Where did PIE go? WHO and UNESCO new guidance has routes in Queer Theory, Sex Positivity and believes children are "sexual from birth"

[2fallsfromSSA]

We have published a very alarming review of new guidelines.

In short, we are really alarmed by what we see coming out of both UNESCO and WHO.

Tanya Carter Safe Schools Alliance said “This alarming, but sadly unsurprising, research sets out how long-established child safeguarding principles are being effectively dismantled. This leaves all children at risk. Adults, professionally charged with the protection of children, have failed in their duty to identify this and this abdication of responsibility has left generations of children at risk of harm. Children are being left to navigate a minefield of predatory behaviour online without either protection or guidance. Those who have allowed this to happen must be identified and held to account by the global community.”

Read the report: https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2023/04/29/unesco-who-sexuality-education/

Here is the rest of the Press Release

SSA has just published an independent review of two standards documents produced by UNESCO and the WHO. These standards underpin the global initiative for Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), currently promoted by UNESCO’s ‘Foundation for Life and Love Campaign.’

SSAUK believes that these Standards demonstrate how UNESCO and WHO have been compromised and are working to undermine standard child safeguarding principles.

The review reveals the extent to which the WHO and UNESCO’s standards are ideologically aligned with Queer Theory and with a ‘sex positive’ approach to Sexuality (not Sex) Education.

Queer Theory challenges boundaries that are put in place to preserve “so-called ‘oppressive’ ideas” such as the importance of child safeguarding. The UNESCO and WHO documents and guidelines do the same, stating that children are ‘sexual from birth,’ and accordingly require sexual knowledge to fulfil their right to sexual pleasure.

'Sex positivity’ is central to Queer Theory. This review finds that the WHO and UNESCO standards use the concept of sex positivity to reframe safeguarding barriers such as the age of consent as an “injustice”, and to advocate for children’s engagement in sexual activity with their peers, parents and other adults.

Both organisations appear to have abandoned a safeguarding first approach, explaining this shift as necessary to enable a ‘positive’ approach to sex and sexuality. The issue of grooming is conspicuously absent in both sets of standards, and sexual abuse is referenced primarily as justification for providing comprehensive sexuality education from birth.

It is clear that parents who do not acquiesce are viewed as a threat. UNESCO’s ‘key concepts’ promotes the idea that children’s values may differ from their parents’ and, to undermine parents’ legitimate concerns about the contents of Sexuality Education, these concerns are minimised by the UN as “misconceptions.”

You aren't over reacting.

It is global abuse in plain sight and sanctioned abuse at that.

@Bosky That is just horrific, and you'd think only the most blinded people would fail to see the connection to what's happening now. Unfortunately, it turns out that many of the people in authority who should see the connection are indeed blind - worst of all, it seems like many have blinded themselves.

Yes, it's a multi pronged attack.

Bodily autonomy for children.

It needs to become a phrase that people class as synonymous with child rapist.

@Datun we don't know, we all have some opinions. I think it's a probably a combination of some top brass being complicit, a culture of not questioning and large scale grooming. Its also so horrific it's hard to believe. It's all tied up with removing boundaries and pushing body autonomy for children.

The evidence suggests that the push to dismantle safeguarding is highly organised, extremely well funded and strategic. We are aware that the concept of the trans child is all just part of the push to remove boundaries.

Yes. And wording is usually slightly less explicit that in this report. More ambiguous with carefully curated room for plausible deniability.

It's when it's forensically picked apart, as you have done and read alongside the PIE objectives that it becomes horrifically clear to surely even to the most groomed or naive.

I don't want to add to your workload, or make a suggestion that's already been done, or discarded, but would it be worth sending maybe even page 51 onwards to as many employees as possible?

Thanks for that detailed post, Bosky.

in terms of Wikipedia and Dr Reisman's academic title, Wikipedia's Manual of Style says:
Academic and professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor"), including honorary ones, should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Academic_or_professional_titles_and_degrees

We would love to be able to send it to every employee. Just not quite sure how to reach them all.

Thank you so much for the donations. We will use appropriately. Thanks and appreciation have been sent to the authors who did an amazing job.

From the summary:

Family life is a source of stigma, shame and moral development, and therefore inhibitive to a child’s well-being

My underlining - OMFG

This is horrifying, whoever is behind this needs to be dealt with like all the other paedophiles should be.

No, of course. I've had a look, you can't get emails, but you can get names of presumably some higher-ups. But other than that, I wouldn't know where to start.

LinkedIn?

This. Been saying for ages, why haven't we learnt the lessons of PIE in the 70s? I'm old enough to remember the deluge of correspondence in the letters page of the Guardian from PIE, with Patricia Hewitt (and many others, she was certainly not the only one to blame) busily acquiescing to the perverts. So the liberal consensus, the Labour Party, civil rights groups, etc, they all fell for this, hook, line and sinker. And now, it's happening all over again, with some added new buzz-words about gender.

Won't get fooled again? You couldn't make it up.

It becomes horribly obvious what all the 'no debate' and framing of discussion as 'hate speech' was laying the groundwork for. PIE and its successors know what made them vulnerable the last time, they've been closing off those gaps.

a lot of us have always connected this back to the likes of PIE and Kinsey and Money. But you end up sounding like a conspiracy nut to those that are oblivious that it's not just about be kind to the poor vunerable man who thinks he's a woman. That it's all carefully orchestrated insidious mission creep and has a much darker underbelly.

And those that are behind this have gone to great lengths to shut conversation down.

Hopefully their boldness will be their undoing. But I suspect it may not. And in the meantime how many children are being groomed and abused under the banner of inclusivity?

Those of us who came here in November after expulsion from somewhere else are remembering that we, too, discussed PIE on and off over the years. I'm now wondering if that is what made us so loathsome.

@Bosky

Thank you very much for that information

Indeed, Bosky that’s quite a body of work for a single post. Thank you

Truth

Feels so ridiculous that I just screenshot this thread to refer back to as I've had previously a thread I planned to go back to and get the references disappeared

Can you explain this please? I’ve looked at the relevant pages but not sure if I’m looking at the right thing. Thanks

Young children are not capable of bodily autonomy. They do not have the experience or information to make decisions in such areas; nor do they have the power to assert autonomy - neither personal nor socially granted. They don't really have the capability to go against an assertive adult or older child and they're still learning right and wrong so can be easily led by those older than themselves. Autonomous means independent, and children are always dependent on those older than them.

The "bodily autonomy of children" is a lie, which in actuality just means hand over the decision making from the rightful guardians of the child, to someone else, that someone else is equally allowed to exert as much influence over the child as the child's guardian.

Children's bodily autonomy just means removal of parent's protection.

It's a strange thing, but when I'm online and things like this are raised, we all feel like we're conspiracy theorists and a minority. But when I go out and talk to friends, neighbours, bar staff, whoever, I frequently find people have the same views and same information I do. And the ones who parrot authority / media positions not only are the minority but come across as vaguely nuts and True Believers. There's a fanatical brittleness to their assertions. They come across as nothing more than school toadies eager for a chance to inform on you to teacher.

And perhaps that's what they are - their identity is all wrapped up in being on "the right side". They enjoy or need the borrowed power of officialdom. Sad creatures and they seem more numerous than they are because they swarm.

But still, they are the minority and they get their courage from their betters. Someone above said that people responsible for things like this should be named and monitored and so they should. We need some kind of Wikipedia site (with a more selective editor list) that chronicles this. KiwiFarms is kind of like that but more for lolcows than the politically corrupt (that's a sideline). Is there such a thing? Something that you can look up an individual and see "Oh, he's advocated for legalising sex with children here and here and here". The 'farms motto is "Archive Everything." The same should apply.