PinkNews call child safeguarding laws ''anti LGBT''

[sacredfeminina]

Article from Reduxx. Refers to laws that will be passed to stoo children accessing porn.

www.reduxx.org/post/child-safeguarding-laws-in-uk-us-framed-as-anti-lgbtq

Safeguarding children trumps lgbt rights all. day. long.

Er, LGB people and their 'rights' are wholly unthreatened by and are wholly compatible with safeguarding.

It's the TQ+ part that seems to find safeguarding children and female equality incompatible with their needs being met.

This is seriously outrageous, it makes me so cross. Why on Earth would it be anti anything to stop children from accessing porn? I despair.

We came so far in normalising homosexuality and and articles like this may create a backlash. It is unforgivable.

Artichokeleaves, cross post. I know that it has absolutely Nothing to do with LGB people. Probably not with any other sane person.

But there are so many people there who don’t use their brains. They try to do the right thing, they try to be kind but just end up following the latest trend.

I worry that this will play into the hands of right wing, US style fundamentalists and that pendulum will swing again and reverse many gay rights. And that the same people who close their eyes to anything they perceive as anti LGBTQ+ today will turn against them all tomorrow

I don't think anyone who is familiar with the output of pink news will be surprised that they support the sexualisation of children.

I think their business model is just to garner as much attention as possible with the most ridiculous articles they can make up.

This could actually be a very good thing as it will make people sit up and notice not only what pink news etc is pushing but it will also make it abundantly clear that when they scream anti trans/lgbtq++++ what they are really saying is shut up now and you must endanger every woman and child because I want to get my sexual kicks

It's seriously sinister. I feel like Mary Whitehouse compared to this lot. But come on, really? This is a direct attack on child safeguarding. No attempt at deception. The needs of the trans Trump the safety and wellbeing of any child.
There we have it.

Why on earth is TQ still associated with LGB.

I note that, as usual, how LGBT individuals are [going to be] put at risk by the proposed legislation never actually gets explained. It’s just more of the endless bleating about victimhood & vulnerability.

Were there an actual risk here, beyond - & some readers might need to take a moment to themselves at the thought of such a thing - a reduction in the availability of porn; I’m sure we’d be treated to a detailed explanation. People would be setting up large public campaigns with template letters to send to MPs. Stonewall would be all over it - like the most persistent & treatment-resistant rash ever seen.

Hugely insulting to all the LGBT people who very much wish for legislation of this kind to be passed. And - to state the blindingly obvious - what is going to put people at risk is giving the impression, as PNesque coverage does, that the LGBT community are, for some reason, against keeping children safe online; against the removal of CSAM; against more CSAM being produced & posted… to say it’s not a good look is an understatement, frankly. Obviously, any violence by males this results in will be the fault of women. Stylised hearts with a scroll over them bearing the text “Mum”; “Nan”; or any [abbreviation of a] female name* are now, I think, accepted as evidence of holding GC views, so that’s probably fair, right?

• I realise these are very much a stereotype, but they were chosen precisely because TRAs keep trying to lump together all opposition to them as Gender-Critical. Which you would think would make people question things somewhat (ah yes, socially conservative evangelical Christians - they’re notably on-board with the idea of not having set “boy things” & “girl things” ) but then nuance is perhaps not the forte of those who simply announce that all who oppose them are “the fash”.

Bother - it should be:

“but NOT against more CSAM material being produced & posted”

Good of Pink News to make their stance so clear

It's all irrelevant as it won't work anyway. Anyone can use a proxy -kids learn to use them as soon as the have access to the net - and can access sites from across the world.

My worry is not about the porn, it's about mission creep. As always as soon as a law is in place to make it hard to access something the law will inevitable spread to make it hard to access something else, then something else ...

It seems like it’s more specifically a concern about how the data will be held and what it will be connected to. E.g. will your person identity information be attached to exactly what Pom you watch, and could this put people at greater risk if there was a breach.

I don’t think the bill will mean porn companies have to link the two data sets together, but I guess they will want to for data harvesting.

Of course if someone’s worried about that then they just shouldn’t watch porn. Would hardly kill them to go without would it I imagine straight men who watch extremely violent porn may have similar concerns about leaks

Posted too soon. Meant to add it will be interesting to see if it changes popular porn trends or if the people who watch the extreme stuff won’t think/care

Doesn’t the fuss they are making about adults only access to porn imply that the industry has been relying on and benefitting from children watching porn up till now?

Could it also be because the younger they are when they see it the more likely they are to become addicted too?

I sometimes get the impression that the people at PN like the idea that being gay should be associated with sexual fetishes and obsessions.

They don't see the goal of LGB right to be about seeing people as the same as everyone else. They see it as creating acceptance for the kind of gay male culture that comes up with things like chem-sex clubs and glory holes, and cementing sexuality as a necessary axis of identity.

@Artichokeleaves

Er, LGB people and their 'rights' are wholly unthreatened by and are wholly compatible with safeguarding.

It's the TQ+ part that seems to find safeguarding children and female equality incompatible with their needs being met.

I was just about to say the same thing.

They are outraged by anything aimed at protecting children or women. Because we should know our role in the world is to be available for their use.

andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-backlash-against-trans-extremism-f09?utm_source=url

@MangyInseam

I sometimes get the impression that the people at PN like the idea that being gay should be associated with sexual fetishes and obsessions.

They don't see the goal of LGB right to be about seeing people as the same as everyone else. They see it as creating acceptance for the kind of gay male culture that comes up with things like chem-sex clubs and glory holes, and cementing sexuality as a necessary axis of identity.

Agreed.

And some of those children that safeguarding protects are LGB.

Thinkingaboutlangcleg: Because we should know our role in the world is to be available for their use.

Ain't that the truth

Boundaries. Other people's boundaries are really inconvenient. I'm increasingly thinking the mysterious missing 'rights' are the right to be exempt from any boundaries.

@MangyInseam

I sometimes get the impression that the people at PN like the idea that being gay should be associated with sexual fetishes and obsessions.

They don't see the goal of LGB right to be about seeing people as the same as everyone else. They see it as creating acceptance for the kind of gay male culture that comes up with things like chem-sex clubs and glory holes, and cementing sexuality as a necessary axis of identity.

This drives me mad. Decades of work to convince the general public that homosexuality was no different to the boundaries and appropriacy of heterosexuality, and that being gay did not mean you had any less boundaries or social appropriacy than a straight person...

And PN and SW and the political lobby are now trying hard to enforce the idea that fetishes, kinks and wholly inappropriate behaviour such as involving non consenting others and ignoring safeguarding is just a natural part of being LGBT.

No it bloody isn't. A person with bloody awful social behaviour pushing their sex lives in people's faces is a badly behaved pest, regardless of their sexuality or identity.

But as usual, the LGB part is merely exploited as happens to be useful to the political TQ+ lobby, and there is no interest or care for LGB people outside of how they serve the greater purpose.

LGBT+ has been turned into a word not meaning 'diverse people who have the one characteristic of homosexuality in common' but instead 'anyone of any sexuality who share a political ideology and values'. I want no part of it. They absolutely bloody well do not speak for me.

This drives me mad. Decades of work to convince the general public that homosexuality was no different to the boundaries and appropriacy of heterosexuality ... And PN and SW and the political lobby are now trying hard to enforce the idea that fetishes, kinks and wholly inappropriate behaviour such as involving non consenting others and ignoring safeguarding is just a natural part of being LGBT.

I really feel for you, Artichoke. They’ve trashed the Green Party the same way, but that’s not quite so harmful because being green was never illegal.

And we tended not to get beaten up or lose jobs because of being green.

The queer agenda seems designed to overturn the social progress made over the past 60 years, for women and LGB people. But why?