I don't think that's what it means in context.

I think it's more saying that "the idea of little girls being perfect innocents that can be corrupted by strange queer people is weaponised against trans people, but actually nobody is "pure and innocent" the way the Right portrays it".

The argument is not "oh kids like being fondled by adults in the bathroom" but more "the idea that trans people are a threat to little girls in bathrooms is a moral panic that relies on the creation of two archetypes - that of the "scary corrupt queer deviant" on the one hand, and that of the "pure innocent child" on the other. It's a comment about how narratives are constructed, ones where children are considered "victims" by simply meeting a trans person in a bathroom because their innocence can somehow be corrupted by seeing anyone outside the norm.

As far as I'm aware, there are no cases Alok was referring to where a trans person assaulted a child in a bathroom. And yet the narrative persists.

I don't think it was worded in a good way (because you can interpret it as downplaying the severity of real abuse if the victim is not "pure", meaning no understanding of sex before the event), but as someone who was a little girl myself, who was extremely sheltered (I was homeschooled, I had no exposure to explicit material, I didn't watch TV, I only watched old movies from the 40s, nothing above a G or PG rating) I still have vivid memories of being 5, and having fantasies of a sadomasochistic nature that would give me a weird sense of pleasure. And I didn't even know what sex was at the time. I was not abused, I was not exposed to anything "kinky" and in many ways I was completely "innocent" of what sex was. I did not know how babies were made. I thought genitals were just for peeing. I didn't know what sex was until I was 10. And yet I had those thoughts. I know I was 5 because I told my mother about them.

It now seems that "kink" is in many ways genetic. I won't go into details but let's just say I know some people in my family have the same kink.

Despite being a peaceful girl who loved flower fairies and Aesop's fables and making fantasy stories in the garden with my brothers - I also remember (with shame now) torturing bugs with sadistic glee, and playing "Aztec priest doing a sun god ritual" with my brothers.

When I was 12 I discovered how to orgasm using a tap in the bath. Again I had no exposure to porn or anything or even sex education. And yet I became obsessed with the feeling at that age and would masturbate every chance I had.

So yeah. I was an innocent, as sheltered as one can get. But I was complicated. I was kinky. It doesn't mean it would have been OK to abuse me, nothing ever justifies that.

But kids are complex and will develop their natures regardless of how you shelter them. My partner started having sex at age 7 with some other boys his age. Some were consensual and one time he was raped by a 12 year old.

Again, nothing justifies abusing kids, no adult should sexually touch a minor or groom them. That said, kids and teens are not blank slates of purity where any deviance is imposed on them from outside.

You don't have to be perfect to be a victim.

But you also aren't necessarily a victim if you're not perfect. And simply seeing a gender nonconforming or queer person is not going to make you a victim.