4 ms·

Because otherwise the group wouldn't be specified?

• brookst 3y ago
  There’s a conspiratorial way of thinking about it, which says “they could have protected everyone, but chose to only protect this group, therefore they must think it is ok for these harms to fall on others, therefore [insert innuendo or conspiracy]” And there’s the pragmatic way of thinking about it, which says “these concerns were raised by advocates for this group based on past experiences where this group saw abuse, and the conversation was never elevated beyond protecting this previously-victimized group from future abuse” Thats not to defend what is probably bureaucratic myopia, just to say the reasons are more likely banal than strategic.
  • BobbyJo 3y ago
    Id distinguish between the two by asking if the group is specified in policy or in incident documentation. The former would infer uneven application of policy, whereas the latter is what you're referencing.
• eyelidlessness 3y ago
  Sibling response posited a rather compelling reason to specify the group otherwise. It’s by far the most obvious explanation that comes to my mind as well.