How do I argue against this?

[Jake]

So someone on kiwifarms caught me making a comission here: https://www.furaffinity.net/view/38753977/

It was brought up as an ad homenim against my arguing that homosexuals aren't child molesters: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/pedoph.../post-10037445

There "logic" is as follows:

There is no conflation to be made. It is as easy as this: If the childform was no part of your fetish, why even include it and request it? Why commission art about it? why have people write about it? There would be no need. So it is part of your fetish, and thusly, part of your sexual arousal that ties to this kind of thing.

The answer to this is: If there is no need for the childform to be an element of your desires, it would not be there. It does give you sexual arousal, and since, as I stated before, you seek it out and sought it out for over a decade, it is certainly sexual attraction present. That you are denying the obvious is just retarded.

Sexual attraction indicates you find someone, or in some cases, something, sexually appealing to you. In your case, you find TG stuff, sexually appealing. This, for you, also seem to involve child-characters.

Sexual arousal indicates you have some sort of physical response to something. Meaning this shit, gives you a boner and gets your libido going. So in short, this does not really make your argument any better at all, if anything it tells us you pop a boner when you look at little winnie transforming and want to give your wee-micro a helping hand. So to speak.

These people don't understand that arousal form transformation has nothing to do with attraction. Right?

[Prof_Sai]

Some people respond to abuse by developing a need to abuse others. They think that attacking and demonizing someone else makes them less awful by comparison. The reason WHY they attack is irrelevant. Assure them that you aren't X, and they will just find Y as a new reason to attack. All the words are excuses.