NOW we're getting somewhere. Why are you quoting statistics on "pedophilia" then? According to your post #9, Freund's data, homosexuals are pedophiles in disproportionate numbers. That's false, the child-abuse experts say it's false, the position that it's false is recognized by many non-political, non-biased organizations.
"Oh, but wait", you say -- "that's because pedophile statistics ignore pederasts! Pederasts aren't included in the data! They should be, but they aren't! Wah!"
And the question remains: Why are you continuing to quote clinical studies of "pedophiles" when the very definition of "pedophile" ignores the age-range that 'proves' your position? That's your complaint, isn't it, that the clinical definition of "pedophile" isn't broad enough?
My position is proven by Freund AND Federal Crimes Statistics AND the Jenny Study AND, AND… Freund’s studies involved children up to age 12 which arguably include age specific prepubescent, pubescent and postpubescent children. That’s completely ”independent” of my beef with the definition and how statistics are cataloged. Much like the article for this thread doesn’t note the double pedo/homo pathology connection until the end.
But here AGAIN we’re debating on what the definition of is is. It’s the same old song and dance and you're really becomming a bore.