This is not a duplicate of Give 2k users a 'don't put this in the reopen queue' checkbox. That request has been declined; this is a request to reconsider that decision.
There is a known issue of users editing questions that get closed recently after they get closed, for grammar. While the edits are themselves valid, they push the question into the reopen queue, and since they do not make the question reopenable, users (rightfully) disagree with reopening them.
The earlier declined request mentions wasted reviewer time and potential errant reopenings as arguments for implementing this, but I don't think that those are the main issues, since users are clearly happy reviewing them, and there aren't any errant reopenings as far as I've seen. The main issue, on the other hand, is that such edits deprive the post author (or anyone else) of the ability to have the post reopened as a result of editing. In many cases, the question may already be reopenable (in other words, the closure was invalid), but it's been shown that users fail to reopen such questions just because the edit is minor.
Considering that we don't let users know if their post has already been reviewed and rejected for reopening, if the user just blindly follows the guidance of editing their question in an attempt to have it reopened, if someone else has already made minor edits, the user will just be wasting time waiting for a potential reopening (which probably won't happen since it won't go into reopen review again). This can leave users dissatisfied and pretty stuck, forced to make a question on meta.
There have been proposals asking to make only author edits add questions to the reopen queue, but I disagree with those, since others can also be interested in seeing the post reopened. In fact, this was how the system was configured initially; it was later changed (for good reasons).
To address the original reasons for declining it, in the answer there:
we ignore [edits] where the editor has given some indication that [they don't] want the post reopened (voting to delete and flagging are pretty strong indicators here, so that's what we go with).
The edit privilege is at 2,000 rep, with lower-rep users able to suggest edits. On the other hand, it isn't possible to vote to delete unless the user has 20,000+ rep during the first two days after closure, or 10,000+ rep during the last three days of the "on hold" period (where questions can be added to the queue if they're edited). Also, the only flagging options for closed questions are for spam or abuse, or moderator intervention (in most cases, none of those are necessary). I think it's safe to say that a large number of users who perform such minor edits simply can't otherwise express they don't want to in the current system.
If you're making a lot of edits on posts that are closed - nominated for deletion - but which you explicitly do not want to see reopened... Then perhaps consider spending a bit less time rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and instead putting that time and effort into other, more constructive activities.
I'd agree with this, but on several sites, we have one specific user who goes around and makes minor edits to posts, without regard to closure dates or the fact that they're going to push a certain post into the reopen queue. I've tried repeatedly notifying them in comments and in chat about this, but they have continued to make such edits. In my opinion, they seem to be clearly aware of the fact that their edits are pushing questions into the reopen queue, but are choosing to do so anyway, thus violating the quote above.
And even if we didn't have such a user, I'm sure that this may still continue to be an issue, given that we don't let users know that they will push the question into the reopen queue. In that case, it's quite possible that simply letting them know would make them reconsider and follow the quote, but the reality is that we do have a user who (I'm certain) will ignore it.
Also, to address a point in a comment which states that this should be dealt with on a user-specific basis since these users are violating the guidelines: the guideline itself is controversial, as there are other users that believe that "we shouldn't stop users from contributing edits [even if they're just turd-polishing]"; implementing this request would prevent this from being an issue and still respect the wishes of said users. We also don't make said guidelines clear anywhere.
In summary, can the original request please be reconsidered? I'd argue that the checkbox should be disabled by default so that users (especially those that use semi-automated grammar and spelling correction scripts such as the one used by that user) will have to explicitly indicate that they're aware of it before they can do so.