352

Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 6 months ago by Persona3Reload@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

you think they should be included in the LGBTQ+ group,

Honestly I don't think I have any authority to speak on whether anyone should or shouldn't be included in LGBTQ+. I just think they face a lot of the same struggles that people in the LGTBQ+ group experience. So I wouldn't be surprised if they were included in the future.

and I promise that will cause more harm than good.

Could you expand on that?

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

As others have pointed out, it's a pride group. It would imply acceptance of MAPs as they are. Republicans already demonize LGBTQ+ people as pedos and groomers, this would only legitimize their claims and galvanize their attempts to marginalize them. Not to mention the are vulnerable minors that have no support network outside of the LGBTQ+ movement. Giving pedos legitimacy and access to them would be a huge mistake.

Yes, the things they face do reflect prior and even current struggles of queer people, but the difference is they fought for eventually attained some level of acceptance as they are because being gay/trans/whatever is not harmful. MAPs should be treated with understanding and given help, but they should not be accepted as they are because of the actual harm it will cause to the movement and society.

[-] eupraxia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 months ago

Ultimately I think any conversation that boils down to who is or isn't LGBT+ is a bit reductive. It's not like every person in that broad grouping is completely valid as they are - there's lots of abusive and dangerous queer people, just like any other group. It's not like we endorse every LGBT+ person's behavior uncritically, nor are we asking for anyone else to do so.

That's kinda why I prefer "queer" as a broad label. It's less about whether what you are fits into the acronym and is therefore valid. If someone identifies as queer, the question becomes - how so? And if someone spews some obviously abusive nonsense in response, we don't have to support them, but if they experience attraction to people they know they can't safely engage with (and don't), my thinking would turn empathetic pretty quickly.