By the way, while the religious IJM casually cites "terminology guidelines" here, this document (from 2016) resembles more of a propagandistic lobbying manifesto than terminology guidelines.
It tries to encourage states to interpret terms like child in child porn legislation in an alarmingly broad manner, mingling reality with fiction.
It directly conflates reality and fiction, even giving explicit examples of fiction which they disapprove of, it concern trolls with extremely rare "possibilities", and disseminates propagandistic language which someone can utilize to conflate reality and fiction.
At one point, it even tries to suggest the Lanzarote Convention, which explicitly has a "non-existent children are not covered" clause (and they admitted as such), was supportive of their ideology.
The dedicated domain for this document appears to have expired in late 2022 / early 2023.
This is not even directly mentioned in IJM's submission. They just wink at it with "the guidelines". Very sneaky. Deeply sinister.