Why are Primark promoting "Found Family"

I don't need to change it, they need to address it.

"We do not agree with the paragraph being highlighted in the women's declaration."

Under what conditions, is there some sort of checklist and how do Primark ensure that their funds are not putting kids in danger?

TeaKlaxon

They appear to have issued two statements which are the opposite of each other.

And the second one, only after people pointed out the first one.

There are several reasons for people issuing statements that they then subsequently deny. One is to see if they can get away with something, and another is an error.

We see people doing the former, all the bloody live long day. It's a well worn tactic.

And It's a piece of piss to actually convince people it was an error.

Empty denial isn't it.

Neither, incidentally, is claiming people are being homophobic. You probably don't know this, but many women on these boards are lesbian.

Sometimes it is better.

But stop trying to portray others as doing so from hate

is ‘not doing so.’

I find your accusations of ‘not engaging in good faith’ to be rather empty and hypocritical.

“Anyone still claiming they do are simply engaging in age old homophobic smears.”

and

“Its homophobic precisely because it takes the leap that when gay people find their chosen families, those families are groomers.”

“It is a homophobic trope as old as time. It’s disgusting and those peddling it are scum.”

and this is just from this page. All emotionally manipulative, absolutist and distractive.

You are determined to frame concern as homophobia. And yet, you accuse me of ‘not engaging in good faith’.

And again. Did you post a link to a modified declaration?

We can perhaps deal with that once you acknowledge and retract that your claim that ILGA ‘Issued a weak statement that doesn’t explicitly say anything about maintaining current age of consent laws’ was not true.

If you’re not willing to correct a blatant falsehood then you’re obviously not engaging in good faith.

Ok. I was wrong.

You caught me out. How wonderful are you! Have you found where they put their words into action and changed the declaration?

I also said it was just words. Because that is what that statement was. If you wish to continue to argue your support for this organisation, fine. But your attempt to portray concern about safeguarding as being hate is quite clear.

Why should any person support a organisation who was part of releasing that document in the first place? They also did not acknowledge that there was cause for concern. The doubling down without making modifications is a sign that either they didn’t do their due diligence or they supported it until people pointed out the issue.

Neither is a sign that this organisation should be involved with people under the age of 18. Yet, you wish to support them. Go ahead. But stop trying to portray others as doing so from hate.

So where are we at now?

The orginal declaration was withdrawn after the very blatant loophole in the wording was pointed out. Was it ever modified? Yes? No?

So this supposed expert group IGLA, who are influencers of law and policy across the world just made an error?? And released a ‘how hateful are those who pointed it out’ statement without acknowledging they were complicit here.

And supposedly this leading world group didn’t run it past legal people first?

And feminists concerned with safeguarding are the haters here? We are the ones who are wrong to point out the issues with that declaration and the communication message from Primark.

Nothing to see here…. It is all just clumsy wording. No harm at all….

You said that they ‘Issu[ed] a weak statement that doesn’t explicitly say anything about maintaining current age of consent laws’

That was a lie.

You think Primark weren’t aware that this campaign would enrage homophobes who have objected to the concept of a chosen family for as long as such a thing has existed?

Perhaps if it isn't explicitly clear you should get on to Primark to warn them their actions look predatory rather than have a pop at people who point it out?

Could you post where they modified the declaration?

Why are you continuing to claim that ILGA don’t explicitly say they oppose reducing the age of consent when their statement says exactly that.

That statement did not actually address anything. Did they then go and reword their document? Yes or no?

Because that kind of open communication in that document with those clauses posted are absolutely ripe for abuse.

Issuing a weak statement that doesn’t explicitly say anything about maintaining current age of consent laws and safeguarding and not making modifications to include those protections is a distractive tactic. And shaming others for pointing it out without acknowledging there is substance to the argument is showing an ideologically entrenched mindset. Particularly when some posters then tie it to homophobia as another way to distract from what are valid arguments about poorly worded documents.

Anyone with any familiarity of the context knows that this relates to those countries which have higher ages of consent for gay people or which criminalise sex between two people of the same age.

The declaration does not call for an elimination or reduction of the age of consent.

The wording is clumsy but ILGA have since specified that they do not support reducing the age of consent. Anyone still claiming they do are simply engaging in age old homophobic smears.

They haven't addressed the specific reference. Why not? Why wouldn't you??

" Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents , people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use;"

According to the WHO "WHO defines 'Adolescents' as individuals in the 10-19 years age group"

Yes. I agree.

The messaging has been chosen for that exact emotional response. It is highly manipulative.

It is highly dangerous too. Because ‘found’ can also indicate desperation and this ‘finding’ community can be abusive to the foundling who had no where else to go.

On so many angles this messaging is horrifying.

Their statement explicitly said that they do not support lowering the age of consent.

All of the smears to the contrary are just typical homophobic dogwhistles.

That’s bollox.

Its homophobic precisely because it takes the leap that when gay people find their chosen families, those families are groomers.

It is a homophobic trope as old as time. It’s disgusting and those peddling it are scum.

What they could have done is a simple one line statement that they do not believe the age of consent should be lowered.

Quite. What's the point of furiously claiming to make a statement addressing an accusation which you then go out of your way to avoid addressing!

it couldn't be more obvious.

It is anti groomer.

Unless you are saying gay people are groomers. That's pretty homophobic.

This thread is the perfect illustration of why so called gender critical dare actually just anti-gay too.

The concept of ‘found family’ or ‘chosen family’ has not mushroomed. It has always been a key part of queer culture and history. And homophobes always claimed that kids were being groomed or turned gay or trans or led down some awful path by finding communities that supported them.

In addition the continued lie that ILGA supports lower age of consent has been debunked. They literally put out a statement saying explicitly that they do not support that. And yet, posters here still need to smear them.

Why? Because homophobia and transphobia.