The Katie Johnson Case: A Case Study in "Schrödinger's Pedophilia"

The 2016 'Katie Johnson' lawsuit against Donald Trump is a prime example of "Schrödinger's Pedophilia," a social condition where an accusation of child sexual abuse is considered both true and false at the same time. While a court has not legally decided the truth of the allegation, public opinion remains in a state of uncertainty. In the absence of a legal verdict, the court of public opinion reaches a conclusion based not on concrete evidence, but primarily on the political allegiances of the observer. The Johnson case epitomizes this split reality, as its very timing is used as proof of both a victim's courageous testimony and a political hit job, perfectly illustrating the concept's core duality.

Incentive to Come Forward:

From one perspective, a genuine victim would have a powerful, non-political incentive to come forward precisely when her alleged abuser is seeking the highest public office. The desire to prevent a person she knows to be a predator from attaining immense power and immunity could outweigh her fear of going public. The death threats she received, while a horrific reality for any public figure in a high-profile case, could be seen as a grim validation of the personal risk she was taking.

Incentive for a Frame-Job:

From the opposing perspective, a presidential campaign provides the perfect motive and timing for a politically motivated fabrication. The immense pressure, media frenzy, and potential for financial gain or political damage create a powerful incentive for a false accusation. In this view, the death threats could be dismissed as unverifiable, potentially even staged to garner sympathy and credibility for a weak case that was ultimately dropped.

The Fundamental Problem:

This is the central quagmire. It's difficult to use the existence of the accusation, its timing, or the reaction to it (like death threats) as proof of its truth or falsity. As with any public figure, the mere act of being in the spotlight attracts both genuine whistleblowers and malicious actors, as well as the inevitable and unhinged death threats from unstable individuals. The external noise does not adjudicate the core truth.

Ultimately, the Johnson case illustrates how political combat can obscure serious allegations, leaving the public with no reliable means to separate fact from strategy.

In Defense of Unpopular Figures: Why the Todd Akin Meme Fails the Charity Test

The Todd Akin quote reflects a non-expert's misunderstanding of stress's role in ovulation. It is irresponsible to generalize this effect to rape and scientifically baseless to characterize it as a purposeful, evolved "defense mechanism." This reflects a pollyannaish and unrealistic hope that the body could prevent a pregnancy resulting from rape. However, despite my disagreement with him, the Snopes article and this meme do not offer a charitable interpretation of his words. Their approach seems designed simply to score easy points.

While one could argue for a charitable reading of Akin's statement, his use of the phrase "legitimate rape" demonstrates why such charity may be misplaced. This phrasing inherently (& charitably likely inadvertently) proposes a category of "illegitimate rape," carrying the dangerous and widespread implication that women frequently lie about assault or that some sexual violations are not "real" rape. One might counter that, in literal terms, false accusations occur, situational ambiguities exist, and sexual violations exist on a spectrum. However, to emphasize these rare edge cases and complexities in order to undermine the vast majority of genuine reports is a profound failure of epistemic responsibility.

Despite my disagreement with the politician, I find it irresponsible to impose a partisan interpretation on Todd Akin's words that adds a malicious connotation, specifically that his 'legitimate rape' comment was designed to undermine all genuine reports of rape.  This imposed meaning is directly challenged by his own clarification. As seen in the Snopes article, if you take Todd Akin at his word, his stated intention was far from what the meme suggests. He issued a statement saying:

"As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault. In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it's clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year... I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election."

'Republicans on rape' meme shows real quotes from politicians


Note: This analysis focuses mostly on the language of Akin's statement. His subsequent response to the backlash is not really examined here.