That's not true. I already conceded that you could render a wholly coherent (even if ultimately unconvincing) defense for it while accepting that there is some innate pedophilia for a contingency of these people. The problem I have is that, as a functional Internet sub-community, you cannot distinguish between a "non-pedophilic" ABDL and an ABDL pedophile until either they've successfully lived a complete life without displaying/expressing any latent pedophilia (aka, they've died), or they eventually do express their pedophilia and confirm suspicions, which necessitates victimizing innocents. Until then, they're Schrodinger's diddler.
So, no, my issue isn't "they're ALL pedophiles!" People can understandably develop a fetish for anything that is making regular contact with the genitals... because it's an object making contact with their genitalia. Not everyone who's realized "hey, if I put this inanimate object against my erogenous zones, I become aroused!" from diapers is also subsequently aroused by prepubescents and minors. However, they still need to understand that everyone else who looks at it will reasonably go "oh, gross, this is impossible for me to distinguish from the people also wearing diapers because they want to simulate child molestation." From what it seems, these communities believe that being very vocal with their "I love baby diapers but I would never, ever, ever, EVER be aroused by an actual baby's diaper!" rhetoric is good enough. It's wildly unconvincing outside of radical queer ideologues and libtard progressives, and even they don't always take too kindly to the attempts to worm their way into general acceptance.
