require her to make services available to gay couples seeking help in creating wedding websites although same-sex weddings contradict the teachings of her faith.
This summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled against Smith. Smith has appealed her case to the Supreme Court for consideration.
“The Supreme Court needs to affirm the right of all Americans to speak and live consistent with their conscience,” Waggoner argued.
