Why are Primark promoting "Found Family"

[WandaWomblesaurus]

www.primark.com/en-us/a/inspiration/special-occasions/celebrating-found-families

"A Found Family Is About Finally Feeling Whole, Something That Might Be Absent In Your Biological Family, Like A Full Set Of Acrylic Nails Or A Good Pair Of Fake Lashes. It’s A Community You Choose, Whose Values And Honesty Speak To Your Own."
- Jude & Michael, Germany

What???

Indeed!

Come back hours later and people are still claiming that the declaration supported lowering age of consent (it didn’t) and that ILGA supported lowering the age of consent (they didn’t and explicitly said they didn’t).

It really is this simple. ILGA did not do what people are claiming that they did.

Falsely linking gay organisations to paedophile support is the oldest homophobic trope and those peddling it still are the lowest of the low.

I think Klaxon that your posts are sounding emptier and emptier of anything but repetition of the same old silencing techniques. And emptier of any knowledgeable contribution.

You can keep defending them using the exact same tactics that they used when others voiced concerns.

We will just continue to have the conversation around you.

You cannot engage with the substance of the issue. Your posts lack substance at all really by now. Just vague assertions that you cannot seem to back up and just as vague hand waving away of the issues. While you, personally, may accept lower standards of safeguarding for children and adolescents based on your ideological beliefs, I and others do not. And we hold EVERY organisation to maintain the strongest 'measures' and to prove that they have those in place within the organisation.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1363460713511103

'The International (Lesbian and) Gay Association and the question of pedophilia: Tracking the demise of gay liberation ideals'

Kinda looks like the claim to not be in any way associated with the P word that we cannot mention does indeed form part of one of the historical issues within the organisation.

'Abstract In 1993–1994, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) lost its observer status in the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) because US conservative groups publicised the membership of two pedophile groups. This article examines debates on pedophilia within ILGA before this event, and documents the slow decline of pro-pedophilia stances. It relates them to wider debates on gay liberation, and argues that pro-pedophilia arguments lost most of their appeal when new ways of imagining homosexual emancipation and new political goals emerged. Beyond the issue of intergenerational sex, it shows these debates were also about the kind of movement activists wanted to build together'

NAMBLA - the North American Man/Boy Love association were members for 15 years.

Them and two other member organisations were the ones kicked out.

I'd like to know where they published the checks that they now make on membership to avoid this situation occurring again. 'Lessons Learnt' I believe they call it.

‘We hold other organisations to’

LOL no you don’t.

If an organisation isn’t related to LGBT+ issues you lot don’t don’t to know.

Funny that.

Please provide evidence for this. Otherwise you have made yet another groundless accusation.

It is just another empty pivot. You have no fucking idea who any of us are. I can assure you, that I have been active with my child's school about safeguarding when it has had nothing to do with LGBT issues.

And by the way, 'you lot' is dehumanising in effect. Please don't use it. I don't believe anyone on this thread has dehumanised you, despite your constant and consistent personal attacks calling me a homophobe and a bigot. The dehumanisation of people who disagree with you is a classic tactic which leads to making the baseless accusations you have been making all over this thread.

'You lot'?

Parents.

In contrast, this statement from Oxfam is not a bad attempt:

"Oxfam believes that all people should be able to make decisions
which affect their lives, enjoy their rights and live a life free of
discrimination and violence, including people from LGBTQIA+
communities. In efforts to make an important point about the real
harm caused by transphobia, we made a mistake. We have
therefore edited the video to remove the term TERF and we are sorry
for the offense it caused. There was no intention by Oxfam or the
film-makers for this slide to have portrayed any particular person or
people."

"We fully support both an individual's rights to hold their
philosophical beliefs and a person's right to have their identity
respected, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity
and expression, and sex characteristics."

They have acknowledged the issue clearly and encapsulate much of the issue in this statement. They have stated what they intend to do to remedy the situation. It is not a very convincing statement in some areas because it is not believable that there was not intention to offend and I don't think that anyone will really believe that. However, it is certainly a better attempt than that from IGLA's accusatory and contradictory attempt.

This still will not re-establish trust with Oxfam but it will go some way. It at least showed they know they screwed up.

I doubt you will hear from TeaKlaxon again hellofabore.

You certainly won't see them addressing any of the points you've made.

Oh sorry - point me to the many threads you’ve been active on criticising corporate giving to any other of the 250 signatories to the feminist declaration?

Whats that? They don’t exist? Colour me surprised that the only thread bashing corporate giving to a signatory is in respect of corporate giving to an LGBT+ organisation.

Oh. I don’t know Datun. I think they have a few more baseless accusations that are fueled by their entrenched prejudice against regular posters on this board to throw.

Of course, by now we have all stopped posting for their benefit. It is just for readers now. To show the tactics used by organisations such as IGLA and their most avid supporters to shame into silence those with legitimate concerns.

Oh. Well. Look at that Datun! You are magic.

cool. Link me up to those threads where they are currently active in campaigning and I will go and post. I will start a new thread to bring it to others attention right after dinner.

Or is it that IGLA are active right now as the recipient of funds from Primark that is under discussion?

Is it that it is entirely relevant right now that we are having this conversation? It is not that hard really to see through to just another pivot and twist to make baseless accusations.

Fire away! Everyone is watching.

unfortunately it doesn't take magic!

Fire away! Everyone is watching.

Yep.

Hang on - you think the 250 signatories might have escaped your ire because they’re not campaigning and in receipt of corporate donations?

Seriously?

Lets just take one example - the https://csbronline.org/?p=2648.

This group signed the declaration. They have received financial support from Ford and Lush. So can you point me to where you have heavily invested time in decrying Ford and Lush for supporting a women’s rights organisation working across Muslim societies?

By the way, do you have the list of the other signatories? I mean, you want me to discuss only those that have no connection with LGBT issues, yes?

Care to point them out?

I do remember YWCA Australia on the list from memory. I most certainly have been in contact with them about safeguarding issues before to do with children in their care. But, I am certainly not about to post the details.

Lush has definitely been the topic of Mumsnet threads.

Unfortunately the search facility is so shite it is hard to go back and link them. Certainly not on a phone.

I can see many threads about other organisations, all over FWR. Why shouldn't any of them be exempt from questions just because it's a LGBTQIA hands knees and bumpsadaisy who knows what any of the letters mean any more (teflon) organisation?

Anyone working with kids should be subject to scrutiny. And any organisation working with kids, especially ones promoting the separation of kids from their families, should welcome robust scrutiny.

Care to list all the signatories because none of the archives that I have found have the list. Just the document.

And this is YOUR narrative that we are now discussing here. YOUR point that we are all homophobes because we have focused on IGLA.

If you want us to discuss this further, I suggest you post ALL the names. So that we can also NOT discuss those that represent any of the interests of the LGBT community. Because to discuss any of those organisations would be homophobic by your measure. You have repeated that for how many pages now.

So... Coalition for Sexual and Bodily Rights have LGBT member organisations. so no... sorry. By YOUR measure they are representing LGBT interests. We cannot discuss them.

For us to say anything about their signature on that declaration would be homophobic and bigoted.

Why do we have to call out the behaviour of Ford and Lush again? Did they sign the declaration?

Or is it that they have supported the organisation? The one that if we discuss it, we are homophobes and bigots?

Have Ford run a Pride event that discussed 'found families'? If so, again, point us in that direction! We will all have a go and have a look and see if when they have done so, they have considered safeguarding adequately in what they published.

If not, you are now just talking complete and utter bollocks that is irrelevant to the thread just to amplify your own deeply entrenched prejudice about the regular posters on this thread. Care to do another pivot? Is there yet another angle that you haven't tried yet to shame people who call out safeguarding concerns?

Looking forward to the list.

Where on this site have Lush been accused of supporting an organisation that backs paedophilia by funding the Coalition for Sexual and Bodily Rights in Muslim Societies?

I’d be willing to bet they haven’t been.

Im sure they’ve been criticised on here - but not because they funded a Feminist Declaration signatory.

No Alison.

We are not allow to question and check any LGBT group or one that has LGBT members because that would be homophobic and bigoted.

No. We are directly discussing IGLA and you have accused me and others of homophobia and bigotry for daring to point out the safeguarding failures of that organisation. Not the funders of the organisation. The actual organisation and its members that it represents.

Keep on focus here.

The Coalition, of course, may have LGBT organisations as members but the coalition itself is focused on gender equality. It is not itself a gay or lesbian organisation. Which is precisely why you’ve never attacked companies for funding it.

Its precisely why no one on this site has attacked companies for funding the Coalition.

Because you’re not actually bothered about companies funding Feminist Declaration signatories unless they present an opportunity to link gay and lesbian people to paedophiles.