But the adult abuser's sex was coded and then never mentioned again, or compared with the child's, probably because it's a variable that has no effects on outcomes. Veith seems to have seen homosexuals under the bed who aren't there. But this would also make most CSA heterosexual, since CSA was about four times as frequent with girls as with boys in these samples. Of course not. But it shows nothing about homosexuality either.
Science is supposed to avoid value judgments.
This is not the authors' position at all. Veith quotes only this last sentence, implying that the authors morally endorse such encounters. The insistence on 'value-neutral' terminology for sex abuse is not neutral at all, but advances the ideology that children are fair game for sexual predators. In this sense, the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered. The current findings are relevant to moral and legal positions only to the extent that these positions are based on the presumption of psychological harm.