You need to read this more carefully. That is not the argument I'm making here.

There's a perfectly valid argument that you've made which encourages a liberal society to show compassion and tolerance to paedophiles. That's a classically liberal conclusion made on the simple premise of not causing harm - and based around the laws of consent. You and I are in complete agreement about that, becuase we've both done the reasoning behind it.

'Woke' people often don't do the reasoning.... they support causes because of something they've read on Twitter. Those people do not think through the implications of arguments they join - that's why things like 'Should children be given puberty blockers?' - a child-protection question for paediatricians, trans-people and psychologists to answer is hijacked by people shouting 'transphobe' at whoever happens to be passing.

For anyone who doesn't the requisite thinking - I've outlined exactly how an unthinking activist could be co-opted into a campaign to lower the age of consent or make changes to some of the other safeguards we have protecting children. Other comments have highlighted such cases already happening in the US.

This article isn't anti-paedophile, anti-liberal or anti-paedophile. It's anti-stupid acceptance of arguments without thinking through the implications. So re-read the article again in light of this information and come back and debate it further if you wish.