This is complicated. Humble Talent’s Comment of The Day, in addition to being sparked by Mrs. Q’s comment, also responded to the comment on Mrs. Q’s Comment of the Day by dekerivers, whose quote begins Humble Talent’s post. All are relevant to the assertions about the term “groomer” made by RL Stroller, which are discussed here.
Got all that? Good…now, as my dad used to say in such situations, explain it to me.
“From my perspective as a gay man, teachers and school programs today are designed to foster a child to see themselves as who they are and allow for the expression of their individualism, which includes sexual orientation and identity.”
From my perspective as a gay man, if that actually all they were doing, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. Oh sure, there are legitimately Americans who still hate the fact that gay people exist, so *a* conversation would be going on, but it wouldn’t be this one.
And that, I think, basically encapsulates my disagreement with you: You ignore too much. you accept to much. You have done what so many people who identify with the acronym have done and taken in some awful people who have done shitty things and wrapped them up in the protection of inclusivity.
Just recently, during the Balenciaga SNAFU… There was a contingent of people saying that the moral panic du jour over pedophilia was an attack on LGBTQ people. Now, I believe that was a poorly designed shock campaign gone bad… But no one mentioned gay people. No one mentioned groomers. This is something the LGBTQ community took upon themselves, and I’m left standing at the outside of that, horrified at the implication. I don’t know how much lifting that + does for you, but it apparently does some heavy lifting elsewhere. I make it simple: Pedophiles don’t get to sit at my table. I don’t see an attack on pedophiles as an attack on me. I don’t know what exactly went on in Balenciaga’s office space, but it was fucking dumb, and no skin off my ass if they get called out.
The groomer narrative is less obvious than that because there are going to be cases, probably a majority of cases, where the teachers are acting appropriately. The problem is that we have some breathtakingly obvious examples of teachers exceeding their authority and mandate, and people like you refuse to separate the wheat from the chaff and that gives your opponents carte blanch to paint you with the same brush.
Because again… There are stupid people out there… There would still be *a* conversation. but it doesn’t need to be this one. We could, as a bonkers example, take a hard stance against teachers who take it upon themselves to decide not to advise parents about things regarding their child’s sexual health. Because that’s just not acceptable. Teachers aren’t trained to make those kinds of decisions. It’s creepy as fuck. If teachers suspect abuse, they report abuse, period. End of sentence. It’s not complicated. It’s not hard.
If progressives, generally, accepted that premise, the conversation would be different. But they don’t. So it is what it is.