Special protection for maps or remove barriers?

[Outis]

I've been thinking recently that is it possible for maps to get fair treatment in society as long as the idea of sexualities exist?

What I mean is that in ancient Greece, there wasn't really a concept of sexualities as in gay or straight for example, you were either sexual or not. If sexual, you might have physical relationships with someone, it might be with one person or many and you could be sexual with different women then have a sexual experience with a man and it wasn't a thing deserving a new name, you were just having a sexual experience.

But today we have categories captured in the LGBTQ+ acronym set and we have pedophiles but I wonder if we will ever be included since there's no pressure to add pedophiles for anyone other than pedophiles and it's easy to build strawman arguments against maps which we see so often. I wonder if as long as we have categories for people, will pedophiles ever be fully integrated? And chasing for special status to protect pedophiles like other sexualities have, is that ever really likely to be granted and why does it need granting in the first place? Even if it's granted, its very existence is saying "you can't mistreat maps for being maps since we accept that because they're maps, many people want to". It's kind of saying people do hate maps and so we have to erect this special wall to protect them.

If there was no sexualities in the world then there would be no need to elevate or lower or protect specific sexualities, everyone is either sexual or not. You and I might be sexual or not, no different to anybody else, there's nothing in a convenient silo to hate.

Protections then extend upwards and downwards to better safeguard everyone.
Just because you're a 25 year old woman doesn't mean you shouldn't have the same protection as a 10 year old female or male. Women deserve more protection, as do men. And young people should have the same protection as old people, they should be able to say no, and yes, and should be able to express themselves witoout fear or judgement. A 25 year old woman feeling threatened knows that she is empowered to say no, she is an equal person with equal rights and protection as anybody else, but a child in todays world can feel like they have no voice, no power, no right to say no. A child is taught to be entirely reliant on others and to only learn and that they have no power or autonomy which opens them up to exploitation and abuse, but a child empowered as a person can say no and feel they can say no with authority. But then that also means having the authority to say yes, as a full person.

My question is should the direction of travel be to push for rights and protections for maps as a distinct group of people, or should it be to remove barriers for all groups of people on the grounds that it better protects and empowers all people, including children while also removing the barriers that are used to identify and harm maps. I'm not talking about removing any protections from children, but rephrasing them in a way that expands to more people and the rights of other groups expand to protect children, but those protections are a double edged sword since it means protecting their rights for autonomy and everthing needed to say no, and yes.

[Fragment]

The idea of deconstructing things like race and gender has been around for quite a while. While there is more fluidity around the gender one, however, dismantling it altogether seems unlikely. Once labels are around they tend to be pretty sticky. You have more luck changing the label from a negative to a positive one than abolishing it, I think.

[Outis]

The idea of deconstructing things like race and gender has been around for quite a while. While there is more fluidity around the gender one, however, dismantling it altogether seems unlikely. Once labels are around they tend to be pretty sticky. You have more luck changing the label from a negative to a positive one than abolishing it, I think.

You might be right but I'm not sure, I'm open minded about it.
I watched Joan Rivers go mad when people started clapping her age and she made the point that she hates it when people clap about that, as if age is something to define her. She's an accomplished comedian, clap about that, her age is irrelevant. I've heard disabled people in the past say similar things, that they don't want a job because they're disabled or be treated differntly for being disabled, that is patronising and only highlights something that should be irrelevant to if they are a good employee.

I agree that labels stick but I can see a campaign that combats that as ringing true for people. Racism, sexism, ageism, they're all possible because of labels. I'd be interested to look at what those other groups are doing to remove labels.