Does anybody else dislike Pride?

[coulditbeme2323]

Does anybody else dislike Pride?

We have one in our town for the second year running, and it's just really off.

Now before I get the "don't be homophobic comments" I am very much live and let live.

It's just that it can be very adult in the middle of the day.

Each of these have similarities in the way that the issues within the organizations, (movements/institutions) are hidden in plain sight due to liberalism, authority or power of the institution or collectives.

Police are being called out publicly for their misogyny and racism - it doesn’t mean all police are bad but there’s inherent issues there covered by the fact they are meant to be trusted.

I think the church has been called out for its inherent sexism and sexual deviancy all under the cover of the fact they represent god and should be trusted

The BBC is being called out for sexual predators being supported and brushed under the carpet because it is such a liberal organization, surely nothing untoward goes on there.

Why can’t we call out the issues in the TQ+ because it’s being masked as a liberal movement. To question is to be a bigot! It’s covered in plain sight under the guise of persecuted minority.

Not everyone in these groups are bad but there’s inherent issues that are covered in plain sight.

So, yes these posters have been done.I’ve seen many on the police and you can’t talk about the Church and Priests and choir boys without some eyebrow raising. Same for the BBC.

Proportionality is the key metric. And safeguarding means we explicitly guard against a refusal to examine any group in order to avoid creating a sacred caste.

Because as soon as one creates a sacred caste, predators will exploit that.

Of course the biggest predictor for sex offending is biological sex.

Imagine if one could identify as not being part of the high risk group that commits 99% of sex crimes?

This !

Because you're mentally primed to see it that way. Cognitive dissonance. You see trans people as victims and vulnerable and it's dissonant for you to see that sone of them are offenders and even more dissonant to have to ask yourself if a higher proportion of "trans people" might be offenders than the general population. You're explaning the evidence away before you have thought properly about it because you're afraid there might be some truth in it. Don't be afraid, if it is true then there are better explanations. Like, that most sex offenders are men anyway and/or that sex offenders tend to gravitate towards opportunity. So don't allow "trans" to become an opportunity and don't give anyone a free pass because "trans"; and then a lot of the problem goes away.

Well, you did ask.

I should really have said "GBTQ+" rather than "trans" since we're talking about Pride and the problem is not the L!

We have long known that most humans show an inability to logically think for themselves, even when untoward things are in plain sight, if they are under the guise of respectable authority or God or Liberalism The Milgram Shock Experiment proved this.

The idea that men can say they are women and compete in women’s sports events and win, (thinking about Lauren Hubbard and Lia Thomas et al) and people cheer them on because the group have promoted themselves as a persecuted minority whilst the women speaking up get vilified.

Common or garden misogyny and sexism help a lot with that, vezesez.

Men's feelings and rights matter more than women's.

This as well.
Internalised misogyny, it’s amazing how many women did not support women getting the votesnd spoke out against the suffragettes. I don’t believe any working class men (non land owners) were not in support of getting their vote when working class men campaigned for it.

So. There are about 270 Pride marches in the UK, 2026.

Each march is organised by a team of approx 5-10 people. Let’s take the higher figure to be on the safe side. So thats 2700 people. I’m guessing some may be women but that would obviously reduce the male numbers further.

Of the 2700 organisers, 8 are convicted as paedophiles so far. That’s 0.29%

Of the general male population, approx 0.01-0.10 are convicted as sex offenders, and sex offences against children are approximately half that. That’s 0.0005%.

Obviously that’s a very rough and ready calculation but I’ve tried to err on the side of caution. Also bear in mind that the total male child sex offenders number will include the Pride related sex offenders which inflates the number (but by a tiny amount so it’s not worth removing it).

So by those figures, the Pride convicts represent a 580 times greater proportion of their population than other male sex offender of the general male population. For some perspective, even if it was ‘only’ 10 times more that would be horrendous. And way worse than the Church of England.

Remember, these are not just random men who attended Pride, they are involved in the organisation - accepting stall holders (including the ones who sell sex toys), organising security and safeguarding, organising performers like the drag queens and events like child drag competitions.

Your figures, as you say, are conservative.

But certain posters on here will find some excuse not to believe there is a problem with the movement.

Yes, sex offenders are in every section and every group within society but some much more prevalent than others. For example far more prevalent in men than women. And when it is swept under the carpet and people calling it out are told they are wrong to worry we end up with situations like the police, church and BBC.

Young people are hugely influenced by pride. Especially young vulnerable, ND and Gay young people. We should not ignore alarm bells and blindly follow because Pride’s mantra is “be kind” or “we are persecuted minority” etc.

You don’t have to be a minority to be controlled or persecuted. Britain was run by a minority group which only included men and land owners.

You are beginning to get it.

A common factor in child sex abuse has been where groups are shielded from normal scrutiny, with defenders ready to shut down awkward questions. Church, celebs, etc.

You’ve noticed the pattern but decided that other groups shielded child sex abusers so now it’s your turn? Why not learn a different lesson instead, which is to welcome scrutiny, reject and root out the problem.

Sure, that must be it. It can't possibly be that I've seen this kind of entirely organic and not at all orchestrated campaign multiple times in the past. Some minority group or other is scapegoated and the appalling actions of a small number of that group are collected, recycled and rolled out at every opportunity like some kind of fucked-up trading card game. And then once that minority group has been sufficiently tarred - again, in an entirely organic and not at all orchestrated campaign, oh no - it's then used as a wedge issue to push right-wing agendas.

I can't possibly have seen this exact playbook being followed over and over and over again. I'm just experiencing cognitive dissonance. That must be it. Silly me.

What has 'right-wing' got to do with anything? We are talking about basic safeguarding applications, here. Framing safeguarding as some kind of ightwing conspiracy theory is naive and risky. For several reasons.

Yep hate it. My children aren't seeing furries and bondage gear 😷It's gone way too far now.

You’re seeing one pattern so missing the other.

Sometimes fake problems are overblown and attributed to groups wrongly for tribal reasons.

Sometimes real problems are underplayed and deflected by groups wrongly for tribal reasons.

Staying vigilant against the latter is one way to protect against the former.

It’s wrong to tar gay people with accusations of child sex abuse tendencies. One way to protect against this unfair charge is to not have an unusually large number of child sex abusers running Pride organisations. Same advice goes for the church and for any other type of institution.

One of the unexpected positive effects of equalising the age of consent was that it de-legitimised paedophiles who had been lurking alongside the gay men who were genuinely being hounded for consensual sex with older teens which they wouldn't have been for heterosexual sex. And some LGB organisations made a real effort to chuck the paedophiles out when they wanted support for changes to the law and for gay marriage.

But then the organisations kind of forgot. They went all "Q+" and no boundaries. There are still gay men who prioritise protecting gay youngsters from sexual exploitation. Who care about safeguarding young people in their own community. But there are still too many who don't think it really exists or matters.

(edited for typos)

Sure, and Gamergate really was about ethics in game journalism and not used by the likes of Steve Bannon to draw young men into right-wing ideologies.

And "Haitians eating cats and dogs" really was about protecting pets and not used by Trump to spark outrage against a minority group and so push his right-wing agenda.

And "Migrants eating swans" really was because Farage was concerned about waterfowl and not at all used to spark outrage to push his right-wing agenda.

And the Southport riots really were about a senseless murder and not stoked up by the likes of Tommeh Ten-Names looking to cash in on a tragedy to push his right-wing agenda.

I could keep going if you like.

But sure, spotting the pattern of the same "demonise a minority of a minority to tar the whole group and create a them-vs-us dichotomy and so use that as a wedge to push a right-wing agenda" playbook being run over and over and over again is obviously a mistake. It can't be simple pattern recognition, and it's definitely entirely organic and not at all orchestrated. It really must just be my muddle-headed cognitive dissonance. Silly me.

Did you purposely ignore the stats the previous poster showed?

Would you say that if the Church or the Police or the BBC?

They were minority cases in there too but they were not addressed and they got away with it.

I think the point is that Pride is a shield that will hide men’s deviant sexual behaviour (by that I mean, paedophilia) under the persecuted minority banner.

The cases in the Police have rightly warranted a call to investigate institutionalized racism and misogyny.

Any other institution or collective movement would be scrutinized if they had a few leaders (more than expected) who have been convicted of pedophelia. It would be a scandal and people would be investigating.

Yes, I do think "silly you". You are re-applying a familiar pattern instead of engaging with the evidence.

The "right" don't need to orchestrate this one. If the "left" turns a blind eye and wont deal with the problem then they leave an open goal for the right and their agenda.

Look, you seem deeply invested in a bunch of online conspiracy theories. I can't be arsed arguing about them.

It would be most productive to focus on the subject of the thread and not derail it with lots of mad whataboutery.

The discussion is about Pride, its aims and objectives, and outcomes, and safeguarding.

As @GeneralPeter explained

1. Sometimes fake problems are overblown and attributed to groups wrongly for tribal reasons.

You have given good examples of these. And we agree this happens.

2. Sometimes real problems are underplayed and deflected by groups wrongly for tribal reasons.

We have given good examples of these, the Church, BBC and Police

We just disagree where the issue of high numbers of Paedophiles running Pride fit. You have decided with no research to call the claim ‘fake’ even with stats presented to you.

@GasperyJacquesRoberts

May I just check which your position is:

a) it’s not true that a disproportionately large number of Pride officers have been arrested on child sex abuse charges, or

b) it is true, but that is not a problem, or

c) it is a problem, but should not be talked about (eg for fear of emboldening the right).

This isn't scrutiny...this is a group speak about Pride as a whole. Discrimination and prejudice unleashed with a faux shield of 'oh the children'.

The individuals who participate in Pride are subject to the same laws and scrutiny as anyone else. The irony being that most objections here are ABOUT the event taking place in public.

My turn? No idea what you are incorrectly assuming.

You have no evidence at all that Pride organisers don't have safeguarding policies or have an over representation of criminal offenders.

This thread is about excusing prejudice by blaming a whole group for the action of a few individuals. A very dangerous ugly discrimatory way of thinking...a historic way of thinking about gay people that Pride exists to reject. Oh the irony.