"Teenagers and younger kids are learning coded predator phrases like ‘MAP’ online..."

[OnionPetal]

But MAP, Minor Attracted Person, is specifically about attraction and has become a term that non-maps just see as sexual. A map is a pedophile, someone who wants to shag kids. All the nuance has gone. Love, respect, romance, care, all that's ignored, map is just another term for kiddy rapist in most peoples minds. [...]

Who is defining this term: MAPs or antis? And people need to be able to distinguish between a 'definition' and 'demonisation.' Antis are going to deliberately defame any MAP terminology. Please do not yield to their frame. MAPs need to take ownership of the language that defines them, and try not to be thrown off principle by someone else's distorted mischaracterisations.

It shouldn't be, the term was never meant to mean that. I suppose I'd prefer a term that didn't focus on attraction and was harder to attack, something that people understood was more akin to homosexuality or heterosexuality.

There is nothing wrong with the word 'attraction.' In fact, it's probably better than 'sexuality' (as in 'homosexuality'), because 'attraction' includes romantic and emotional connotations. 'Attraction' does not describe behaviours or incitement to any actions. MAP is an umbrella term that inclusively describes a collection of marginalised identities, from girl-lovers and boy-lovers to child-lovers and teen-lovers. The term is not 'misunderstood' for its etymology, but rather for how it has been used.

If people want to think up another term to unite all these groups that 'more accurately' represents this orientation, then great. I am happy to support. But please don't expect that whatever term is chosen will be accepted in good faith by antis because it 'sounds better.' Expect that antis will misrepresent anything MAPs say. And don't let that throw you. Whose orientation is this after all?? MAPs need to take charge of the communications around MAP issues. Do not yield to the mainstream frame. The antis are fighting against our language so hard, because they know the language battle is an EXTREMELY important one. Keep fighting.

[Grunko]

Contains links to Mu articles.

https://theconversation.com/teenagers-a ... -it-277460
[/quote]

I looked into the link. I just can’t stand it how MAPs are labelled as predatory people. So spreading awareness about Minor attracted people and trying to clear a misunderstanding is now classed as grooming? I don’t understand how being open minded about a group is harmful or dangerous.

[CantChainTheSpirit]

But MAP, Minor Attracted Person, is specifically about attraction and has become a term that non-maps just see as sexual. A map is a pedophile, someone who wants to shag kids. All the nuance has gone. Love, respect, romance, care, all that's ignored, map is just another term for kiddy rapist in most peoples minds. [...]

Who is defining this term: MAPs or antis? And people need to be able to distinguish between a 'definition' and 'demonisation.' Antis are going to deliberately defame any MAP terminology. Please do not yield to their frame. MAPs need to take ownership of the language that defines them, and try not to be thrown off principle by someone else's distorted mischaracterisations.

It shouldn't be, the term was never meant to mean that. I suppose I'd prefer a term that didn't focus on attraction and was harder to attack, something that people understood was more akin to homosexuality or heterosexuality.

There is nothing wrong with the word 'attraction.' In fact, it's probably better than 'sexuality' (as in 'homosexuality'), because 'attraction' includes romantic and emotional connotations. 'Attraction' does not describe behaviours or incitement to any actions. MAP is an umbrella term that inclusively describes a collection of marginalised identities, from girl-lovers and boy-lovers to child-lovers and teen-lovers. The term is not 'misunderstood' for its etymology, but rather for how it has been used.

If people want to think up another term to unite all these groups that 'more accurately' represents this orientation, then great. I am happy to support. But please don't expect that whatever term is chosen will be accepted in good faith by antis because it 'sounds better.' Expect that antis will misrepresent anything MAPs say. And don't let that throw you. Whose orientation is this after all?? MAPs need to take charge of the communications around MAP issues. Do not yield to the mainstream frame. The antis are fighting against our language so hard, because they know the language battle is an EXTREMELY important one. Keep fighting.

My point was that a word is just a word, it's the meaning that people relate to it that matters. I agree with you that it's good that MAPs chose a word themselves, and a term for it, and it annoys non-maps that they did, and the definition chosen was a positive definition. That's good for maps as a group referring to each other. There's a term we chose, we use, and we understand the definition.

But, away from MAPs the definition isn't known or used, the definition of child sex predator is used. If the wider world understood our definition of map then they might be less quick to attack people described as a map. There's been a real PR problem with anti's working overtime for a while to push their definition for map and I suspect if you asked most people what a map was, they'd either not know having never heard the term or they'd respond "a new term for pedophile, they're predators".

So I was saying it's a shame there isn't a word that describes us in a way that leaves no wriggle room to attack since it makes no mention of sex or attraction but was a term everyone immediately recognized and understood to mean protection, care, respect, love and attraction. Words that are self descriptive, obvious terms, literal descriptions, intuitive, immediately understandable. For example.

Environmentalist.
Feminist
Minimalist
Vegetarian
Bookworm
Loner

I read somewhere that the clearest terms are usually X-ist, pro and anti, compound nouns (bookworm, homebody, workaholic) and literal descriptors (non-believer etc). They're known as transparent identity labels or self-explanatory group terms. MAP is a word that doesn't fit into these categories so it needs a definitions and that means it can be exploited, misused.

Several thoughts come to mind.

One is that we don't need a new term, we just need to do more to educate people about the meaning of the term map. We have a term and a definition, we stick with it and we make an effort through social media and other channels to define the term MAP. Push back on the anti's misusing the term.

Another is that we could have different terms to describe different things. I mean MAP is a good term to describe the sexuality but there could be other terms to describe other aspects such as child respect, child first beliefs. Examples of such terms that need no definition would be terms like these.

child advocates
child protectors
children’s champions
children-first people

Or if describing it as a movement or identity group then terms like these:

Children First
For the Children
Child First
Children’s Voice
Child Guardians