while i can see good intent behind this, it definitely seems like a significant overreach, and not particularly helpful for actually solving real issues.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Oh I’m sorry, did you want to get into the details of how anti-drag nonsense is rife with calling queer men “groomers” for having anything whatsoever to do with children? Or the 1950s moral panic over the unremarkable literature involved, when they volunteer their time, reading to children?

    Or maybe you think “don’t say gay” discriminatory abuse is totally unrelated to forcing teachers to report on children’s preferred nicknames and get written permission to use them? As if this policy that is explicitly about “systematic illegal prejudice, oppression, or discrimination” can be dismissed entirely, because they later used that evil no-no word “bias?” … in the same context and severity as “specific criminal organizations?”

    Or maybe you could say a damn thing besides ‘nuh-uh.’

    What this policy is about is right there, in black and white. Pearl-clutching about ‘but what do they mean?!’ is willful ignorance. People don’t want the police openly promoting organizations dedicated to dehumanizing people. We have a concept of protected class for a reason - why would it not apply to the government? Why would it not apply to the agents of that government who walk among us with handcuffs and guns?