Ah great, the ol' "I can't be bothered to prove my point so read this 500 page yawner and do all my work for me" defense. And holy cow, could you have picked something more annoying? The notes and the original all in the same font, terribly formatted, no spaces between paragraphs, with barely any indicator where the text leaves off and the criticism begins? Is this just an excuse to waste everybody else's time?
Alright let's take a look.
So basically we're going with the "I'll just claim everything's a conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up and load it down with ad hominem fallacies" mode of criticism. How convincing.
There's a lot of this quibbling about grammar and exact meanings in this criticism, here we see them arguing that because the oldest boys getting railed might be 18, it's unfair to say young boys were getting railed. But that's not a reasonable argument, not every Greek youth was going to be at the very oldest age bracket in the first place, and further dedicating verbiage to quibbling about "Young boys" vs. "Old boys" is missing the forest for the trees, it's still boys getting railed.
What the actual fuck? This is what you consider viable? Your counter is that older men having sex with young boys is heterosexual?
Ah, whitewashing. Sure, the fact that to this day the scale is called the Kinsey Scale surely indicates that the APA wasn't heavily influenced by Kinsey. Note that contrasted to The Pink Swastika's deeply impressive references for everything, this rebuttal has zero evidence for all its claims about who had what influence.
Translation: These people were Cancelled, ergo we get to pretend they never existed and their evidence doesn't count. There's a huge amount of this kind of reasoning.
Saying anything negative about gays is proof it's untrue in the eyes of this critic.
A bizarre assumption that a guy wasn't gay before he came out of the closet... in the 1920s.
Their standing table was literally called
Stammtisch 175, a then-famous homosexuality reference.
I could keep slogging through this painfully disorganized mess of lies but why? It's caught out in an extremely provable lie already, though honestly I could probably have stopped at "Gay sex between men and young boys is a heterosexual act." You've got nothing.
You have yet to prove he's a liar, or that there are any lies in his book.
Your citations on the other hand, yeah they're chock full of easily obvious lies. Projecting much?