The pedophiles bundled together to brigade and community note my thread asserting it claims that it is NECESSARY to use CSAM to draw small anime girls, when it doesn't say that. Ever.
This is a total strawman, which is expected of lolicon retards.
If you say they're attracted to children and call them pedophiles (which they are, it's literally what a lolicon means in Japanese), they will claim you're calling them predators and demand evidence of them preying on a child.
This kind of strawmanning and elevation of claims is the cornerstone of the lolicon persecution complex.
If you make a thread talking about how artists use references and that if you're looking at lolicon art, you have no guarantee the artist did not use images of real children or even CSAM as reference to produce it, they will claim (as you can see in the community note) that "CSAM is NECESSARY to draw small anime girls".
The only thing that is asserted is that all lolicon art is based on what real children look like, which is undeniably true. Loli characters don't look like old grandmothers or adult women. Despite being stylized, they heavily emphasize childlike features.
This isn't the same as claiming all lolicon art uses photographs of real children as reference or traces photographs of real children.
The whole point is that if you're willing to draw a line at Shadman draw explicit images of real children, you should reasonably be skeptical about what material the other lolicon art you look at is based on. As is stated at the end, it could even be CSAM passed through an AI filter.
"But it literally never happens!"
I already mention the example of Shadman in the OP, but that seemed to fly over people's heads, but there are other examples:
x.com/realNikandros/
I've already pointed to an example of Dorontabi, the artist responsible for the "uoooh 
correction" memes that he publicly talked about hoarding Japanese child gravure photos.
x.com/P33P00peepee/s
Other commenters brought up other examples like the author of Vampeerz clearly using a photo of a real child on their work.
What is the number of examples I need to pull up before you accept that there is a non-zero risk that the artist behind the lolicon images you enjoy might be using real children as reference?
It doesn't matter what the artist says, because they have every incentive to lie.
Just like lolicons have every incentive to lie and boldly strawman me, because they know exactly what they are and refuse to accept it.
correction" memes that he publicly talked about hoarding Japanese child gravure photos.
x.com/P33P00peepee/s
Other commenters brought up other examples like the author of Vampeerz clearly using a photo of a real child on their work.
What is the number of examples I need to pull up before you accept that there is a non-zero risk that the artist behind the lolicon images you enjoy might be using real children as reference?
It doesn't matter what the artist says, because they have every incentive to lie.
Just like lolicons have every incentive to lie and boldly strawman me, because they know exactly what they are and refuse to accept it.
Quote
Nikandros
@realNikandros
"It's fictional content!"
"No real children are being harmed!"
Contrary to popular belief, artists don't conjure images from a void in their imagination. It's actually impossible to think up a totally original, unique idea that isn't derived from something that already exists.
Readers added context
The entire post is speculation written as if it’s a fact. OP has done nothing to address the evidence provided by actual artists that csam is not necessary to draw small anime girls.
x.com/hideo_fufujima…
That, or this is engagement bait which also deserves a note so it can’t be monetized.