Should a new community form to split out from the LGBTQ+ community?

[Officerkrupke]

I like the idea of coalition building under the paraphilias label, joined with LGBT. That’s much more realistic bc allying with othered sexual attractions increases the chances of looking “acceptable” in contrast.

[Not Forever]

I preface that I never felt part of the LGBTQ+ community for many reasons, the most important being that I can't find it "neutral". In the sense: Does it really make sense that one must include or exclude certain letters, when it should instead be implicit who is or isn't included? It almost gives the external perception that the "no cisgender heterosexuals without chronophilias or paraphilias allowed" group is being formed, and in my opinion, it harms everyone, especially the community itself.

If we need to create something new, I'd honestly avoid making yet another acronym-based community that acts as gatekeeping, and instead form a group with a manifesto grounded in solid philosophical positions.

Sexual freedom based on consent? Then the discussion isn’t about whether to include MAPs or not, but simply about debating the age of consent and its prerequisites. And any other form of entertainment is permissible, since there’s no need to ask for consent from dolls—they’re just dolls.

In short, I’d prefer this kind of approach, one that promotes itself as rational as possible. That the battles being fought are as neutral as possible, so as to involve the ENTIRE population and not just minorities—something that makes it clear it concerns everyone indiscriminately. Which in my opinion would also lead to normalizing paraphilias and chronophilias, the moment they are treated as something that involves everyone. Everyone has unconventional sexuality, everyone has taboos, everyone has sexual needs.

I would like to see the progressive as a well-dressed person who speaks rationally and scientifically about certain topics, without polarization and without having preferences. Well, maybe I ended up writing more of a rant than anything else.

Maybe it's because I never felt part of these discussions.
I remember when my mother and I once talked about pedophiles: her position was clear and consistent with her philosophy: if they don't harm children, then everything is fine. She didn't judge a person for what they liked, but for what they did. Then you can discuss what harms or doesn't harm a child, but it seems to me a much lighter, less polarized way of approaching.

Perhaps I just can't stand activism.
Sorry for this sort of rant.

[Puerto Lobos]

If you want to align with people, you should stop worrying about which part of what group has beef with other parts of the group. You're so caught up in minor conflicts within a big tent movement that you're failing to see what the movement has accomplished while highlighting internal and external petty squabbles. Your focus should instead be on common enemies, and building trust. We all hate scummy politicians who use discrimination as both a cudgel and a shield. We all hate corporations who latch onto grass roots movements to pad their bottom line. There is plenty of intersectionality to be found but right now, coming from a queer person, this post reeks of phobia.

I felt that this was very well put! Intersectionality seems to be a concept a number of people in the MAP community don't understand, or are too wounded by lack of solidarity from the LGBTQ community to value. But in truth none of us are free until we're all free. Even if we or the LGBTQ community get laws or whatever put into place to protect their rights, or even gain wide spread acceptance no one is safe until we stop the supremacy of groups that use hate against minorities (accept the 1% I guess, eat the rich) at all. Those that use hate as a tool will always just keep swinging at the most vulnerable people. Our answer must be to protect all vulnerable people, recognizing there are some intersections we are better poised to defend than others. And, as those hate groups manage to deconstruct large resistance efforts there is of course places we can support those being left undefended, and morph the resistance into new identities and functions. Just have to be cautious not to play into the crab bucket of it all by giving into phobia or bitterness and exploiting would be allies vulnerability, lest becoming a bunch of hateful tools ourselves.

[Puerto Lobos]

I preface that I never felt part of the LGBTQ+ community for many reasons, the most important being that I can't find it "neutral". In the sense: Does it really make sense that one must include or exclude certain letters, when it should instead be implicit who is or isn't included? It almost gives the external perception that the "no cisgender heterosexuals without chronophilias or paraphilias allowed" group is being formed, and in my opinion, it harms everyone, especially the community itself.

If we need to create something new, I'd honestly avoid making yet another acronym-based community that acts as gatekeeping, and instead form a group with a manifesto grounded in solid philosophical positions.

Sexual freedom based on consent? Then the discussion isn’t about whether to include MAPs or not, but simply about debating the age of consent and its prerequisites. And any other form of entertainment is permissible, since there’s no need to ask for consent from dolls—they’re just dolls.

In short, I’d prefer this kind of approach, one that promotes itself as rational as possible. That the battles being fought are as neutral as possible, so as to involve the ENTIRE population and not just minorities—something that makes it clear it concerns everyone indiscriminately. Which in my opinion would also lead to normalizing paraphilias and chronophilias, the moment they are treated as something that involves everyone. Everyone has unconventional sexuality, everyone has taboos, everyone has sexual needs.

I would like to see the progressive as a well-dressed person who speaks rationally and scientifically about certain topics, without polarization and without having preferences. Well, maybe I ended up writing more of a rant than anything else.

Maybe it's because I never felt part of these discussions.
I remember when my mother and I once talked about pedophiles: her position was clear and consistent with her philosophy: if they don't harm children, then everything is fine. She didn't judge a person for what they liked, but for what they did. Then you can discuss what harms or doesn't harm a child, but it seems to me a much lighter, less polarized way of approaching.

Perhaps I just can't stand activism.
Sorry for this sort of rant.

Well, I don't know that I care what people wear, but otherwise I think this rant is a great example of activism. An important role in activism is having the willingness to imagine a new world. A better world. While still maintaining a realistic grip on the reality of what would need to be sacrificed to reach it.

I agree that identity politics has run its course, and now often serves to instill more division than solidarity. Basing politics upon ideals instead of purely identity sounds like a beautiful approach to me, as long as people are still allowed to express their individual identities, of course.

[Officerkrupke]

I preface that I never felt part of the LGBTQ+ community for many reasons, the most important being that I can't find it "neutral". In the sense: Does it really make sense that one must include or exclude certain letters, when it should instead be implicit who is or isn't included? It almost gives the external perception that the "no cisgender heterosexuals without chronophilias or paraphilias allowed" group is being formed, and in my opinion, it harms everyone, especially the community itself.

Kink and asexuals are part of LGBT, which includes people who are also straight.

[PorcelainLark]

In practical terms, the core of the LGBT community currently consistently exclude MAPs. I think it's reasonable to look for discontents within the community as ways to advance MAP interests. It's not primarily MAPs responsibility if the LGBT community doesn't show solidarity to MAPs. I think the hostility of the majority of the LGBT community towards MAPs is much greater than the hostility of MAPs towards LGBT people.

If we're going to take the question of marginalization seriously, can we really say LGBT people are more marginalized than MAPs? A straight MAP faces more prejudice than an LGBT teleiophile.

[Not Forever]

Kink and asexuals are part of LGBT, which includes people who are also straight.

That's why I included chronophilias and paraphilias too. In the sense: ideally, even a male attracted to six-year-old children is heterosexual. (I don’t know if I was wrong in considering kinks as paraphilias—the funny thing is I should probably belong to their group.)

[Outis]

I like the idea of coalition building under the paraphilias label, joined with LGBT. That’s much more realistic bc allying with othered sexual attractions increases the chances of looking “acceptable” in contrast.

I like your suggestion, particuarly keeping it distinct from the LGBTQ community. The aim wouldnt be to weaken that community but to build something that helps other communities that feel excluded, such as maps.

If we need to create something new, I'd honestly avoid making yet another acronym-based community that acts as gatekeeping, and instead form a group with a manifesto grounded in solid philosophical positions.

Sexual freedom based on consent? Then the discussion isn’t about whether to include MAPs or not, but simply about debating the age of consent and its prerequisites. And any other form of entertainment is permissible, since there’s no need to ask for consent from dolls—they’re just dolls.

That makes a lot of sense, at least avoiding becoming another acronym soup. The LGBTQ community has that covered, so having a different mission would make more sense.

The problem with AoC is that it really is a map only issue, or a map and young person issue so it doesn't really impact other people or groups, so wouldn't build consensus around a common issue.

What about something more broad that encompasses map issues such as:

- Personal rights and freedom over your own body. i.e. My body, my mind, my choice. Extended out to everybody, so spans trans, sexualities, ages right to die groups etc. But I can see even a broad coalition taking issue with AoC in the current climate.

- Small government, a return to the idea of state being responsible only for state level issues (defence etc) with personal issues being the responsibility of the individual, family and local community.

- Removing rights barriers. The elderly, disabled, young people, all groups have the right to be happy, safe and to love, safely with access to the information they need to be safe.

Shrug. I don't know, maybe it's better to just see if the LGBTQ community can see the benefit of at least acknowledging the map community in time. I'm not sure the groups I suggested really work or are not already covered by other groups.

[Not Forever]

- Personal rights and freedom over your own body. i.e. My body, my mind, my choice. Extended out to everybody, so spans trans, sexualities, ages right to die groups etc. But I can see even a broad coalition taking issue with AoC in the current climate.

I agree with all the points you listed.
If it were up to me, I would propose viewing adolescence not as an extension of childhood, but as an young adult to whom the state (through school education) must provide the tools to exercise their rights and become independent from their parents.

This also includes access to healthcare (Regarding the transgender issue.), psychological, law enforcement, etc... without the need to have parents as intermediaries.

To see that phase of life as a phase of empowerment, where the young adult is free and independent but must be instructed about their rights and how they can react if they are at risk. Not abandoned to themselves.

This would be a kind of compromise: Not having a small government, but a government that becomes a tool for the young adult instead of adopting a paternalistic governance model.