Trans/pride flag in children's stickers

[timeforacoffeebreak]

This was included in a pack of squishmallow stickers... why???
AIBU or is this totally wrong ??

great. Google shows me this:

We know what LGBT means but here's what LGBTQQIAAP stands for https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-33278165

One of the ‘A’s means allies, and under Queer is described as :

Q - queer: originally used as a hate term, some people want to reclaim the word, while others find it offensive. It can be a political statement, suggest that someone doesn't want to identify with "binaries" (e.g. male v female, homosexual v straight) or that they don't want to label themselves only by their sexual activity

So this flag is now open to everyone. Technically including many using this particular flag to claim they are part of the group but are now rebranded to be known as having zoophilia (sex with animals which is always abusive to the animal) and MAPs or minor attracted people (I suggest people look that up) which used to be very acceptable to claim on twitter so you would have male people very up front about the sex of the children they were ‘attracted’ to and the age group. It was right there in public view with this flag usually visible on their bio or in their posts.

I would encourage any reader to do the search that swirly recommends. And I mean go beyond the first page or two. Get to who else is there making claims that are not publicly denounced. Because none of the political lobby groups seem to denounce the groups and some ‘queer’ academics write papers for formalising their inclusion. And the ‘allies’ seem to reinforce those groups menbership as well.

Google is your friend is always great advice. Thanks.

We know what the flag is. The original decades old symbol wasn't special enough for narcissistic trans rights activists. The "progress pride" flag is disliked by many LGB people. It's a divisive political symbol.

Do you believe it should be, as a political symbol, on a children’s product?

I just don’t get why you initially chimed in with the comment about it being ‘not the trans flag’ at all; OP was clearly referring to the bit that is the trans flag within the overall image. That was clear. It’s almost as if you just wanted to disagree with OP in some way to derail or something 🤔

It’s a private company. They can supply any product of sale that they wish to, within the law. No one is obligated to buy them. Squishmallow have also expanded their products for young adults and adults due to popularity.

Thanks for that ‘google is your friend’ suggestion.

Here is some more I found on googling ‘queer’. I saw queer theory mentioned upthread too. So I looked what I could find.

“Michael Foucault’s work on sexuality said that it was a discursive production rather than an essential part of a human, which came from his larger idea of power not being repressive and negative as productive and generative. In other words, power acts to make sexuality seem like a hidden truth that must be dug out and be made specific. Foucault refuses to accept that sexuality can be clearly defined, and instead focuses on the expansive production of sexuality within governments of power and knowledge.”

When you google Michel Foucault it turns out he was part of the movement to lower the age of consent in France. The movement that I first noticed reported a couple of years ago after reading that in France there was a rape case of an 11 year old girl exploring whether she consented to sex or not with a 33 year old.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/05/man-convicted-of-raping-girl-11-in-case-that-led-to-change-in-french-law

This article can also be found on google about Foucault.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-philosopher-michel-foucault-abused-boys-in-tunisia-6t5sj7jvw

Seems to be entirely relevant in discussion about the lowering sexual boundaries and privacy boundaries for children. So, queer theory as conceptualised by Michel Foucault and there is then this discussion about rebranding paedophilia and bestiality.

And lesbians being questioned for saying that a ‘trans woman is a man’.

No wonder there are lesbians on this thread saying the flag is not representing them!

Thanks swirly. Google is very interesting.

I thought you were Googling what the + meant. You seem to have got rather sidetracked.

You don’t have to ‘get it’; it’s ok. It was in response to posters much further up the thread. My comment was also regarding the age demographic of the squishmallow brand. My post clearly isn’t derailing any discussion – discussion seems to be flowing just fine. I have also only posted again to respond to other posters tagging me.

Happens with googling.

You’re saying this comment was ‘in response to other posters’?

That’s not the trans flag. It’s the progress pride flag. The trans flag is horizontal blue, pink and white stripes.

?
Perhaps it was. But it’s a categorical statement that, while true (in the sense that the trans bit is just a part of the whole), was completely unnecessary. Everyone could see what they were looking at. The OP wasn’t claiming that the whole thing was the trans flag. Nor was anyone.Your comment therefore seemed unnecessary and just in the spirit of dissent for dissent’s sake.

OK cool. Thanks for your review.

😂Someone is out of their depth on this thread.

Or that I have nothing more to say to you. Whatever makes you feel better, I guess.

@Helleofabore I don't think you have gone on a tangent in your google search. I think that everyone should be concerned that this flag on a children's toy represents minor attracted persons along with all of the other identities and sexualities that it purports to represent. No wonder so many homosexual people are saying not in their name.

Jesus wept.

And the cheek of the TRAs saying that women pointing this out are doing something similar to s.28. It is them who are causing the comparisons. Being sexually attracted to children is nothing to 'celebrate' and has nothing to do with being gay, lesbian or bisexual yet here we are with the 'progress flag'.

itsfinallytime

It is not a tangent, no. It is entirely relevant to who is represented by that flag now with its expanded representation. No political movement is without people who are put to harm others. However, when a movement embraces a theory where the people writing the foundational theories directly participated in abusing children, you have to question why some people cannot seem to acknowledge that those groups are still there and still active under that symbol. The number of male people who listed their abusive interest in children like a preference on a dating app was horrific to see. But the cross over with other paraphilias was unsurprising.

It is the embracing of paraphilias that is a huge concern by many LGB people from discussions I have had and what I have read. (And I will leave readers to read about paraphilias on their ‘google’ search)

And that then leads to wondering why do some people find it hard to consider the potential impact, intended and unintended, of the movement.

It has taken 40+ years for France to make those changes back to protect children. I remember reading about a woman who was the 14 year old lover one of those men who are still considered to be a celebrated intellect in France. She was 14. She has been trying to speak about her experience and abuse for decades and couldn’t. As she said, her parents were fully supportive of this man’s relationship with her but she realised just how abusive it was. But all this was supported under the writings of Foucault- a celebrated founder of “queer theory”. Even now you still have Peter Tatchell fronting as a very prolific and very public spokesperson for the LGBTQ+ community and he has very questionable opinions about children’s sexual boundaries that cover decades of written work.

It is very clear that there are many people who are homosexual and bisexual who are most definitely not supporting the ambiguity of this wider movement.

Yet, so many people seem unquestioning of this political symbol being used on a sticker for children. It is remarkable to see the harmful denial that seems to underlie that.

But most concerning is the effort taken to scold and shame those who have read and have a deeper understanding. I would laugh but it is so fucking dangerous to children that I just cannot laugh and ignore it.

@SwirlyWhirls

thought you were Googling what the + meant. You seem to have got rather sidetracked.

Oh, did you not want that bit googling? The awkward bits? The uncomfortable stuff? Not a great look when you could disavow the content but choose to appear miffed at the fact it exists for others to see.

Paedophelia is exactly one of the things the + means - why do you think Tatchel has hung himself onto the trans campaign for so long? If they can get one sexual proclivity that is harmful through to the mainstream, with the Trans movement, why not all of them?

There are at least a couple of posts higher up in this thread saying “It’s just a rainbow, what’s all the fuss”, who when it was pointed out to them THE TRANS FLAG IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CAT said “Oops, sorry, you’re right, hadn’t noticed!”

Not the case with the latest poster who missed THE TRANS FLAG IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CAT. They doubled down and suggested to knowledgable posters who know what they’re talking about ”Google is your friend”.

Interesting how different people respond to being wrong, isn’t it?

They haven't even been particularly secretive about what the + is about. It's all out there.

Yet so many people are mindless cheering this stuff on. Without bothering to engage their brain.

Just for those who don’t know who Peter Tatchell is, I do recommend, as Swirly says, ‘Google is your friend’.

OR

Start with this article.

https://lilymaynard.com/what-did-peter-tatchell-really-say/

But here are some other links

A letter to editor about his support of an underage marriage.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letter-why-destroy-young-love-1326015.html

and

Peter Tatchell says he talks to children about porn and they tell him they aren't harmed by it around 1 hour 47 mins in. I remember him saying that he supports girls watching porn. He reckons teenage girls can learn a lot about sex from porn. Particularly, it seems, how to please their male partners.

The first article links this man’s writings about how children having sex with adults is ‘not always abuse’. He denies some things he wrote, but the denials never actually address what he has said and written since. So his denials are irrelevant and don’t stand up to scrutiny. Or he has forgotten just how much he has said and written.

I think I remember him even once supporting underaged girls being marriaged as a cultural norm on social media.

This is the very underpinning of “queer” theory.

Google is our friend

Absolutely! I absolutely encourage readers to google and read. And read again. And again. Go find the original source documents, statements, studies.

And while you are googling, wonder about the posters who won’t post links that support their arguments. Why can’t they?

It really then starts to click into place that those who can’t /won’t post links and evidence (especially if they have a whole phd worth of it), and yet are declaring that other posters are ignorant rely on emotional manipulation to support their message. They have nothing else to offer.

Those posting ‘well you don’t have to buy the product’ are also deflecting responsibility. They also either have no coherent point or are just mindlessly showing support but just will dismiss concerns and try to portray those who are concerned as worthy of being shamed.

Once you see the empty manipulative tactics, you will never unsee them.

There is a reason they cannot post supporting evidence or cannot even then come back after something is posted and say ‘no, I disagree for this reason and here is some evidence to support that’.

Because they have nothing.

I get that people who are well meaning themselves, find it hard to believe that this kind of thing is promoted in broad daylight. It's difficult to even conceive of. They don't want to believe it. I get that.

But here's a cautionary tale for you. In the 1980s, in Germany, the Green Party openly advocated for Pedophile rights and succeeded to the degree that known pedophiles were given access to children, sometimes having them placed in their homes. It shocked me to my core when I found that out.

So 'progressive' causes are not always benign. Great evil can be championed at an official level, even among people that look respectable. Start paying attention.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/past-pedophile-links-haunt-german-green-party-a-899544.html

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-experiment-that-placed-foster-children-with-pedophiles

When I was looking at what other things were under the ‘+’, I read about a group in Germany trying to overturn the ban on bestiality.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-court-upholds-ban-on-bestiality-ruling-it-does-not-violate-the-right-to-sexual-selfdetermination-a6884216.html

https://time.com/4230863/germany-sex-animals/?amp=true

here is more background

Animal welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950

It was made legal in 1969 to rape animals, and that was banned in 2012 and then a few years later the ban was challenged. There are academic ‘discussions’ and papers popping up still trying to normalise bestiality as rebranded ‘zoofilia’.

It really is all about the paraphilias.

And yes, I did find all these references about bestiality today on my search on Google as instructed by Swirly.

Germany also allows adults to have sex legally with 14 year olds.

I think I remember him even once supporting underaged girls being married as a cultural norm on social media

My recollection is that that was a rather smug celebrity doctor, whose name I've temporarily forgotten.