Intersectionalism’s Mysterious Paedophilia Problem

To evoke the subject of useful idiots, consider the following quote from London mayor Sadiq Khan: “Here in London, you’re free to love whoever you want to love and be whoever you want to be.” Under the slogan #LoveIsLove, this message was — and continues to be displayed —  on Transport for London’s LGBT-themed notice boards across the capital. But while self-absorbed pandering is not new for Khan, there is a particularly chilling context in which London’s Labour elite continue to be among the keenest to posture such ‘inclusive’ messages.

On July 27th, the Independent Inquiry for Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) published their updated investigative report into the conduct of Lambeth Council. Having been run by Labour for four decades, the IICSA’s investigation into historical child sexual abuses in the London borough’s children’s homes was, needless to say, scathing for the party. According to the report’s authors, just three homes were connected to all 705 recorded cases of child abuse over 30 years, with Labour’s failure to act the result of a conscious decision to enact a “toxic power game” against Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government. Put simply, while Lambeth’s Labour’s council leaders of the 1980s — Ted Knight, Linda Bellos, and Joan Twelves — were campaigning rampantly for gay rights and advanced anti-discrimination laws, they chose to do nothing about the culture of paedophilia in their area. 

Paedophilia in politics, however, is not exclusive to the Labour Party, and there are reasons to suspect that paedophile pandering may actually be endemic within other parties. One such example was Thatcher’s friendship with and insistence that Jimmy Savile be given a knighthood, while another is the blind eye turned by politicians and the police to the Liberal Party’s Cyril Smith and Conservative’s Peter Morrison, both of whom were known to be in “active [pursuit of] their sexual interest in children.” Even today, ardent intersectionalists with a particular fetish for youth are believed to be in high places within the Conservative Party, with Stonewall — until very recently — persisting at the heart of Tory operations to lobby for the total adoption of genderqueer ideology.

But bearing in mind the extensive scale of the Lambeth scandal, along with the reality that there was nothing in theory stopping Knight, Bellos, and Twelves from campaigning for gay rights and anti-discrimination whilst also stamping out institutional paedophilia in their respective areas of influence, one does have to seriously wonder whether the councillors’ negligence may be somewhat related to the forms of social emancipation they had in mind. The subsequent cover-ups of the Pakistani grooming gangs operating in Rotherham, Rochdale, and Oxford, which Labour and useful-idiot Conservatives (cough Baroness Warsi) gloss over by diverting to the alleged ‘racisms’ of those such as British Voldemort, certainly don’t do anything to suggest the contrary. 

No doubt, many champions of intersectionality and members of the LGBTQ community will claim to be as repulsed as anybody else about the prospect of their movement being used to normalise child abuse. But whether they like it or not, there is much that intersectionality has to answer for, not least because its zealots seem so insistent on persuading children that they are ‘queer’ before they have the chance to decide for themselves. 

Across the pond, schools since President Biden’s election in the fall of 2020 have become what caring parents would probably describe as ‘nightmare fuel’. From attempts to expose children to obscene, ‘genderqueer’ material, and the introduction of what can only be described as entry-level forms of adult entertainment, the indoctrination of children across the United States with intersectional ideology is rife. Such efforts are exemplified in cases such as the unnamed school in Texas whose library, open to students as young as 11, was found this year to have been stocking the pornographic novel Gender Queer. Certainly, if it weren’t for the vigilance of the parents, the novel’s “filth” probably wouldn’t have been identified and rightfully removed from the library’s shelves. Still, such material is, sadly, likely to be commonplace in ‘blue states’ such as California and Massachusetts, but the fact that this happened in Texas makes it something of a watershed moment in US schooling (and that is without mentioning the infamous lap dances given by students to teachers at a school assembly at Hazard High School, Kentucky).

In the context of the aforementioned cases, to argue against intersectionalism’s link to the eventual justification of paedophilia is to do so myopically. Given that intersectionalism has a firm subscription to queer theories of sexuality that explicitly reject gender ‘essentialism’ — the idea that sexual orientation has anything to do with biological sex —, the link between intersectionalism and advocations for paedophilia are easy to trace. Indeed, intersectionalism’s deductive collapse of sexual orientation into abstract ‘gender expressions’, i.e how masculine or feminine one is, is, of course, a symbolic act that could be enacted by anyone of any age. Thus, attraction in the queer theory of sexuality doesn’t seem to have any limits on what the object(s) of arousal can actually be, and to impose limits on potential objects of attraction is to somehow encroach on the sexual freedom that they believe everyone in the rainbow deserves. 

To offer a demonstration of the ideology’s emphasis on the sacrosanctity of desire, a person’s attraction to a ‘thing’ such as a tornado is, in theory, perfectly legitimate. In the mind of the genderqueer intersectionalist, a tornado, formed by natural forces, can assume a performative function that expresses the symbolic, ‘masculine’ prowess of a Herculean figure, therefore allowing it to be as legitimate as an object of ‘masculine’ attraction as Hercules himself. Why? Because all that matters is the person’s attraction to the ‘masculine’. Forces of nature, animals, and even corpses, then, are also all legitimate objects of attraction, and, in the absence of the law, there is nothing inherent in intersectionality that prohibits the extension of this universe of ubiquitous virility to children, who qualify as ‘objects’ as much as anything else.

In the clown world in which we find ourselves, such ‘orientations’ are not only becoming more widely recognised but are also deemed to be ‘protected characteristics’ in mandates such as the UK’s Equality Act. Granted, this is some step away from the social emancipation of paedophilia, but it also amounts to a worrying step in that direction. To ensure the veracity of the link between intersectionality and paedophile emancipation, however, we need to consider which groups may be using the contemporary sexual liberation movement as a tool for destigmatizing their dark fetishes.

One such group could be the London-based Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). Having been exposed by the BBC in 1984 as a child porn distribution network and dissolved accordingly, it is not implausible that many of its 250 members may have had some involvement in the Lambeth scandal. Concerningly, the organisation was also at one time recognised as a special interest group within the Scottish Minorities Group, now known as Outright Scotland, which continues to survive as the country’s first LGBTQ rights organisation. In North America, similar organisations include the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). NAMBLA’s membership, who remain active to this day, are known for their sinister, assimilationist strategy of presenting themselves as educators and advocates of ‘children’s rights’ through the distribution of ‘educational’ pamphlets and posters about the ‘unaired truths’ of man-boy relations. Though it is hard to imagine anything more disturbing than such reframings of child exploitation into ‘sexual liberation’, the efforts of said groups to normalise the underworld of child ‘sexual liberation’ inspires one to seriously wonder how much further they would be willing to go to achieve it. 

Perhaps the answer to this is in plain sight. If Cuties and the latest season of Sex Education is anything to go by, it may not be too preposterous to speculate that former members of PIE and NAMBLA have undertaken careers at Netflix. Indeed, there has never been a time where such hypersexualisation of children, justified by Cuties’ writers as an “explor[ation of] their femininity,” has been more blatant outside of child porn itself (Republican senators Ted Cruz and Brian Babin found Cuties’ normalisation of child sexuality to be extreme enough to meet the US’ legal definition of child pornography). In the case of Sex Education, the writing team’s decision to use the title ‘Uneducated Nation’ as the name of the book written by the series’ hero, coupled with the cherished bullying of a new headmistress who tries to encourage restraint on matters related to teenage sexuality, couldn’t have made their position clearer. Writers of such works, both of which champion and harbour themes of intersectionality, unashamedly consider Western sexual morality, as with any decision to teach teenagers about sexual conservatism, to be rooted in something akin to satanism.

Aside from corporate media, Mermaids is another candidate for where these dispersed paedophiles may be hiding. The charity, another UK-based intersectional organisation dedicated to helping “gender-diverse kids,” seems hostile to anything that allows children to grow beyond adolescence. As Posie Parker famously asserted, Mermaids’ founder, Susie Green, justified her 17-year-old son’s transition by arguing that gender dysphoria and the mental suffering caused by the negation of the body’s adjustment to the mind’s urges would eventually culminate in the sufferer’s suicide.

Barring Green’s frightful rhetoric — worse things have been done and said by parents who actually hate their children — Parker proceeds to make the inextricable link between the trend to put adolescents on puberty blockers and the intersectional camp’s ongoing coercion of children to take up early careers in drag. These are events attended not by other children, or even by their parents, but by grown men, and for child drag artists like Jazz Jennings and Desmond is Amazing, men actually pay to see them perform in excessively ‘expressive’ manners, throwing money as they do so. For such imitations of the like-for-like behaviour one would expect in an adult strip club, Desmond is Amazing, now 21, ended up featuring in Netflix’s RuPaul's Drag Race, another show which coincidentally features minors dancing in obscene clothing. If this is not the gradual normalisation of paedophilia under the guise of intersectional ‘social progress’, it’s hard and yet more painful to imagine what is.

So, when intersectional zealots like Holly Rigby and Peter Tatchell decry the parents who revolt against the trans lobby’s attempt to affect their children as ‘bigots’, they either don’t know what they’re supporting, or they have sinister motives themselves. This may even be an accurate summation for Tatchell who, despite acknowledging that underage sex between two consensual adolescents continues to happen irrespective of the age of consent, fails to mention that first, there are second-to-no cases of convictions on the matter of sex between two underage actors and second, that the age at which you can consent and have sex with someone of a similar age — in the UK at least — is 13, not 16. Thus, it seems that in arguing for a reduction in the legal age of consent, Tatchell may have the issue of sexual freedom between adults and children in mind, not the sexual freedom of children with other children. 

Whatever the case, it is no exaggeration to say that in continuing to accept intersectionalism, society is making considerable steps towards normalising the indefensible. Such steps are clear in the actions of organisations such as Netflix, which continues to argue that the hypersexualised depictions of children in programmes such as Cuties are just a form of “social commentary against the sexualisation of young children” and not a normalisation of paedophilia akin to the strategies of NAMBLA. Here, it seems that paedophilia’s ultimate normalisation has an intimate link with the social liberalism born out of the West’s guilt and hatred for its own history: it is likely to be no coincidence that Germany has more paedophilia advocacy groups than anyone else in the world.

In any case, if the LGBTQ lobby is allowed to continue to collapse the West’s history into a dialectic of white supremacy while throwing to the side the productive differences which have defined gender since the beginning of human self-knowledge, there is nothing to stop them from using uncurtailed liberalism to, as Parker rightly says, permanently replace age with ‘mental capacity’. And, from this point, there is very little to stop age from being a barrier to anything at all.

Looking at the UK and intersectionalism’s undeniable encroachment on the Conservative Party, perhaps Peter Hitchens has been right all along: the Conservative party needs to be completely destroyed for small-c conservatism, and, by extension, children, to be saved. In stopping the emancipation of paedophilia through the backdoor of LGBTQ activism, vigilance to the ‘useful idiocy’ of those such as Khan is needed now more than ever.