WHO advice on sexuality for infants

[ChristinaXYZ]

ARticle in the Telegrpah covering the WHO guidance that has become a legal requirement in Welsh schools:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/13/outrage-over-who-advice-on-sexuality-for-infants/

"The advice proposes that four-to-six year olds should be taught to “talk about sexual matters” and “consolidate their gender identity”....

It recommends that children under the age of four should be told they have “the right to ask questions about sexuality” and “the right to explore gender identities”.

The WHO guidance also says that children aged four and under should be taught about “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body, early childhood masturbation”...

These topics are described as the “minimal standards that need to be covered by sexuality education”.

A government spokesperson said: “The UK Government does not recognise this WHO guidance and we don’t agree with its recommendations. We have not distributed or promoted it to schools.

“We offer our own guidance to help schools to teach children and young people about relationships and health.”

However, the WHO guidance, first published in 2010, was cited in a 2017 report commissioned by Welsh ministers entitled “Informing the Future of the Sex and Relationships Curriculum in Wales”.

The report was commissioned to “inform the development of the future Sex and Relationships (SRE) curriculum”, which became legally enforceable in Welsh schools last year, although it did not adopt all of the recommendations in the report conducted by Cardiff University.

Laura Anne Jones MS, shadow minister for education in Wales, said the WHO “needs to rescind the advice immediately”.

Ms Jones also called for the Welsh government to “distance themselves” from the “frankly disturbing” WHO guidance."

Lot more detail in the article.

It’s so insidious- clean and dirty refers to nappies/ hygiene whilst eating/ splashing in muddy puddles.
…and the twisty language if the paedophile being used.

I've mentioned this before but I'll say it again: when I worked in the CJS several years ago, one of my responsibilities was to keep the recorded evidence - at the time predominantly on VHS, and in my latter days in that role, DVD - of children alleging sexual assault etc by adults safely locked away. Anyone wishing to remove a video to view the evidence had to sign it out and back in again, witnessed by me or another senior member of my team, and if they hadn't returned it by the time the end of the working day approached, I would personally track them down, take it from them and ensure it was locked away again overnight.

The reason for these precautions is because it was drilled into me from my first day in the role that even footage of a child simply describing what they have experienced has 'currency' amongst paedophiles.

I can't imagine encouraging children to discuss sexual or potential sexual experiences on film for...what (officially)? Shits and giggles? It is contrary to every fundamental of safeguarding, and shows huge naivety and a staggering lack of judgement - at best.

Such a useful reminder @BenCoopersSupportWren

i couldn’t quite believe my eyes watching that video

That video can't be real. Surely not.

Apollo441 it is from this website:

https://stopworldcontrol.com/children/

It says, "The publisher of this video, the Rutgers Foundation, operates in 27 nations, is a close partner of the WHO and UN, and is funded by Bill Gates and Planned Parenthood."

There is a lot of text and I haven't read it all but some of it, along with screenshots, seems the same or similar to what is in the Safe Schools Alliance UK report.

At first glance it seems rather more "Shock! Horror!" and less measured than the SSAUK report although it draws on similar material. I am guessing that is because the organisation has an "anti-global" agenda and this using this material in furtherance of that agenda, ie. rather than being primarily concerned with safeguarding children from sexual abuse and exploitation.

Weird! I didn't post an archive link or anything that I am aware is controversial in my post that is being "looked at" 🤔

Who stands between children and such nefarious intent?

Well, primarily mothers and grandmothers, aunts etc.

So what are their plans for us? How will they erase our misgivings? Our opposition? Our rebellion? Us?

That is the prescient question.

They'll get it recognised as a "sexual orientation", which is what they are already pushing for, then they can legitimately prosecute us for being "untoward about paedophiles" if we discriminate against them by not employing them to work with children, employed or as volunteers.

I expect they will also have a flag that the police, NHS and civil service can plaster all over place and children will be issued with Paedophile Lanyards and cute colouring books featuring "Pete the Pedo", his pocketful of puppies and the hilarious adventures of his pop-up penis.

Stop being so fucking stupid.

There was a group of MAPS at a pride event a few years ago (before covid) where lesbians were removed for stating they were same sex attracted. There were also puppy play fetishists at pride events, accepted by police, and a photo did the rounds of a puppy player visibly aroused with a small child on his knee - but lesbians = not ok and a danger to the TQ+?

Whilst “don’t be so fucking stupid” should be the correct response at such a stupid suggestion, I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss it, as there is already a push to normalise paedophilia via queer theory (look up Derek Jensen (sp?) queer theory double jeopardy on YouTube).

Here it is.

Don't be so fucking ignorant, in more ways than one.

There have been serious proposals to have paedophilia recognised as a "sexual orientation" and added to the Alphabet Soup. Serious proposals from serious sexologists, not anime characters on Twitter.

"Speaking as a gay men, I believe we SHOULD include the P. To do otherwise is to betray the principles that give us our rights."
James Cantor

He is not the only one by any means.

The pro-paedophile organisation Prostasia is recognised as a "stakeholder" by the United Nations where it comes to internet censorship and has already succeeded in influencing UN policy.

Pedophilia Normalization And The Battle For Legislative Frameworks
https://thepublicinsight.org/paper/pedophilia-normalization-in-society-and-the-battle-for-legislative-frameworks/

How the IRS Enables a Pro-Pedophile Organization
To "promote greater well-being among individuals attracted to children."
https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-the-irs-enables-a-pro-pedophile-organization/

Prostasia has removed the names of "team members", like James Cantor, from its website
https://prostasia.org/blog/team/
but web archive org and archive today will find them for you.

Child Abuse Charity a Front for Paedophiles

Previous MN thread - Prostasia
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3943902-Prostasia

If you think that is Bosky being stupid you need your Fucking head testing. This is where a lot of this shit is leading and if you don't believe it, do some Fucking research.

Our MPs happily shared a social media platform where pedophiles advertised the children they would like rape - like 0-6m (zero to six months).

And...found in a public toilet the other week. The initials stand for Minor Attracted Person (pedo in old money) Pride. look at the cute little furry in the corner. You need to start waking up to the horrors that people are trying to make mainstream.

Police officers with furries.

Plenty of pics of furries chatting to tiny little kids in the ball pool at pride.

Good grief! What was that all about??

Twitter, AFAIK. Pre-Musk it was relatively common to stumble over users with their preferred “AOA” (age of attraction) in their bio.

I think it’s marginally better now, with such users having their accounts banned if they’re reported, but of course there will still be some who have flown under the radar thus far.

Twitter.

I haven't seen it lately, maybe Musk banned it.

But there were plenty of MAPS and NOMAPS with the ages of the children they were interested in written in their profiles.

For the blissfully uninformed:

Map = minor attracted person
No map = non offending minor attracted person

Sex education in schools needs to revert to biological facts only.

No more 'relationships' and values.

I don't trust the establishment to teach my children values and morality around relationships and sex.

Much of what is being pushed goes directly against many families values. So morality around sex education should be the families responsibility. Just the biological facts at school.

And what if the family morality around sex is that it's entirely acceptable to abuse your children?

Well that's against the law.

As I'm sure you're aware.

I'll clarify for those who have a hard time understanding;
So morality around sex education should be the families responsibility, within the law.

**

But how do you police that?

If you leave it entirely to parents to teach children what is appropriate around sex and those parents are abusive how will the child know that what is happening to them in wrong unless someone teaches them that.

Between:

Teaching kids too much and straying over into grooming

And:

Teaching kids too little so they can't recognise abuse

Is the happy medium which keeps kids safer from pedophiles, abuse and people trying to groom them. It's dangerous going too far in either direction.