Social Media Validity Policing and LGBT Validity Policing is a trend of conspicuous and dedicated, single issue advocacy and "calling out campaigns" initiated (mainly) by other sexual minorities, including LGBT+. Some anti-pedophiles and anti-zoophiles for example, attempt to reinforce their position within the modern LGBTQ+ movement by expressing their disapproval towards supposed attempts by others to join. Validity policing is somewhat distinct from vigilantism due to its informal and social nature.
Sometimes referred to as "validity sadists", these individuals typically set up alt-accounts to attack MAPs, Zoophiles and sometimes Lolicons (all, seemingly regardless of contact-stance). Validity policing uses the highly questionable "identity validity" hypothesis to exclude selected sexual minorities to the benefit of others, while maintaining pretenses of social justice. This self-appointed policing has been particularly visible on Twitter.com, where there are highly ambiguous rules against MAP Advocacy, resulting in wild-west mass-reporting campaigns.
It can be assumed that much of the activity classified as validity policing is the result of projection and reaction-formation, as well as personal insecurity among minorities who may feel they are at risk of ostracism. Many such actors are in their teens and early 20s, and have been pursued by antis of various sorts who attack their own communities. They are typically of middle-intelligence (thus not seeing the hypocrisy of becoming an anti), and are in the process of forming their own social identities. Validity sadists are typically overinvested in social media and the unhealthy values of externally-derived self-worth it promotes. They may include:
- The Anime and Lolisho community - see Lolicon-MAP Equivalence Debate. So-called "pro-fiction" or "proshippers". This community if far from fully accepted by the LGBT movement, meaning that they engage in often comical attempts at self-validation.
- Furries, attempting to distance Zoophiles. This is a common Zoo-analogy for the above Lolicon-MAP trend.
- Trans and nonbinary (NB) people. Fear of ostracism, and fear caused by adjacency of trans and nonbinary MAPs are pertinent themes here.
- "Reformed" anti-contact MAPs and Zoophiles. Insecurity/projection is highly indicated in these instances.
- Roleplayers of various sorts, including age-regressors (agere).
- People within eating-disorder (ED) circles.
- Suspect attempts by antis to present a "paraphilia recovery" "safe space" for those who intend to treat their pedophilia or zoophilia as a mental illness.
- Hardcore, old-school pedophile-hunters who pose to varying degrees as disinterested parties on social media.
There are many examples of LGBT validity-policing campaigns against MAPs, going right back to NOMAPs such as Enderphile. Examples from late 2021 include Sappho (a Zoophile with minor followers who came out as an MAP, and then supposedly entered a psych-ward after being attacked online), Lecter (a well-known anti-contact MAP personality), and the example of a seemingly anti-contact, out trans MAP who posted openly for some time, and was then "ratioed" by members of her own community.
There have also been unsubstantiated claims that a 14-year old female Zoophile (sephlez) has taken her own life after a campaign of harassment led to her posting self-harm images. The anti-Zoophile accounts who had hounded her were quick to blame the older Zoophiles for seducing her.
Questioning the identity validity hypothesis
This system of thought is easily deconstructed as an SJW re-hash of the 1980s respectability politics and shaming/boycotting campaigns embraced by the religious-right moral majority. Similar rhetorical strategies were also used by the Nazis against Homosexuals and Jews, resulting in the deployment of carceral psychiatry, even in the postwar era. The cynical aim of the identity validity hypothesis is therefore to provide a framework for the erasure of other minorities by more powerful or state/corporate-allied minorities.
The philosophy is hard to engage with because heavily invested people treat it like a religion, whilst also viewing themselves as victims of "the man", or "bigots" who seek to conflate them with less desirable minorities. Nevertheless, identity validity is hypocritical on a number of grounds - especially the claim that chronophilias are invalid sexualities, because "age is not a gender":
- What makes gender preference a valid determinant of sexuality? Identitarian validity sadists should be pressed for an answer that is not normative. They must also be asked if they believe that gender is socially constructed and what this spells for the validity of sexualities based solely around gender. If they claim that pedophilia is a mental illness and therefore invalid, they should be congratulated on confirming that pedophiles are entitled to care, respect, protection, social interaction and safe spaces. After all, a good LGBT person must surely not be an ableist or supporter of the carceral psychiatry that was used against their own people.
- Homosexuality has been age structured throughout history. Normative, modern-day teleio-homosexuals would be invalid by most classical standards, as they date exclusively within their own adult age group. However, in reality, opposites attract. Modern homosexuals take differing roles indicative of the age gap in classical pederasty, often explicitly power structuring their sexual lives. For more examples of hypocrisy, see historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity.
- Usually, people who make the invalidity argument also believe in the myth of corresponding age attraction among children/youth. They will assume this flawed hypothesis when trying to defend youth-on-youth sexual activity and attractions as "normative" compared to minor-adult relations. So, if by their own admission, normative age preference fluidity exists, non-normative variation in such preferences must also exist. Homosexuality, they would argue is an alternative to opposite gender attractions, so why can't intergenerational attractions be an alternative to teleiophilic ones?
- We have for a long time referred to pedophiles, even positively/neutrally to men who chase cougars and milfs, and female cradle-snatchers. So why other than politics, are we suddenly panicked over the classification of MAPs as a sexual minority?
Validity-sadists seem to operate unaware of the fact that it is often easier to run a social media account as a Zoophile than as a Hebephile, despite the prevalence and historical normativity of the latter. This can be raised as a telling example of how the identity validity scheme is based upon envy and political expediency as opposed to a properly developed model of social justice. Often the best way to question these arguments is to attack the underpinning philosophical framework - something SJWs and Wokists take a lot of pride in.
- Calling-out of MAP and Zoophile e-celebs (300-1000+ followers) - usually focusing on their interactions with minors or other "invalidated" groups. "Inappropriate" behaviors are identified, although there is no clear, identifiable trend as to what is considered inappropriate.
- Mass-reporting campaigns and mass-unfollow campaigns are used as a form of psychological warfare (eroding a personality's influence and connections).
- Unfounded accusations - These are usually made towards activists and anybody who comes close to opposing anti-youth LGBT orthodoxy. Common labels are "pedophile" and "predator". We have even seen the alt-right term "degenerate" used in instances where an SJW was psychologically triggered.
- Violent and threatening rhetoric. Even among supposedly social-justice aware members of the LGBT community, it is not unusual to see promotion of/calls to violence, or violent fantasies. It has to be mentioned that many of these individuals are seething with their own insecurity.
Some activity has taken place around policing of the term "queer", within the full LGBTQIA+ (etc) alphabet. While social media MAPs are generally unwilling to agitate for inclusion within the LGBT movement, they often question the "queer" category by suggesting that it must, by virtue of its history include MAPs. Queer Theory is also suggested by MAPs and mainstream Conservatives alike as the foundation for a re-appraisal of the 1990s rejection of MAPs from the LGBT movement. Indeed, many of the principal figures of Queer Theory have already made arguments concerning MAPs, or as in the case of Michel Foucault are often said to have practised intergenerational relations themselves. What exactly is "queer" if it does not refer to behaviors that were involved in past struggles both successful and unsuccesful?
Quotes that contest "Queer" essentialism
- "I am defining “queer” in a historical way as the set of non-harmful modes of non-normative sexual and gender expression that sexual liberation and gay activists tried to legalize but got left behind and re-criminalized by the new war on sex offenders."
- "Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in the positive fact of homosexual object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, "queer" does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence. "Queer," them, demarcates not a positivity but a positinality vis-a-vis the normative--a positionality that is not restricted to lesbians and gay men but is in fact available to anyone who is or who feels marginalized because of her or his sexual practices: it could include some married couples without children, for example. . . . "Queer," in any case, does not designate a class of already objectified pathologies or perversions; rather, it describes a horizon of possibility whose precise extent and heterogeneous scope cannot in principle be delimited in advance. It is from the eccentric positionality occupied by the queer subject that it may become possible to envision a variety of possibilities for reordering the relations among sexual behaviors, erotic identities, constructions of gender, forms of knowledge, regimes of enunciation, logics of representation, modes of self-constitution, and practices of community--for restructuring, that is, the relations among power, truth, and desire."
In general, it is maintained that "queerness" is an identity that is open to all. However, it can be worn badly. It is generally "queers" who wear the label badly, who attempt to gatekeep the identity by speaking from a position of devolved state and corporate power, rather than a position of queerness. This has included attempts to deny that MAPs can be queer.
- DNI (do not interact) - as in "MAPs" or "Minors DNI" - the standard tag used to distance other minorities deemed to be "invalid" or a legal risk. Anarchists and other supposed freedom-fighters are often ridiculed for using these tags in their bios - since they appear give assent to state/corporate classism by distancing subjugated groups.
- "Child/age is not a gender".
- Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity - A history of MAPs in the LGBT Movement - this information is often denied by self-appointed, modern-day LGBT validity police.
- Lolicon-MAP Equivalence Debate - Some crossover with the topics discussed here.
- Special Interest Group - More organized lobbying.
- Vigilantism - More dedicated/generalized vigilantism.
- Activist model - Online Activism, including social media.
- Human Rights Wrongs, by Andriette, 1998
- Defending Pedophilia Is The Logical Conclusion Of Queer Theory
- The Trojan Unicorn: Queer Theory and Paedophilia, Part I. | Dr Em
- De Orio - Punishing Queer Sexuality in the Age of LGBT Rights
- David M. Halperin. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.