To think that inviting primary children to witness erect penises, gang rape references and spikes up mens arses isn't artistic, it's pedophilia?

[ShouldIStayOrShouldIRun]

This art exhibition is being pushed by Gendered Intelligence, a group that works in schools:

www.transgendertrend.com/gendered-intelligence-training-teachers-kiss-my-genders/

The event is not age restricted, in fact children are being actively encouraged to go.

I have been informed by a very 'woke' friend that this is art and I am homophobic, kink shaming, and transphobic (because apparently even linking to the above website on my FB is, no matter what it says) and that maybe I should go with my own primary aged dc to 'broaden my mind'.

My mind has been broadened. That friend obviously shouldn't be let anywhere near my dc again.

AIBU?

• Opening post edited at OP's request

Inclusion for example.

As far as I've always been aware, this was very much originally a word used to fascilitate inclusion of people or children with disabilities or autism with mainstream children. But there was a huge difference in physical or educational need and ability there and the purpose was to include them in social activities so that their childhood was more normalised and their social communication needs met at an age appropriate level - and to just make friends.

Being inclusive from the POV of the gender debate brings a whole other ball game; people are choosing to be different and then demanding inclusion or it's based on personality rather than challenging physical differences. And of course forcing males into female spaces in the name of inclusion.

CorBlimeyGovenor, they have only shown photos of the more decent content. You should read this to get the full picture before you go to see the erect penis being wanked, or the scene that appears to be a metaphor for gang rape, not to mention the men with the metal spikes up their asses.

www.transgendertrend.com/gendered-intelligence-training-teachers-kiss-my-genders/

Anyone notice one of the contributors to the exhibition is Travis Alabanza of Top Shop fame.

Travis who identifies as a 15 year old girl on Halloween? Very specific about the age on the selfie they posted. And whose best friend Alok thinks little girls are 'kinky and deviant'? That Travis Alabanza?

I am so fucking fed up of people defending this batshit perverse queer theory bollocks.

If you cannot join the dots on the bigger picture here, you are willfully ignorant.

Trans ideaology (the aggressive, boundary pushing 'you dont need gender dysphoria' kind) is closely linked to queer theory.
Queer theory includes abolishing societal taboos and embracing things include peadophilia, beastiality, rape and other horrors. Apparently societies reactions are wrong, not the acts themselves.
We have seen a huge rise of furries, MAP/NOMAP profiles on social media platforms. Womens rights to single sex spaces being removed.
Gendered intelligence push stuff like this hayward shit show. Peter 'nonce apologist' Tatchell trying to give advice on school sex ed.
David 'baloo' Challenor involved as a campaign manager.
The defence by the woke stasi of the rubberman NSPCC employees appalling recorded act at his place of work, and the 'kink shaming' being used to admonish dissenters. There is more of course, this merely scratches the surface.

The end goal is the erosion of boundaries, access to children and women and silence anyone who objects as a fucking bigot. This is Saville writ large and society is sleep walking into it with a (mainly) women who push back being shouted down, threatened by the police for using hate speech, and perma banned from social media.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, zero fucks given. It is all there and linked and has been creeping forward for years

I just don't understand how the general public isn't joining the dots. Although, with the latest revelations in the Times article about the various connections that have come to light from the Mermaids' email leak, it's obvious that there's nobody to protect women and children, every single safeguarding organisation seems to be involved in destroying any safeguarding that exists.

S1 I had a look at that link first. Tbh I found it to be unreliable in terms of giving out an accurate appraisal of the exhibition. It was full of scaremongering. I try to remain as impartial as possible, so check several sources/do my own research. And I concluded that it wasn't quite as it had been portrayed. That's not to say that I'd take my own young kids to see it. But if I did (theoretically speaking), my 8 year old would almost certainly wet himself laughing at half the exhibits. They are so ott and weird that any 'message' behind them would be lost. My point is is that there is a lot of unnecessary fear mongering going on here (in reaction to some of the umbrella movements elsewhere). In my view there is really no point in getting worked up over the theoretical scenario of your primary school children being taken to a school trip to The Southbank to see an exhibition clearly aimed at an older audience (despite that website implying that younger children would be encouraged or allowed to go). Realistically no primary school headteacher is going to suggest a school trip there. So, until people actually receive a letter from the school outlining it as a school trip aimed at their children, I see no need to get worked up by it.

The thread title is very inflammatory and, well, plain wrong.

This sort of OP, with thinly veiled, misleading click-bait to get mners to visit a website with a not so hidden agenda and bias, is why mn has such a bad reputation for permitting transphobic posting.

This sort of OP, with thinly veiled, misleading click-bait to get mners to visit a website with a not so hidden agenda and bias, is why mn has such a bad reputation for permitting transphobic posting

How is inviting primary kids to view porn 'transphobic' exactly?

I found it to be unreliable in terms of giving out an accurate appraisal of the exhibition. It was full of scaremongering.

This is from the Guardian's review of the exhibition, where it describes one of the pieces of art on display.

... Ajamu’s shot of a man caressing his erect penis with a hand gloved in black lace...

Does this sound like an exhibition which is suitable for children?

Sacrifice, I think you’re getting in a muddle.

1. nobody has “invited primary children to view porn”
2. if they did, that would not be transphobic

Totally agree with BlooperReel, excellent post.

What is the end goal here? what is the ultimate aim? it seems to be , as BlooperReel says :

"the end goal is the erosion of boundaries, access to children and women and to silence anyone who objects as a fucking bigot. This is Saville writ large ".

I couldn't agree more. The end goal is to a) destigmatise and legitemise paedophilia and b) promote the view that objecting to this makes you a 'transphobic'. C) to facilitate the sexual exploitation of minors, and simultaneously to d) terrorise the population through doublethink and Big Brother tactics into accepting that what they always thought they believed about children and the laws relating to their innocence and freedoms and rights are all wrong, and that they are there to be abused.

This is Savile, this is Rochdale, this is 1980s care homes in Islington, this is Haute de la Garenne - this is every single deliberate targeting and sexual exploitation of minors by adults - usually men - that was ever suppressed and facilitated.

This sort of OP, with thinly veiled, misleading click-bait to get mners to visit a website with a not so hidden agenda and bias

Are you referring to www.transgendertrend.com ? This is how they describe themselves.

We are a group of parents based in the UK who are concerned about the current trend to diagnose children as transgender, including the unprecedented number of teenage girls suddenly self-identifying as ‘trans’ (Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria or ROGD). We are also concerned about legislation which places transgender rights above the right to safety for girls and young women in public toilets and changing rooms along with fairness for girls in sport.

Can you explain what you mean by 'not so hidden agenda and bias'?

No no, clearly not agreeing with children seeing things like this is homophobia, queerphobia, transphobia, some kind of phobia or bigotry anyway. Thats hw this all works!

This sort of OP, with thinly veiled, misleading click-bait to get mners to visit a website with a not so hidden agenda and bias, is why mn has such a bad reputation for permitting transphobic posting.

How is it misleading?

There were group discounts for primary schools (age 4-11) in the ticket information for this particular exhibition.

When you went to book tickets for this exhibition, there was a drop down option for under 12s.

They put up an 'age guidance' advisory yesterday afternoon (after a backlash had begun) advising that the content 'may not be suitable' for under 13s so they would need to be accompanied by an adults.

I don't know about the content personally, but I do know that a Guardian review refers to imagery of an erect penis. It's possible that the writer of the original article could be lying about the rape imagery and spikes up bums, but then why do that when that could be easily discredited by anyone actually going to see it?

So can you please expand on how the title is 'misleading, click-bait' and 'transphobic"?

BlooperReel and pepperpot99 Great posts.

But if I did (theoretically speaking), my 8 year old would almost certainly wet himself laughing at half the exhibits.

Mission accomplished then. That's the point. What do you think they are aiming for? You think they are aiming for your child to be disturbed? The child that finds it disturbing and has nightmares afterwards is a harder target. The aim is to introduce a twisted version of sex in a way that means parents and children will not initially bulk at it, maybe find it thoughtful and even better funny. Hence the tame images mixed in with the stronger ones.

What do you think the purpose of grooming in this context is? It's to present the 'weird' and inappropriate as not unapprochable, as interesting and a fun day out.

You start small, get the child attuned to it, build up from there. The child sees nothing alarming so you can then up the ante.

When exposed at a later time to these images or weird behaviours there is no reaction or uneasiness. It's how paedophiles the world over work. Acclimatisation. Although the agenda here is not at the individual, it's the wider society.

"Anyone notice one of the contributors to the exhibition is Travis Alabanza of Top Shop fame?."

Travis who identifies as a 15 year old girl on Halloween? Very specific about the age on the selfie they posted. And whose best friend Alok thinks little girls are 'kinky and deviant'? That Travis Alabanza?

Yes, I do believe so.

Sacrifice, I think you’re getting in a muddle.

No muddle here. Try looking into what actually happened

1. nobody has “invited primary children to view porn”

Apart from the Haywood Gallery who are still allowing primary kids in to see porn, this time with an adult present.

2. if they did, that would not be transphobic

Sorry what?

@WhoopDeFuckingDo

Why are you defending a gallery that has invited primary children to view porn, and trying to minimise the concerns of adults and then gone on to say that it is 'transphobic'?

Excellent post CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook

The ignorance of some people about how grooming works is astonishing.

In my view there is really no point in getting worked up over the theoretical scenario of your primary school children being taken to a school trip to The Southbank to see an exhibition clearly aimed at an older audience (despite that website implying that younger children would be encouraged or allowed to go). Realistically no primary school headteacher is going to suggest a school trip there.

So why open it up to primary schools in the first place? Why have they done that?

So why open it up to primary schools in the first place? Why have they done that?

And the site still says that the exhibition is free for groups from primary schools, with a vague comment that it 'may not' be suitable for them.

From the article: "The aim of the training was to “explore ways of talking about gender and identity, using Hayward Gallery’s Kiss My Genders exhibition as a discussion starter” and to “build skills to discuss key topics of trans awareness and gender identity, drawn from the exhibition, in the classroom.”
I don't believe there is any need at all to discuss trans awareness or gender identity in the classroom. I believe the only reason for doing so is to indoctrinate children and so normalise the transgender issue. I only believe in discussing sex because sex is a fact of life. Sex is a biological fact, gender is a made up concept.

Puberty and exploring sexuality can be confusing for some anyway and I believe discussing gender and trans issues could confuse those further.

If people have issues with their biological sex then they need to be an adult before they are sufficiently mature enough to make decisions regarding whether they wish to undergo treatment or self-identity as other than the sex they were born with.

But nobody is saying that the exhibition is suitable for primary school children. Nor is it remotely likely that any primary school (or indeed secondary school), would organise a school trip there. The site has said that it is unsuitable for children. If a parent decides on a weekend to take their children to see it, and the exhibition allows their children in, then their parenting should be called into question, imo. But the article has twisted it to give the impression or fear that primary school teachers could drag your children along to see it. The exhibition was used as part of a training/thinking session for adults (some of whom are Primary school teachers, some are secondary and some not at all).

When people get caught up and over react/misread something to do with gender, then members of the gender fluid lobby etc will push back against it. Then the two sides become more polerized. One side accusing others of being bigoted, the other of being perverts and paedos. And who gets caught up and lost in all of this tit for tat'? The genuine children and adults struggling with their identity. I'm just saying that, people would be right to be extremely worried if they received a letter from their headteacher saying that their child would be attending an exhibition like that. But that such a scenario would be extremely unlikely to say the least!

As an aside though, I would say that I am heartened to see how, despite a clearly contentious issue, no insults are being thrown around at posters.

the other of being perverts and paedos

Let's make one thing clear, we are saying the perverts and paedos are perverts and paedos. You have just painted everyone in the gender based community with he same brush, we have not.

Unless you are saying predators don't use these loopholes to access victims......

But nobody is saying that the exhibition is suitable for primary school children.?

Wha?

The exhibition is open to primary age children, which by definition means they are saying it is suitable for primary age children.

There was a specific discount for primary schools, so it doesn't matter who is likely or unlikely to come, it was encouraging primary schools to come.

They have now put an age restriction on saying some of the content may be (may be) unsuitable for under 13s. But that age restriction was only put up after a backlash.

I don't understand if you are being deliberately obtuse here?