Why are ASDA normalising paedophilia and Child Abuse?

[Sunkisses]

Is it OK for ASDA to send parents emails linking to an organisation that normalises paedophilia with red flag phrases such as "love has no age", and recommending books for children that contain explicit descriptions of child sex abuse? Why are they doing this? Are ASDA experts in home schooling and safeguarding? More details in this excellent thread by Safe Schools Alliance: twitter.com/SafeSchools_UK/status/1272638132589035520

@StayinginSummer

Sorry if this conversation is a trigger. The concept of 'love' being manipulated by abusers is of course horrific.

It IS a complex issue, and I do agree that a supermarket should stay out of it. ASDA should by all means promote equality and diversity in their workplace, but leave the children's education to the professionals and parents!

[quote Ninkanink]@Notredamn and others

Many formidable, intelligent, strong women are fighting this and will continue doing so. We will win this war because when it comes right down to it everyone knows right from wrong. It’s going to take a lot of work and many more people to get on board, but the tide is turning. Light is being shone on the horrific underbelly.

We know where the line is. We will not be moved.[/quote]
I hope so.

Myself and many other women and men, have massive reservations about the pushy agendas. We are all pretty liberal I guess, so don’t speak up often as we don’t want to be mistaken for bigots. I for one am massively pro gay and transgender rights to be able to live their lives.

I’ve been confused in the last 10 years about what has been going on. Most of all I’ve been taken aback by the aggression within certain transgender movements. It feels like bullying.

I don’t have huge feelings about changing rooms or toilets. I’m happy with these places being cubicle only, for either sex with no communal areas.

However I am alarmed by feminists being told to shut up about their concerns. And by the push that children somehow are mature in their sexuality early enough to make huge life changing decisions. Or sex education to be dictated by promotional groups and not evidence plus safeguarding.

There was a time when an adult outside a family wanting to talk to a child about sex, sexuality, sexual identity, sexual relationships would raise a host of red flags. Why is this adult targeting this child? What was their motive? Was it age appropriate? Does this put the child at risk of harm?

How the hell are parents meant to protect their children from dodgy adults when this type of stuff is being promoted by a bloody supermarket??

Changing rooms and toilets are only one very concrete, ubiquitous and absolutely clear, down-to-earth example of how this ideology is attempting to eradicate women’s safe spaces. And with respect, it isn’t for any individual woman to give away other women’s and children’s rights to protections in law, no matter their personal take on the matter. The vast majority of women do not want men in their spaces. They are not wrong, or hateful, in saying, no, we do not consent to this. Women have a right to sex segregated spaces that afford them privacy, safety and dignity.

See also prisons, refuges, rape crisis centres.

Further, see the implications of the eradication of ‘woman’ as biological fact with respect to legislation for equality in employment (and every other protection). As is now the case in Scotland, for example.

Hearing the survivors of child sex abuse on here talking about their abuse and how the word love was used to justify the abuse has made me very sad. Have we not learnt anything from these courageous people. Love is not always love we are being told that by these survivors. We must listen and so must Asda.

I don't see the link between acceptance of same sex families and parental child abuse.

I don't think anyone on here is saying that, at least I hope not. There are very confused messages, some really worrying. Especially regarding no age limits and all love being ok.

"It makes me wonder what new public information films would look like if they reflected the reality of safeguarding threats in the current insane climate?"

Meooowwwgrrrreeeeowwwww - meooowwwwwww-purrrr "Char-leee says - 'Mummy is a horrible TERF because she said that biology is real'.

Meooowwwwww-prrrrurrrrrr "Char-leee says 'Mummy is rotting in jail now because we live in Scotland now'".

I want to laugh but it's pretty horrifying.

As a PP alluded to, this is what happens when you appoint a small section of your business to be the equity and diversity corner whilst carrying on with your important business of making money.

The diversity person / team is out of step with the business and society and the business doesn't integrate genuine principles of equality and fairness.

Supermarkets have huge amounts of data about who their customers are. They know their customers who like branded goods and who buys tinned goods and single portions. They know where you live, what qualifications you have, how much you earn and what type car you drive. They know their rich customers and their poor customers and you can bet your bottom dollar that they know how many, actually make that how few, of their customers believe in this.

Meooowwwgrrrreeeeowwwww - meooowwwwwww-purrrr "Char-leee says - 'Mummy is a horrible TERF because she said that biology is real'.

Meooowwwwww-prrrrurrrrrr "Char-leee says 'Mummy is rotting in jail now because we live in Scotland now'".

I'm laughing and crying at this

Of how about

"Charlie says that I have to be very careful of grown ups asking me to come and see kittens or read books from Asda about things I don't understand"

I’m saying that it is possible if you bundle up a ‘love is always okay’ message particularly with pushing images and awareness of same sex relationships, without any discussion on boundaries and that love is not always okay, then surely this makes a kid in an abusive relationship vulnerable?

I agree. Also:

This is why conversations about adult topics, such as sexuality, need to be set in the adult world.

For example.
‘Some families have two daddies/two mummies’ is set in the adult world and is a right and proper message that teaches children that not all families are alike and that it’s ok to grow up to be one of two daddies or two mummies as an adult.

‘Love has no age’ or saying children can be gay (or straight for that matter) puts sexual identity/sexual relationships into the children’s own world, which makes it harder for them to find and enforce their own boundaries against premature sexual activity with peers, or worse, against adult abuse.

Some children will grow up to be same sex attracted adolescents and/or adults. Some children will grow up to be opposite sex attracted adolescents and/or adults... but children should not be sexualised, and that includes not projecting adult sexual identities onto them.

Children currently are trying to work out if they are gay or straight before they are are far enough into puberty to develop genuine, independent, sexual attraction, which is understandably bewildering and confusing. No wonder loads of young teenagers are on tumblr agonising over whether they are asexual/demi sexual/ demi romantic (a good old fashioned platonic ‘crush’ in pre internet times).

I don't think anyone on here is saying that, at least I hope not.

I think it's that there is an appropriate way to talk about families of all types to young children. Such and such has two daddies, etc. None of it needs to be sexualised.

X post with DuduLang

Write to MPs?

this is what happens when you appoint a small section of your business to be the equity and diversity corner whilst carrying on with your important business of making money

Yes, this. It's catching a lot of companies out. Time the CEOs bloody well woke up to it.

excellent post DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong

Go woke, go broke.

Can you imagine trying to do the school puberty/period talks if several several members of the class consider themselves to be ‘non-binary Demi-bois’? ’

How would you even separate into two groups, let alone talk about reproductive anatomy in a non-triggering way?

It’s all very well for woke activists to prance about the internet saying ‘People who menstruate’ but you can’t teach the kids who fall into that category what to expect without first recognising them as minor female
humans (ie ‘girls’).

Could someone write a Government Petition?

How peculiar - I typed 'family' into google and that didn't come up at all.

Anyway, at the age of 7, children do not need to have a glossary of different types of sexuality. Why are we talking to infant school children about sex? Who does that benefit?

*In their primary pack 7 year old kids are supposed to learn about the following:

• a man who is attracted to a woman or a woman who is attracted to a man
• a man or woman who is attracted to men and women

• Bisexual someone who doesn't feel like the gender they were given at birth

• Transgender a woman who is attracted to other women

• Heterosexual a man who is attracted to a man or a woman who is attracted to a woman*

Has your formatting gone wonky or have you miscopied? Because obviously those definitions don't fit.

In any case, what's so alarming about children knowing what bisexual, heterosexual, transgender etc mean? You can go way too far down the "keep them innocent and ignorant" route- a certain amount of knowledge is far more of a protective factor for children than it is a risk. I genuinely don't understand why you would be so upset over 7 year olds being taught appropriate descriptive words and to develop an understanding of some of the ways people identify themselves and others. It's like the families I have worked with who refuse SRE for their kids because they think telling children about sexual behaviour encourages it, when evidence supports the opposite.

Which is of course not to say I don't find a lot of the other things discussed in this thread deeply worrying, before anyone jumps to that conclusion. I'm just utterly stumped as to why giving children knowledge of terms such as heterosexual and bisexual causes any concern at all.

@Iwalkinmyclothing that's an ex we use where they have to match the work to it's definition.

Looks like I won't be shopping in Asda again, this is a whole new level of messed up

@Iwalkinmyclothing I meant it's "an exercise" clearly typing is not going well today for me, sorry!

It’s the sexualisation of the message that’s pissing us off.

I don’t mind two mummies or two daddies being discussed in a family orientated message. I really really mind about my kids being bombarded with soft porn messages given out by charitable organisations whose sub context is very dubious indeed.

But Asda is a shop

That’s it.

Not a school

They’re not charitable organisations at all. They are lobby entities with a very specific and damaging agenda.