How is this offensive?

In a twist that will surprise literally no body (whether the body is male OR female), this very silly bit of virtue signaling is now 70% off.

For one, women (as in the old fashioned kind) tend to bear the brunt of poverty around the world due to sexism and the associated lack of access to education, among many other factors. Sex selection abortions happen due to economic and social factors combined with sexism, not because a female foetus has lady feelings. This is why sex-based discussions are important when tackling inequality and poverty (something Oxfam is supposed to do). That acknowledgement is lacking in their statement.

Even in Western countries, we have wealth inequality among women and men, one of the main drivers being a lack of access to financial help when having children (look at Pregnant then Screwed, or the fact the UK has the second highest childcare costs in the world). Women are disproportionately affected by austerity. Most part-time workers are women. Most low paid work is done by women. This is tied up to the fact we are the sex that bears the reproductive burden. It's relevant and I would say key to addressing poverty on a global scale.

It does seem odd for a charity that supposedly cares about erasing poverty to not give a specific shout-out to biological girls and women. Doesn't feel particularly inclusive, and they are not addressing the role of sex as a factor of inequality, nor do they particularly care about alleviating poverty faced by women (the old fashioned kind).

For many LGB people, the term 'queer' is a slur. So not inclusive to them having it as part of the alphabet soup in the supposedly inclusive statement. LGB are also sexual orientations. Many T people want to redefine sexuality as being about gender. So the forced teaming doesn't seem particularly inclusive either. As for the I, that is a medical condition.

So yeah, I can see why this supposedly 'inclusive' statement would piss a lot of people off and seems like quite a lot of horsehit ignoring the main aims of what a charity that cares about poverty worldwide should actually be focussing on. I'd be pissed off too.

Can’t believe Oxfam have wheeled this one out again. It was up earlier in the year - then had a BLH one for a couple of weeks, now back to this?

oxfam as a brand is pretty ropey (for its abuse of disaster victims, treatment of staff and all this rainbow waving). I keep going they will wake up but looks like they are just plodding along.

Is this poster tantamount to an admission by Oxfam that they haven’t always allowed everyone to enter their shops? Did they use to discriminate against certain people in the past? I’m confused. What’s the point of the poster?

Oh I know. It’s just meaningless virtue signalling.

The progressive rainbow is hostile and alienating for many people.

Didn’t they leave out all the neo pronouns though? What about Zim/zer? Far/faeself. Oxfam showing their bigotry there.

I'm laughing imagining them checking pronouns.... he/him fine, she/her fine, they/them fine.

m.facebook.com/oxfamGB/photos/a.96693231395/10158593533346396/?type=3

We are now being treated again to the lovely poster as part of #transwarenessweek

Congratulations Oxfam for not breaking equality law and discriminating against people. Of CAUSE you have to let everyone use your shops.

The fact that they sponsored their post on Facebook means more charity money is spent pushing this. Money that could have gone to people who actually need it.

Indeed. 'I really don't agree with your attempts to destroy women's rights but as you're totally on board with your beliefs, go ahead, I respect you for it...'

I think gender is a load of nonsense, but if other people are totally on board with that I respect their opinion

Do you? Then you really aren't that gender critical.

Apologies for conflating two posters in that previous post. The extremely patronising language policing was @WorkingItOutAsIGo whereas the 'gentrification' post was from @SolasAnla

Thank you very much for this.

I wasn't going to respond to the previous post, because I didn't want to derail the thread further, which is what they did by picking up on my use of a phrase they object to and going on relentlessly about it, rather than responding to the content of the several posts I made, in which it could not have been clearer that I was condemning Oxfam's actions in the strongest possible way.

This from @SolasAnla

Glad to hear that you don’t think that, but I hope it’s a useful nudge to consider the implications of the language you use, as that is exactly what the phrase ‘sex worker’ is used to do: to imply that prostitution is a valid career choice like accountancy or secretarial work.
is in and of itself incredibly patronising, and a huge assumption that there is only one 'correct' view on the use of language.

It's astonishing that they would think that lecturing a grown woman in this way is going to be effective.

But when they then went on to say

Fluffy words to hide the collateral damage result in people not admitting what is actually involved. Oxfam's board of management decided on gentrification when they opted for a buyout clause rather than a gross misconduct disciplinary.

They are implying that @MangyInseam and I are in some way akin to, or partially to blame for, or not fully condemning what Oxfam have done, which is not only totally out of order and wrong, but a complete distraction from what really matters here.

Clue: telling a feminist activist that their choice of words makes them somehow complicit in the rape and abuse of children is a shitty, shitty thing to do. I hope this is a useful nudge to consider the language you use more carefully in future.

A bland coloured poster (I am so fed up with flipping rainbows) saying ‘everyone welcome’ would be fine - man, woman, child, adult, any race, creed or religion, refugee or the queen.

this - ‘welcome if you believe in the new religion’. It’s a charity with a murky and seedy last which they haven’t really addressed or apologised for, have they? But ask a male not to use the ladies changing room (Monsoon recently wasn’t it?)and their be prostrating themselves.

To me that poster says, "Say out women, you don't count".

It's a bit like using a swastiker to say you welcome people of minority faiths, the other use of the symbol is offensive.

It's a bit like putting up a sign that says, "We welcome, white, green, blue and purple people", well that excludes a lot of people.

No one here has suggested that Oxfam has any leg to stand on.

But I see this again and again where someone will use a phrase that makes sense in the context, like "child pornography" and they will be brought up on it as if somehow a using perfectly understandable phrasing that is purely descriptive of the object - pornographic material which contains images of children - is some kind of attempt to hide the fact that the production of such material involves sexual exploitation of children.

Or things like telling people that they shouldn't use terms like sexual intercourse when it is a case of rape because somehow that would imply the person consented, or, in this instance, that sex can be involved as a item of trade in an economic transaction.

It was completely clear that the poster was not saying that children, or anyone else, should work in the sex trade. It's part of this larger tendency to police speech and tell people their language is wrong and it's not helpful.

Why hide the various types of activity?

There are many types of activities which result in people living off the proceeds of prostitution but its never a winning argument to claim we should go with gentrification of what is involved.

Fluffy words to hide the collateral damage result in people not admitting what is actually involved.

Oxfam's board of management decided on gentrification when they opted for a buyout clause rather than a gross misconduct disciplinary.

I understand why you think this, but I think you need to consider that people are well aware that these situations are abusive, rape, etc. and that no, actually, using the phrase "child sex worker" does not mean that we think that is ok any more than we think talking about child labour in a factory is ok.

Personally I tend to use "prostitute" when it's applicable but not all people involved in sex work are actually prostitutes, so there is room for a larger category and some use it most of the time so as to include various types of activities.

The people who think sex work is great or even just that it should be legal generally absolutely do not think that children should be doing it, but even if some do, it's possible to argue against that without policing the words of people who in fact agree that it is horrible.

It’s odd how their ‘aid workers’ know what a woman or girl / boy is when they choose who to exploit, rape, and disbelieve huh.

Kinda like they don’t actually believe their own poster. I guess that’s what we call pink washing or virtue signalling.

If after this thread your DD continues to volunteer for this ‘charity’ OP, l’d be bemused too.

So basically, the charity that originally launched as Oxford Famine Relief is (probably successfully) using fashionable conceits to distract prospective donors from its record of aid workers sexually exploiting hungry women and children in the present day.

BloodandFire - well, you were the one who used the phrase ‘child sex worker’, presumably without thinking about its implications of legitimacy of occupation. But yes, I would hope and believe anyone who posts on MN is against the rape of children, so didn’t really think you were writing in approval.

It really wasn't the point of the posts I made which were about Oxfam's institutional support in and covering up for the exploitation and rape of children.

Glad to hear you don't think that ??

so before I 'clarified', you were genuinely unsure if my posts were pro or anti children being raped by Oxfam staff? Or if I considered being raped a worthwhile career choice for children? 🙄

My mother in law does that, too. She actually sees immediately if a book is "out of place". My poor FIL has given up and just doesn't bother reading his beloved books any more, as he can never find the one he wants.

And to point out the term "sex worker" hides the role of pimp and those who imprison, rape and sell other's bodies into sexual slavery too

Glad to hear that you don’t think that, but I hope it’s a useful nudge to consider the implications of the language you use, as that is exactly what the phrase ‘sex worker’ is used to do: to imply that prostitution is a valid career choice like accountancy or secretarial work. I don’t agree with its use for adults, but would let it go without comment, but for children it’s a different matter.

I obviously didn't mean to imply that I thought these raped, abused children were happily choosing it as a career.