Singals position is the logical conclusion for someone who swallowed the "born this way" arguments made by gay rights activists 20 years. Pedophlia getting protections was a common rebuttal and the counters were slippery slope fallacy style arguments. But in current year we see it wasnt slippery slope but a prophecy.
It's nothing to do with whether pedophilia is a sexual orientation or where it comes from. The issue in question is what to make of
non-offending pedophiles (aka people attracted to children who do not act on their attraction and have never done so, aka "virtuous pedophiles"). Whether their attraction is a fetish or sexual orientation or a Satanic curse is irrelevant to this question.
If a man goes to a therapist and says "I am attracted to young children but I really don't want to hurt anybody, what should I do?" then what should that therapist (or other professional) do in response?
"Shoot him" is the easy answer, but it's probably unconstitutional. The state currently doesn't punish people for pre-crimes. You don't have to have any sympathy for Mr. Virtuous Pedophile, or any particular belief about where his pedophilia comes from, to recognize that it's
potentially a tricky issue.
Now, personally, I have my doubts "virtuous pedophiles" even exist, and I think that any sympathy towards them is another reflection of Jesse's deep naivety. Another issue: neither Jesse nor Katie have kids, and they don't seem to have any children in their lives they're specifically close to (nieces, nephews, etc) so I don't think either of them experiences that intense emotional disgust + anger response most normal people get when they think about child abuse. "Virtuous pedophiles" is more of an abstract issue to them, just a thought experiment in the world of ideas.
Both of these things are faults, serious faults I'd argue, but nothing Jesse (or Katie) has said or done is
in the same universe as "abusing children is okay actually as long as you really love them."
The troons calling Jesse a "pedophile apologist" are deliberately using ambiguity around the word
pedophile (which in some limited usages means mere attraction to children, and in more common usage implies acting on that attraction and abusing children) to imply that Jesse has defended child abusers. They're doing this on purpose because they know that even on Bluesky, no one cares about troons that much anymore, so they need to fabricate other shit to build momentum against him. Not sure it's going to work because at some point people might ask why they're not so enraged about all the
actual pedos on the platform.