How is this offensive?

[KnittingNeedles]

DD is 19 and volunteers in Oxfam. This poster is currently in the window of the store she works in - it was a Pride thing but she thinks they have just not got round to taking it out.

www.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam-in-action/oxfam-blog/celebrating-pride-2022/

The way she - and I - interpret the poster is that the charity is welcoming and inclusive, and however you define yourself, you are welcome in store. Although I know the charity has a reputation for being very "woke", this is a very bland message really.

DD was on the till yesterday and some woman came into the store demanding she remove the poster. DD asked why - woman said it was "forced speech" and a "very political statement" and ranted on about Stonewall for a bit. DD is fairly clued up on the whole sex/gender debate and tried to explain that's not what it was about, it was a message of tolerance and acceptance. Customer was having none of it and went off saying she was going to complain.

I'm confused. I'm as gender critical as they come but surely part of that is accepting that although I don't personally buy into gender other people do, and I respect their right to hold that opinion, just as I hope they respect my right to disagree with them. And that however you define yourself, of course you should be treated with respect in any shop. No I won't be giving you my pronouns as those should be blindingly obvious, but the poster isn't saying you won't be served without sharing yours.

Bemused.

Apologies for conflating two posters in that previous post. The extremely patronising language policing was @WorkingItOutAsIGo whereas the 'gentrification' post was from @SolasAnla

I think gender is a load of nonsense, but if other people are totally on board with that I respect their opinion

Do you? Then you really aren't that gender critical.

Indeed. 'I really don't agree with your attempts to destroy women's rights but as you're totally on board with your beliefs, go ahead, I respect you for it...'

We are now being treated again to the lovely poster as part of #transwarenessweek

Congratulations Oxfam for not breaking equality law and discriminating against people. Of CAUSE you have to let everyone use your shops.

The fact that they sponsored their post on Facebook means more charity money is spent pushing this. Money that could have gone to people who actually need it.

I'm laughing imagining them checking pronouns.... he/him fine, she/her fine, they/them fine.

m.facebook.com/oxfamGB/photos/a.96693231395/10158593533346396/?type=3

Didn’t they leave out all the neo pronouns though? What about Zim/zer? Far/faeself. Oxfam showing their bigotry there.

The progressive rainbow is hostile and alienating for many people.

Is this poster tantamount to an admission by Oxfam that they haven’t always allowed everyone to enter their shops? Did they use to discriminate against certain people in the past? I’m confused. What’s the point of the poster?

Oh I know. It’s just meaningless virtue signalling.

Can’t believe Oxfam have wheeled this one out again. It was up earlier in the year - then had a BLH one for a couple of weeks, now back to this?

oxfam as a brand is pretty ropey (for its abuse of disaster victims, treatment of staff and all this rainbow waving). I keep going they will wake up but looks like they are just plodding along.

For one, women (as in the old fashioned kind) tend to bear the brunt of poverty around the world due to sexism and the associated lack of access to education, among many other factors. Sex selection abortions happen due to economic and social factors combined with sexism, not because a female foetus has lady feelings. This is why sex-based discussions are important when tackling inequality and poverty (something Oxfam is supposed to do). That acknowledgement is lacking in their statement.

Even in Western countries, we have wealth inequality among women and men, one of the main drivers being a lack of access to financial help when having children (look at Pregnant then Screwed, or the fact the UK has the second highest childcare costs in the world). Women are disproportionately affected by austerity. Most part-time workers are women. Most low paid work is done by women. This is tied up to the fact we are the sex that bears the reproductive burden. It's relevant and I would say key to addressing poverty on a global scale.

It does seem odd for a charity that supposedly cares about erasing poverty to not give a specific shout-out to biological girls and women. Doesn't feel particularly inclusive, and they are not addressing the role of sex as a factor of inequality, nor do they particularly care about alleviating poverty faced by women (the old fashioned kind).

For many LGB people, the term 'queer' is a slur. So not inclusive to them having it as part of the alphabet soup in the supposedly inclusive statement. LGB are also sexual orientations. Many T people want to redefine sexuality as being about gender. So the forced teaming doesn't seem particularly inclusive either. As for the I, that is a medical condition.

So yeah, I can see why this supposedly 'inclusive' statement would piss a lot of people off and seems like quite a lot of horsehit ignoring the main aims of what a charity that cares about poverty worldwide should actually be focussing on. I'd be pissed off too.

In a twist that will surprise literally no body (whether the body is male OR female), this very silly bit of virtue signaling is now 70% off.