Not so fast. You answer my questions first.
1. how the sexes could be treated equally in respect of their biological differences?
2. why they should?
3. how it could be done without self-contradiction?
4. how that justifies the use of aggressive force?
5. an example of any human action that does not entail discrimination?

Easy:

> 1. how the sexes could be treated equally in respect of their biological differences?

They can't. they can, however, be treated so as to have and equal status in society.

> 2. why they should?

Because if they aren't, one is being treated better than the other, which is unfair to the poorly treated gender.

> 3. how it could be done without self-contradiction?

As above.

> 4. how that justifies the use of aggressive force?

Where the harm done by the force is less than the harm that woud have been done had the force not been used.

> 5. an example of any human action that does not entail discrimination?

That's a moot point. I'm not trying to eradicate discrimination, just to mitigate the damage that it can cause.

Now, answer my question. I'm going to bet that you're about to dodge it again.

NQD
The only way that having-a-baby could be “treated so as to have equal status” with not-having-a-baby is if
a) a baby was treated as of no value, or
b) someone who had not had a baby was accorded benefits as if he had, when he had no occasion and no need for them.

You haven’t proved why it’s “fair” for unlike cases to be treated alike; but it’s not obviously any fairer than for like cases to be treated unlike – the opposite of fairness.

Either way you contradict yourself. Your arguments don’t make sense but it’s not about reason, is it? It’s about you trying to force other people to comply with your opinions that are obviously irrational and violent.

“That's a moot point.”
If it was a moot point, there’d be something to say for either side of the question. But you can’t find *any* example of any human action *whatsoever* that does not involve discrimination; and - absent aggression - you can give no reason why some discrimination should be vilified as a crime, while other discrimination should be enshrined as a human right!

You have not shown any reason whatsoever that there is any “harm” in other people’s non-coercive and non-abusive interactions. And there is no reason to think that any discrimination but the kind you advocate – arbitrary aggression - is harmful.

Thus it’s not a moot point at all – you are plain wrong and don’t have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

* * *

“If there is an adult having sex with a 12-year-old, should that be allowed to continue by the state?”

Rape is already illegal, so there is no issue here of non-consensual sex.

I had sex under the age of consent, as did my partner and most of my peers.

1. So are you going to tell me I was horribly raped in a most serious crime?

The majority of Australian teenagers have sex before the age of consent.

2. Are you going to tell me that they’re being raped but don’t realize it?

The statutory age of consent didn’t exist until the nineteenth century. In the nineteenth century it was ten in many states of the USA. in the last century the average age of puberty in women has fallen three years. And in all cultures and ages that I know of before that, the question was decided by the person himself or herself, or by their parents or guardians.

3. Are you going to tell me that in all human cultures up until the statutory age of consent in the nineteenth century, ordinary human sexuality was actually child sex abuse after all – it’s just that they were all too stupid or evil to understand how virtuous and necessary your opinion is?

The statutory age of consent bears no rational relation to any particular biological stage of development, nor to the statutory age of consent in other jurisdictions.

4. Please define the *biological* stage of development at which consensual sex becomes non-abusive; and the necessarily negative consequences of sex after consent becomes possible but before it becomes legal? Prove it.
5. If ordinary people or their parents or guardians, are too stupid or too evil to decide on their own consensual sexuality, how can the state be in any better position since it claims no authority but representing their opinion?

I know a casework manager and a caseworker in JIRT, the half-police, half child protection team investigating serious crimes of child abuse. It turns out the overwhelming bulk of their work is not protecting children at all, but intrusion into the lives of sexually mature young women (sorry, “children”) for the heinous crime of making love with their boyfriends (sorry, “child sex abuse”). To avoid traumatizing the “victim” by multiplicity of interviews on the same questions by CP, then JIRT, then police, then court, the first interview is highly formal, and video’d; and the next is cross-examination in court. Almost all of the girls decline to participate in prosecuting their lovers, surprise surprise.
(cont.)

(cont.)
But the officials don’t advise them of this option on the ground that they are abused child victims incapable of deciding. They have to have the courage, and take the initiative, to refuse the bullying panoply of authority ranged against them; or participate in bad faith in persecuting their boyfriends.

6. What makes you think that the harm done by the intrusion, humiliation, trauma of their sex lives being reported, being taken from school to formal video’d police interview on the intimate details of their private consensual sex life, – (how would you like it?) - cross-examination in judicial proceedings; arresting, charging, prosecuting, and the imprisonment and vilification of their consensual sexual partners, for uncountable thousands of young people, is less than the harm of their private, consensual love-making?
7. What *is* the harm of their private, consensual love-making? Prove it.
8. Since the statutory age of consent varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, please admit that the same facts are “abusive” in one jurisdiction but ordinary human behaviour in another.
9. If you say that the issue is not the age of consent per se but the adulthood of the partner, presumably the age of adulthood for a discussion of sexuality is the age of consent. So if a girl has sex with her boyfriend of 15, would this be legitimate consensual love-making? Or rape of a child? Or is she raping him? Or both?
10. But a day later when he turns 16, it’s child rape, right?
11. Please admit this makes no sense except by “might is right”; the idea that truth or morality is whatever the most violent party declares it to be.
12. Please admit that, according to your logic, there is no reason why persons who are factually unequal should not be arbitrarily treated so as to have equal status; and there is no reason why this should not entail treating adults as children.

I once visited a friend of mine in a mountain village in Indonesia. Sixteen extended family members were in a small hut, dandling a baby.

(cont.)

The baby's aunt was blowing raspberries on his belly. Then she put her mouth fully over his genitals and blew raspberries. He burbled and giggled delightedly, and was obviously receiving pleasure. Everyone carried on chatting and socialising just as if nothing was happening. And I thought “God if this was Australia, they would have called the police, and the media, and the United Nations.” If the statists had their way, she be imprisoned for 20 years.

But those people obviously understood that whether sexual behaviour is abusive or not, comes down to whether the persons concerned find it to be so. It is nonsense to declare, in the abstract, in ignorance of fact, in defiance of reason, that it is abusive when it *factually* and *ethically* isn’t.

In short, these are not laws of child protection but of sexual morality. They are in the same category as laws criminalizing homosexuality and fornication. They are motivated, not because *factually* sexually mature people having consensual sex is abusive, but by moral horror of the prurient and self-opinionated at the very idea of people having consensual sex of which they disapprove. JIRT are the modern-day chastity police, that is all, the western equivalent of the religious morality police of Iran; only the western religion is state-worship.

There is no reason why the state should make the decision as to *consensual* sex, instead of the person concerned or their parents or guardians, and the harm done by the state through these laws, *especially to young people*, is much greater than the harm they prevent.

There is an alternative that you don’t seem to have considered, to your assumption that officials are categorically superior to humanity in general, and that truth or morality are properly decided at the point of a gun.

This is that other people’s non-coercive and non-abusive relations are none of your business; and that people aren’t being “harmed” for no other reason than that they disagree with the irrational ignorance., and intolerant moral arrogance, of conservative thugs.

Now fair’s fair. Please answer my numbered questions – this time without self-contradictory evasion.