The woke here is a catch-all term that encompasses both classic liberals and people who don’t think very much but enjoy virtue signalling. The article isn’t about linking the LGBTQ+ community to Paedophila, but to point out that this was done in error (in the UK at least) by well-meaning liberals who hadn’t considered the implications of their arguments. Paedophilia became associated wit the LGBTQ+ movement in the late 1970s and it took many decades to shake the association.

What classic liberals would do is come to the conclusion that paedophiles occupy a niche position in society where their sexual identification is acceptable but any actions stemming from such a sexuality would cause harm. A classic liberal would likely seek a resolution that shows compassion ttowards paedophiles but balances that compassion against the risk of harm.

What a lot of ‘woke’ people do is either — paedophiles are disgusting humans (failing to differentiate the state of being from the act of doing) or join whichever cause happens to be trending on Twitter. They rarely stop to consider the implications of what they’re arguing for. Applying social pressure in the wrong place could lead to a gradual erosion of safety mechanisms society has in place for children. In short, you have to think about the laws of unintended consequences.

The article isn’t a scholarly article — I will leave that for the scholars to do. It’s an opinion article that draws attention to some of the falliablities that occur in people who don’t do the requisite thinking. Such a thing is what separates classic liberals from ‘the woke’ — which purports to be liberal and is anything but that.

Thanks for your comment — and continuing the discussion.