Debate Guide: MAPs are invalid: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(building)
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
:''"No attraction to minors is a valid sexuality, whatever label you put on it. Your age is not your sex! Child or Teenager are not genders, invalid!"''
:''"No attraction to minors is a valid sexuality, whatever label you put on it. Your age is not your sex! Child and Teenager are not genders, invalid!"''
<hr>
<hr>
This argument is often made (but not exclusively so) by LGBT people who like to claim that [[Minor Attracted Person|MAPs]] can not be ''gay'' or ''queer'' under any circumstances, and should voluntarily distance themselves from the LGBT Movement.
[[File:Sheep copy.png|thumb|Identitarians like to ignore [[Alfred Kinsey]]]]
This "identitarian" argument is often made (but not exclusively so) by LGBT people who like to claim that [[Minor Attracted Person|MAPs]] can not be ''gay'', ''homosexual'' or ''queer'' under any circumstances, and should voluntarily distance themselves from the LGBT Movement. They argue this, seemingly ignorant of how [[Research: Prevalence|common the attractions]] are, and how they must by necessity coexist with the gender-based attractions unaccounted for.


The first thing that should be pointed out, is that nobody actually uses the term "MAP" to denote a sexuality. It is in fact an identity; an umbrella term used to unify people with differing attractions, who have been put in the same boat as a result of political/cultural circumstances. [[Pedophilia]] and [[Hebephilia]] are examples of sexual "orientations" that fall under this umbrella term.
The first thing that should be pointed out, is that nobody actually uses the term "MAP" to denote a sexuality. It is in fact an identity; an umbrella term used to unify people with differing attractions, who have been put in the same boat as a result of political/cultural circumstances. [[Pedophilia]] and [[Hebephilia]] are examples of sexual "orientations" that fall under this umbrella term. The historical reasons for the MAP identity are in fact the ostracism and distancing of MAPs from a [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity|formerly accepting LGBT Movement]].
 
==Contradictions of the identitarian argument==
 
The second point here, is that if [[boylove]]rs are not homosexual because sexuality is exclusive to gender (as anti-MAPs like to claim), heterosexual pedophiles and hebephiles can not be deemed "straight", either. We would then have to ask, ''what exactly is'' this well-documented tendency of pedophiles and hebephiles to gravitate towards one or the other gender, if it is not a gender preference? It appears that the insistence upon a complete divorce, in this instance, is political.
 
Taking the above argument in another direction, it is held that if pedophiles or hebephiles of any gender preference aren't also into adults, they can't be considered gay (or indeed straight). So what if they have a non-preferential attraction to adults? Can they now ascend to the status of fully fledged queer, homosexual, or indeed heterosexual? What about a 13 year old boy who is attracted to other 13 year old boys? We'd have to maintain that because his target is not an adult, he can not be considered "gay", and should remain open-minded to the idea that he may in fact be [[pederasty|pederastically inclined]]. After all, there is [[Debate Guide: Corresponding age attraction|no solid evidence]] that these attractions will change as he ages, unless they are based on mere social norms.
 
Pretty much, for fags to distinguish homosexual teliophilia as separate from pederasty, they have to accept chronophilia as a legitimate dimension of sexual orientation, and for them to imply that pederasts aren't "gay", they must hold the opinion that a gay 12 year old boy can not know he is gay, since he may grow up to be a pederast (which defeats the purpose of LGBT youth organizations)


[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]]
[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Minor-Attracted]]

Revision as of 17:31, 18 June 2022

"No attraction to minors is a valid sexuality, whatever label you put on it. Your age is not your sex! Child and Teenager are not genders, invalid!"

Identitarians like to ignore Alfred Kinsey

This "identitarian" argument is often made (but not exclusively so) by LGBT people who like to claim that MAPs can not be gay, homosexual or queer under any circumstances, and should voluntarily distance themselves from the LGBT Movement. They argue this, seemingly ignorant of how common the attractions are, and how they must by necessity coexist with the gender-based attractions unaccounted for.

The first thing that should be pointed out, is that nobody actually uses the term "MAP" to denote a sexuality. It is in fact an identity; an umbrella term used to unify people with differing attractions, who have been put in the same boat as a result of political/cultural circumstances. Pedophilia and Hebephilia are examples of sexual "orientations" that fall under this umbrella term. The historical reasons for the MAP identity are in fact the ostracism and distancing of MAPs from a formerly accepting LGBT Movement.

Contradictions of the identitarian argument

The second point here, is that if boylovers are not homosexual because sexuality is exclusive to gender (as anti-MAPs like to claim), heterosexual pedophiles and hebephiles can not be deemed "straight", either. We would then have to ask, what exactly is this well-documented tendency of pedophiles and hebephiles to gravitate towards one or the other gender, if it is not a gender preference? It appears that the insistence upon a complete divorce, in this instance, is political.

Taking the above argument in another direction, it is held that if pedophiles or hebephiles of any gender preference aren't also into adults, they can't be considered gay (or indeed straight). So what if they have a non-preferential attraction to adults? Can they now ascend to the status of fully fledged queer, homosexual, or indeed heterosexual? What about a 13 year old boy who is attracted to other 13 year old boys? We'd have to maintain that because his target is not an adult, he can not be considered "gay", and should remain open-minded to the idea that he may in fact be pederastically inclined. After all, there is no solid evidence that these attractions will change as he ages, unless they are based on mere social norms.

Pretty much, for fags to distinguish homosexual teliophilia as separate from pederasty, they have to accept chronophilia as a legitimate dimension of sexual orientation, and for them to imply that pederasts aren't "gay", they must hold the opinion that a gay 12 year old boy can not know he is gay, since he may grow up to be a pederast (which defeats the purpose of LGBT youth organizations)