Grandad's Pride is being read on milkshake on channel 5 - not acceptable! AIBU

[grandadspride]

Milkshake story den.

Why are we reading books about pride, gender and drag to pre-school children.

I don't know but claiming that all pictures of maps are now pedophile morse code does make it seem like a conspiricy.

I don't think anyone claimed that.

The reference was to MAP (not simply Map) in the same illustration as 'love is love is love'.

I agree, OP. Trans kids are not ‘magic’ and all things aspirational and positive. Not when we are also being told in the same breath that they hate their bodies and may kill themselves. Nothing about that is magic.

I don’t view being trans as courageous or being one’s authentic self, I view it as extremely sad self-hatred and unsuccessfully treated body dysphoria: it’s as shocking as an eating disorder, self harm or an addiction to plastic surgery. It needs treating, not presenting to very small children as a very simple fun concept like dressing up in a costume or giving yourself a new nickname. It’s incredibly serious.

Unfortunately, trans activists are normalising these books as promoting ‘tolerance’ and ‘kindness’ and because nobody wants to be accused of being intolerant, mean and cruel, it continues.

Given the context I'd say the "Minor Attracted Person" interpretation was the most likely explanation. There's a little boy grasping a rainbow too.

Maybe the intention is not to promote that activity but rather to be controversial and boost publicity/sales by triggering threads like this, but the connotations are blatant.

On a nicer note Grandad’s Pride would be a nice name for a bitter or a race horse

OP your opening post in completely unreasonable. You then put up pictures and posters pointed out how inappropriate the imagery was - that's the issue here, not the themes you raise in the OP. You're now using the imagery as a way to object to this book, but that wasn't what you had an issue with in the first place. I doubt you even waited long enough to see that before switching the channel. So YABU and bigoted in my view.

I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. I participate in PRIDE annually and see hundreds of flags saying 'love is love', now you're saying that means they are supporting paedophiles? Absolutely disgusting assumption, you should be ashamed of yourself.

firstly - the “peadophile references” thing is conspiracy theory nonsense. And frankly pretty disgusting homophobia.

From this, YOU equate paedophilia and homosexuality. You are the homophobe if you think that, not people who want to safeguard children from paedophiles.

The people equating paedophilia with homosexuality are those trying to sneak their dubious interests under the radar, using LGB people and their hard-won fight for acceptance as cover. I suggest you 'educate yourself' and look up the Denton's document, for instance, which was quite blatant on that strategy. And while you're at it, perhaps consider what the '+' is, in LGBTQIA+.

But you won't, because you're too busy virtue signalling to stop and consider what it is you're defending, which in this case is fetish in a children's picture book.

Edited to say sorry @HiddenLegoOuch I quoted the wrong post!

'Love is love' is the slogan of the Paedophile Information Exchange. That's not assumption, it's just a fact. If the people waving it about at Pride parade don't know what they're actually supporting, they should probably educate themselves.

Queer theory is about subverting and disrupting norms, specifically sexual norms.

The author of this book studied queer literature and is open about that being one of his aims.

Some people are being very naive about why such young children are being targeted with age inappropriate images & ideas. There's a growing body of evidence about this.
Sadly even some of our legislators are involved in trying to silence safeguarding concerns:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4954762-pushing-back-against-safeguarding

There are a lot of useful idiots floating about, obviously.

Do people not pause to wonder what the plus refers to when they wave their flags? It's all a bit vague, isn't it?

Or maybe no one 'owns' a phrase?

Just reading your response again, God how patronising. Maybe have a wee read on Google about that phrase before spouting your shit. And no I won't be googling that organisation you seem to be obsessed with thanks, I would prefer not to give it airtime. Absolutely ridiculous that it's even been given attention on this thread.

I think you need to get a serious grip

You could also add in a Polaroid camera and lolita sunglasses just to really spell it out?

I remember being read heteronormative stories at that age. Princess being rescued by a prince. All that shit. How is this any different. It's just a story.

We were taught "love is love" about gay relationships 20 years ago in school. If that has been hijacked by a peado organisation that is not common knowledge, the vast vast majority of people are not thinking about peados when they see the phrase love is love and kids are not seeing that picture and having peadophilla normalised to them. This thread is one of the most rediculous things I have read in ages.

Ah yes, fond memories of those lovely fairytales with whimsical pictures of far-away castles and the handsome prince rescuing the princess whilst wearing his ball gag and gimp mask…

Well no one owns the phrase 'Britain first', but I bet you don't wave that at parades or want it in your children's books. You want this to be different, but it isn't.

the vast vast majority of people are not thinking about peados when they see the phrase love is love

And some are. How many paedophile references in a children's book is too many?

‘If you tolerate this, then your children will be next’.

Oh wait, they already got to them.

I don't think you can claim that the phrase "Love is love" is a paedophile reference at all. It's a phrase with a long association with the LGB community.

Of course, nobody has ever hijacked a seemingly innocuous phrase or symbol for nefarious purposes, have they?