@Terry
Even "scientifically" pedos are only viewed through criminal/clinical samples, so those USA Today tweets should already be obvious to you. This isn't some niche take, though to a lot of people it's an emotional one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Pedophilia_and_child_molestation
@Terry And you'd be wrong
Despite them refusing to actually state what the MD5 says about pedophilia, only listing it as a disorder and not an orientation, and then having a rule against discriminating based on disorders, you're not allowed to own an account or edit a page if you're a pedophile or pro it in any way
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection
>Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked and banned indefinitely.
@Terry They're explicitly anti-pedo, so the fact they still put that most obvious fact there shows you it's still obvious
Wikipedia: are you a pedophile?
Pedophile: no.