Put People First When Discussing Child Sexual Abuse
We live in a world where it’s become commonplace to lob labels like “pedo” and “groomer” at people with whom we disagree. As someone who has researched child sexual abuse for more than 30 years, I’m pleased that science is moving away from using stigmatizing labels and toward person-first language to communicate more clearly and respectfully. It’s my hope that others make this change, too.
What does this look like? It looks like using the term “person with a sexual attraction to children” instead of “pedophile” or “sex offender” because it places the person ahead of the attraction and also recognizes that not all people with this attraction will act on it. And it means using “individual who sexually offended” instead of “sex offender,” because it does not wrongfully imply a stable, unmodifiable, and trait-like tendency to engage in future criminal behavior.
Using labels like “sex offender” or “predator” risks promoting misperceptions about sexual offending, like the myth that most child sexual abuse is committed by strangers, when about 90 percent of children who are sexually abused know the person who perpetrated the harm. In addition, research shows that labels can erode the public’s support for needed prevention and treatment efforts as well as obstruct an individual’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
“Person who sexually offended” is still accusatory by inference, so it’s just as bad. I live my life without labels but if I were to make one up on the spot, it would be closer to, “person wrongly on a registry for something the state says happened when they have no clue.”
I disagree with you, Ben.
A ‘person who sexually offended’ put its more in the past tense and has finality, so it is not as bad.
Take the label ‘murderer’ for example.
It sounds as though the person could be out murdering now, when they may have only murdered one person.
Let’s see how long this article is up before the hateful online mobs cancel it. (And by the way, both the left AND the right form online mobs on this subject so i’m not singling anyone out.)
I agree, Ben. “Person who sexually offended” is not person first language, and that phrase is stigmatizing, offensive, and suggests that the offending is ongoing. There is much better person first terminology for our population. Some suggestions: individual adjudicated for a sexual offense, persons with sexual offense histories, individual with a sex offense in their background, and for those in the community: registered citizen, person forced to register.
The best term would be ‘former sex offender,’ as employed by ACLU’s Jeanne Baker in her televised debate with Ron Book.
“Person who sexually offended” is still inherently vague and continues to perpetuate society’s weaponized ignorance on this subject. It would appear as though truth, reality and nuance don’t matter.either when it comes to educating people on this.
In contrast, “Former sex criminal” sounds better than RSO, but even that is still dehumanizing and vilifying.
The media, cops and lawmakers have intentionally made it toxic so-as to benefit them. Any attempt to change the nomenclature and meaning of “sex offender” will swiftly be met with the “CaLL tHeM wHaT tHey Are” crowd.
We’re truly dealing with a swamp of stupid.
I agree with you Jacob! Or even former sexual offender. If the general description of sex offender/ predator is ” villainized”, it makes it easy to hate.