How is this offensive?

This ⬇️shows the ethics of the board of management.

Mr van Hauwermeiren became head of mission for Action Against Hunger in Bangladesh from 2012 to 2014. Despite employment checks, the charity said Oxfam 'did not share any warning regarding unethical conduct'.

They knew that their senior employee was abusing the delegated authority given to him.

They knew his actions provided the enviroment where he allowed other staff to abuse their delegated authority too.

Rather than stand up and say "that that is not who we, Oxfam, are"; they choose to go for, and continued to uphold a whitewash.

When that (un)ethical decision subsequently results in a cultural framework where ethical training examines sexual misconduct and concludes that "whiteness", "women" and reporting sex crimes should be seen as a problem, should anyone be surprised?

Why are they baby colours? I am pretty sure most would describe that blue as ‘baby blue’, and the pink probably ‘pastel pink’, rather than ‘baby pink’ but in my mind I still recognise it as baby girl colour. Why not neon pink and cobalt blue for all the pride, vibrancy and confidence that you would imagine you would want a trans flag to represent. It’s odd.

Well yes.

Went to a well known ice cream parlour in Northumberland and all three preschoolers went for the sparkly "rainbow" ice cream cone which was actually the trans flag; white chocolate dipped with a band of sparkly pale blue sugar and a band of sparkly pale pink sugar. (The young server was definitely non binary/ trans identified and clearly binding/ had had a mastectomy.)

Bloody autocorrect: in which she is LIVING

Sorry, but there is no such thing as a child sex worker. Can we not use that phrase please? There are prostituted, raped and abused children. But no child, no matter how dire the situation in which she (it’s almost always a girl for these Oxfam honchos) is loving, can choose prostitution as a career.

Krustykrabpizza · 28/07/2022 16:45
I'm gender criticaltoo but I don't get why it is offensive? Maybe those posting the sarcastic responses could just explain? This board is such a hostile place

KrustyKrab, someone already asked for an explanation near the start of the thread and there were lots of answers.

But they are not baby boys or baby girls. Neither children.

Why on earth would they think these are the best colours to represent them?

its infantilising. God I am never going to be able to unsee it now!

You're seeing exactly what you're meant to see, Lemon.

In the words of the creator, a transwoman, The light blue is the traditional color for baby boys, pink is for girls, and the white in the middle is for those who are transitioning, those who feel they have a neutral gender or no gender, and those who are intersexed.

I'm glad it's not just me that remembers this. www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/15/timeline-oxfam-sexual-exploitation-scandal-in-haiti

I would hope that no feminist has supported Oxfam since the Haiti scandal broke.

Yes, it was oxfam.

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/15/timeline-oxfam-sexual-exploitation-scandal-in-haiti

Your daughter is 'clued up on the sex/gender debate' but gives her time for free to an organisation that spent charity donations on paying for child sex workers to service its staff and then covering it up at the highest level?

Odd.

I am not even going to answer the question because the poster has bought out a whole other rabbit hole in my mind.

It’s dawned on me the colours. Dark blue for men, purple for women (because pink is offensive to many) and then we get to the trans flag colours. Why are they baby colours? I am pretty sure most would describe that blue as ‘baby blue’, and the pink probably ‘pastel pink’, rather than ‘baby pink’ but in my mind I still recognise it as baby girl colour. Why not neon pink and cobalt blue for all the pride, vibrancy and confidence that you would imagine you would want a trans flag to represent. It’s odd.

Sorry completely off topic but it’s the first time it’s dawned on me.

On a far more important note, let us discuss how Oxfam dealt with finding out that its white male employees were using Oxfam aid to extort sexual services from women in crisis overseas, like Haiti.

By... blaming white women.

The message seems to be a woman who reports rape is a contemptible white feminist': Outrage at Oxfam staff training document blaming 'privileged white women' over root causes of sexual violence

You phrase that as if they were some kind of pet. I'm passionate about grammar, but not to the extent that my care for grammar supplants my cat.

She will have the usual subject, object, possessive and reflexive, in first, second, and third person. I will note here that I have never seen her misuse the reflexive, no matter the person or number.

When she is part of a group, she'll stretch to 1st person plural pronouns, unless the cost of living crisis worsens.

Does that serve to answer your question?

No one "has" pronouns, they are a grammatical construction .

Do you have pronouns?

I was just coming back to remind the thread that this was a list of pronouns poster not the rainbow flag. Declaring pronouns, forcing others to use your pronouns and getting upset when people get them wrong screams gender identity ideology. It is not inclusive. I don't have a gender identity so it doesn't include me.

Yes, I am wondering this too.

Thank you for explaining

They had employed a senior manager who was head of the Haiti relief effort who managed to collect at least 2 others who were als public in their abuse and the whistleblower was threatened.

The note the different ethical responses im the article which sets a cultural tone.

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/15/timeline-oxfam-sexual-exploitation-scandal-in-haiti

Because the sign is a political statement, it's aligning the charity with a specific ideology.

That particular ideology has been very active in denouncing people who disagree with it, and also the reason many people disagree with it is that they think it is ultimately bad for women.

As such it basically is unwelcoming to anyone who disagrees with that ideology.

There's also the corporate Rainbow washing element which many people find pretty distasteful in general.

@Krustykrabpizza Ok - caveat there's no way I would go into a shop and yell at a sales assistant over it but if you're genuinely trying to understand why people have an emotional response that is different to yours that's a fair question.

I have marched in pride parades, I have purchased and worn rainbow flag merchandise. This symbol was meaningful and important. It helped me to feel safe and valuable.

BUT there have been decisions made which changed that. When stonewall etc. changed LGB to LGBT there were some (un?) intended and by most unnoticed consequences.

That heterosexual men feel entitled to sleep with homosexual women, frankly does not surprise me. That heterosexual men feel that homosexual women would enjoy sex with them if they just tried harder does not surprise me. That the LGB community would agree with them was a betrayal which still hurts.

I might phrase this as choosing heterosexual men over homosexual women. And for me, when they chose heterosexual men over homosexual women they became a men's right organisation not an organisation that fought for the rights of people who experienced same sex attraction.

So yeah such a poster declares support of Gender Identity theory (which I find to be sexist and homophobic) whilst using the rainbow flag the bullies took off us. So yeah it is a bit upsetting to see a poster like this and no it doesn't make me feel welcome respected or included.

It seems more likely to me that the person who went into the shop and yelled was a member of one of the many homophobic churches though and has a rainbow => encouraging immorality stance.

I wandered onto these boards as I kept seeing people saying so and so knows what a woman is. I sought explanation as to why this phrase keeps turning up. I am not a whole lot wiser as a result but do now know that some people think that another group of people need to be cured of how they are.

😄😃😆

I imagine that the woman in question just felt that she needed to make it clear that she did not find the poster welcoming at all. She'd had enough of just keeping quiet.

It's too bad she ranted, but I have noticed that once people work themselves up to actually say something about these things, they do tend to rant. Maybe it's the adrenaline.

I do wonder why shops and organizations do this stuff that is basically outside of their remit. Oxfam exists to help certain groups of people. There are so many people who think that is important, or want to contribute. People who have different viewpoints on gender ideology and lots of other ideas.

So basically they are limiting the people who will contribute to their mission.

It was the same with Amnesty INternational. SO many people could get behind their focus on political prisoners and free speech. Then they decided to basically alienate anyone who had qualms about abortion, in particular Catholics who had
tended to be big AI supporters. They they added stuff about sex work, and gender ideology.

Basically they make themselves into these package partisan types of organizations that only harness the support of people in line with a particular political ideology. In the case of AI it completely undermined their mission, too, which was dependent on being apolitical to a significant degree.

The best way for a shop to welcome everyone is to have a welcoming atmosphere and to be respectful and friendly to anyone who comes in.