It's an interesting article. First I have a feeling that all the hype about 'trauma' and 'repressed memory' is something that has never convinced the average man-in-the-street. It's a little like Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. We all kind of knew it couldnt be so, except for the people who actually had power. We hear interviews on the radio and listen to reports and we say 'yeah right' but we know it doesnt quite add up and we make up our own minds.
This woman is only saying what most of us actually know in our heart of hearts but the powers-that-be don't like her to say this because of the very discrepancy in her own article. If the child is not traumatised how is it such a terrible wicked despicable crime? It feels as if it should be but how can it be if so little harm is done?
That is why powers-that-be cannot go along with it. It's a similar situation with drugs. Scientists who say that drugs do less harm than drink are harrassed and struck off because it weakens the authorities already weak insistence that drugs must stay illegal - we all see why drugs is 'not a good thing' so we have to reinforce it by exaggeration if necessary. The truth becomes a problem: the weaker the argument the stronger the anti language will need to become to bolster the status quo.
But her wild man-hating exaggerations at the end of the the article do nothing to strengthen her case. . . . . . .