MAP Forum

Hi,
I wanted to understand more about the stigma and bad treatment of MAPs annd whether it has any impact to the protection of minors and if so, how?
If MAP’s were accepted in society and treated nicely and respected and valued and we were MAP inclusive society, would this create a safer environment for children?

This is not really debatable, since if MAPs were confident enough to come out, their activities would be more visible. There would be more choice as to whether parents or minors interact with MAPs.

What conservatives fear is a diversity and equality culture where MAPs cannot be challenged, and there is awkwardness around not letting them near their kids. They fear being forced to bake a cake with the MAP Flag on it.

https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Special_Ar ... f_hysteria

Jim Burton wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2025 11:51 pm https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Special_Ar ... f_hysteria

Wow, I tried to stop myself from scrolling any further but there's just so many absurd things that are on record, I imagine there's so much more out there. Just absolutely absurd.

One of the worst things that you can do to a group from a sociological perspective is force them into secrecy. It creates an environment where harmful behavior isn't challenged, power ends up concentrated to the detriment of others, and it becomes even more difficult to track and predict what they're going to do.

If you believe that AMSC is objectively harmful — forcing MAPs underground increases the likelihood of AMSC; increases the likelihood of grooming gangs; increases the likelihood of people getting desperate and going out and abducting or worse; makes MAPs more likely to engage with unwilling family members out of opportunity, with no way to know that this particular person is a MAP.

If you believe that AMSC isn't objectively harmful — forcing MAPs underground reduces the opportunity to challenge legitimately harmful behavior; increases the likelihood of exploitative communities forming; and can make perfectly normal MAPs who would otherwise have a healthy relationship with a minor do something more drastic and harmful out of desperation.

Does stigmatizing mans impact the protection of women?

I know there are Adults that hurts Adults but there are good people that wouldn't hurt others.

It could be the same when it comes to MAPs and Children.

So treating badly different people is not the way to a peaceful world.

Bookshelf wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2025 9:28 am If you believe that AMSC is objectively harmful — forcing MAPs underground increases the likelihood of AMSC; increases the likelihood of grooming gangs; increases the likelihood of people getting desperate and going out and abducting or worse; makes MAPs more likely to engage with unwilling family members out of opportunity, with no way to know that this particular person is a MAP.

If you believe that AMSC isn't objectively harmful — forcing MAPs underground reduces the opportunity to challenge legitimately harmful behavior; increases the likelihood of exploitative communities forming; and can make perfectly normal MAPs who would otherwise have a healthy relationship with a minor do something more drastic and harmful out of desperation.

While I fully agree with this, for most of society though they see this and their takeaway is all MAPs are a ticking time-bomb and thus a threat.

The recent "Pro-Reform: Thoughts on 'The Push'" perspective puts it well as it can be applied to different groups of people, not just MAPs.

... if you hound any group of people, isolate them, push them to the brink, and leave them with nothing to lose, you can expect some of these people to become a serious danger to society. This is what is being done right now to MAPs; even those who have not yet been outed may live in abject misery, fear, and terror.

Anyone who claims to want to prevent harmful behavior should be able to stand by the idea that MAPs need to be less stigmatized.

Lightie Twinkle wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2025 12:21 pm Does stigmatizing mans impact the protection of women?

I know there are Adults that hurts Adults but there are good people that wouldn't hurt others.

It could be the same when it comes to MAPs and Children.

So treating badly different people is not the way to a peaceful world.

Biological males are currently being stigmatised especially when they changed their gender. Trans-females are being deemed as a threat to biological females and there is the issues of biological males/trans-women entering female spaces like bathrooms)

Grunko wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:16 pm
Biological males are currently being stigmatised especially when they changed their gender. Trans-females are being deemed as a threat to biological females and there is the issues of biological males/trans-women entering female spaces like bathrooms)

I didn't know about this.. What is this threat?

Lightie Twinkle wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 2:24 pm

Grunko wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:16 pm
Biological males are currently being stigmatised especially when they changed their gender. Trans-females are being deemed as a threat to biological females and there is the issues of biological males/trans-women entering female spaces like bathrooms)

I didn't know about this.. What is this threat?

There is a video on YouTube
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9fkjBauQ2 ... 5zZQ%3D%3D

Grunko wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:16 pm Biological males are currently being stigmatised especially when they changed their gender. Trans-females are being deemed as a threat to biological females and there is the issues of biological males/trans-women entering female spaces like bathrooms)

Terms like "biological males" and "biological females" can be problematic in the context of trans people because they reduce complex human identities to simplistic biological categories. Gender identity is a multifaceted aspect of a person that encompasses social, cultural, and personal dimensions, rather than being solely defined by biological factors. Using these terms can invalidate the identities of trans people, as many people find that their gender identity does not align with the sex assigned to them at birth.

When someone is referred to as a "biological male" or "biological female," it can imply that their gender identity is less valid or legitimate, emphasising physical characteristics over their lived experiences and self-identification. This focus on anatomy can perpetuate the idea that gender is solely determined by biological traits, overlooking the psychological and social aspects of gender and the existence of intersex individuals.

In discussions about gender and trans issues, it is generally more respectful and accurate to use terms that affirm people's self-identified genders, such as "trans women" and "trans men," or simply "women" and "men," as appropriate. This approach fosters inclusivity and acknowledges the complexity of gender identity.