My reply was written prior to your canvassing.

And posted after the beasts replied to you. Notably, what they have said confirms my observation of their behaviour on social media in the person 2021-24. In other words, your canvassing confirms that their taxonomic/pathologizing approach is at odds with a uniting umbrella term based on sociolegal criteria. Hence they reject use of "MAP", and my assertion in the OP is confirmed. It is in the nature of the "beast" to reject umbrella terminology. This leaves you with only an empty appeal to the fact that "shrinks" use the term "MAP". Of course they do, but the shrinks in question are by and large secondary providers of mental health care services, responding to the effects of stigma, and scholars with a similar focus. When organizations e.g. B4U-ACT have asked these individuals about their views on the pathology of pedophilia, or whether or not it should be classified, their responses tend strongly towards declassification. In Virped as a community, the views are more varied. But the focus of "MAP scholarship" work does not actually address pathology in any event, nor its causes. And only in a minority of cases does it in fact touch on prevention of "abuse". You had also, I will add, attempted to present the idea that the big beasts had indeed used the term approvingly in correspondence with you, and you did this after I had reproduced their quotes showing that would be unlikely to say the least, and before their replies. This was of course false, I knew it to be false, and I was rightly snapping back at it. As for your other points, you are correct in that MAPs/Maps/YAPs using all of those terms are largely indifferent to their neutrality. This doesn't prevent them being used more effectively in academic publications with a sociological or clinical purview, as history has already proven. Value-neutral and person-centered language thus has multi-site effect, as it does with the far-right amplifiers who again, contrary to characterization by BLs, believe it to be a euphemism used to "normalize" and de-pathologize pedophilia. I have never accused you of seeking to pathologize anything, nor have I reacted angrily to you in any exchange. All of your points resort to digging in or recycled talking points from touchstone topics such as anti-woke safe space invective. No one has been able to get you past reductive analysis, and to actually engage with the MAP community you seek to characterize. Nor did I imply that the term's popularity is the final arbiter of its merit. You again misread. I was clearly attempting to make the deeper point that who it is used by, and how it is used, is of more importance than what the term actually means or implies, even if its meaning is in fact neutral. Terms with pathologizing origins, or early use by patho-shrinks (Homosexual, Paraphile) have gone on to be embraced by massively anti-psych constituencies. Again and again, the field confounds the follies of reductive analysis. You only need to do as much as look.