The original language conflated child rape with "orientation." That's damaging to people of "different orientations." Rape is not an orientation, be it directed at people too young to consent or anyone else. There are definitely people out there who call others "groomers" that are simply another orientation. This is addressing that. Spare me with the "emperor" stuff. I'm posting direct quotes and you are sagely nodding no as if you can read minds. One of us is taking a "trust me, bro" disposition to this exchange, and it isn't me.
You are posting direct quotes from an opinion that you have simply decided to co-opt. Reading the original text, I see zero ties to trans or any other group. It was simply a prohibition on declaring child attracted adult as an orientation in its original context, but the sponsor, and therefore USA Today and you, says it's there. Before the goalposts move, understand that my claim is only that it is a bad look. Not having struck the language prohibiting the definition would mean no one would have the opportunity to debate this at all. By comparison, finding some way to preserve the intent of this language while modifying this definition would have been a "good look" and something to hold up, show as an example, and applaud. Instead, here we are with you and USA Today getting all worked up over simply pointing out that something could be perceived negatively.
This is the goal post move. Now it is me and usa today getting worked up by... responding to the outrageous claim that the bill protects pedos. How does that work? How can the response to the slanderous claim be the bad look, and not the slander? There is no debate about pedos are bad. That's again a distortion that doesn't hold up to a basic inspection of the sequence e of events. The whole thing is about a FALSE claim that the bill protects pedos, and an implication that orientations somehow relate to pedophilia. Seriously, look at the sequence of events. Pride bill, outrage over removing words referring to pedophilia with orientation, and then the "bad look" of denying the false allegation. Some people didn't want a pride bill and don't want to remove false association with orientation and pedophilia. This is their way of getting traction. By doing the very thing being addressed by the change. I guess the bad look was the pride bill? [uck fay] protecting from bigotry?
As I said, trans people and historically gay people are called "groomers" and associated with pedophilia by bigots. This text was also making an association between the two by making reference to pedophilia along side orientations. There is no reason to do that, and is itself harmful. Imagine "8th maxim posters should not be banned for swear words, but this only applies to the posters who are not Bama fans." It implies we have some association with or harbor Bama fans. We don't. And we can and should ban bammers freely as normal. Protecting posters' swearing has nothing to do with being a bammer, so why taint us by association?
All part of a modern day lavender scare (on crack). Bad actors out there pushing misinformation to maintain momentum (see Target selling 'tucking' swimsuits to children). Just watch where this goes and how quickly it gets there. LGBT is the single largest threat to children in this country. It's already the perceived reality in FL.
Florida is telling the FBI and police to focus more on trans people than anyone else when looking for pedo's?
Florida LE is dramatically disproportionately concerned with trans people issues than pedophilia generally right now. They have cops escorting masculine-looking lesbians out of women's restrooms, my dude. What an incredible waste of time and resources.
FBI is a red herring, as that is Federal and in the Executive Branch. Obviously DOJ and Biden are not joining into this hysteria.
Correct. I'm not saying FL LE isn't going after any/all child abusers. I believe they are. The problem here is the state has the public riled up about the dangers LGBT folks pose to children, so they are in a lot of folks' sites right now. The funny thing about all this is we are labeled 'groomers' while the public at large is being 'groomed' to see us as existential threats to children.
I think that percentage is way too high, but agree it has been and is still the majority. That's changing, though.
I know it hits you differently than it does me so I get your concern but I'm confident it will always be the majority. Most people think rationally.
I don’t think people really care or are against gays. They’re just tired of the bullshit corporate pushing and ESG bullshit being pushed everywhere. People want and are craving authenticity and the gatekeepers are going the other direction as they lose control. The freaks on TikTok really don’t help either.
I'm hopeful this is simply a blip. What concerns me the most is what appear to be the fruits of this groomer talk over the past couple years. Look at all the corporate pride stuff being pulled up (often from years ago) to claim companies are woke and calling for boycotts. Target has been selling stuff for pride month for at least a decade, but now they are being bombarded with complaints, displays knocked down and employees threatened. WTF? Even some pride events are being canceled due to legal/safety concerns. I get a small number of folks can be very loud, but for this community it is pretty concerning.
Again, there were options to move the language elsewhere in the act and save yourself from being the trans who led the charge to remove the prohibition on defining pedos as a sexual orientation in this law, but that didn't happen.
