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???

... and 'gays', while you're at it.

Ah, but you see, unless you can define homosexuality, a gay woman could be a male heterosexual.

I have looked on their site.

Hence I understand they are no where near as influential as IGLA.

Hence I understand they are not as large as IGLA.

hence I understand that they have nothing that I could find about the donations you mention. (Link that up if it is on the website please)

Hence I understand they are an organisation focused on sex and bodily autonomy. And that LGB is all about that too.

Hence I understand that SEX is their focus.

Remarkable isn’t it.

Saves me typing 👆

No they couldn’t.

But either way, I am a cisgender woman who is a lesbian.

So yeah, forgive me if I can spot a homophobic dog whistle a mile off.

Haha!! Who am I meant to be whistling to??

My comment's addressed to you.

So you're not a proponent of transgender ideology? You do not believe that there is any such thing as a woman with a penis?

That's one good thing I suppose.

So now being focused on bodily autonomy makes an organisation an LGBT+ organisation!

Tell that to every pro-choice organisation!

You lot are getting closer and closer to Kellie-Jay’s ‘not a feminist’ and ‘losing abortion is a price worth paying’ strand of thinking.

Next I assume this board will be filled with the Concerned Feminists of Mumsnet explaining that actually ‘Posie’ is right that affordable childcare should not be a public policy goal.

What has the ‘intention’ of the declaration got to do with the legitimate concerns about the clause that we have been discussing for pages now?

Do you feel that if something had good intentions, then the problematic clauses should be ignored? Just hand wave it away? Dismiss it by accusing those who identify that there is significant concern as being driven by hate?

Hardly something to aspire to really?

The intention of the declaration has been explained and therefore no discussion into the declaration’s flaws will be accepted. Because the intentions of the declaration has been explained and that is all that matters.

wonderful stuff really.

Sex klaxon… amazing how you missed the first word about what they represent to go for the zinger.

How amazing you skipped the word ‘sex’ and focused on something that is also important, but not as important. See how I worded it in the sentence? Sex was first.

I think even you will have to admit that is dishonest.

The rest of this post is just more of your prejudice on display.

And again, dehumanising language.

I don't think commercial companies should really be able to promote any idealogy/cause. I think they should stick to retailing their products and charities should stick to fundraising campaigns for causes rather than seeking sponsorship from brands/shops.

It'd be nice if I didn't have to check what random cause I was promoting before buying something these days. It doesn't really seem fair either that shops look for the cause most likely to sell and make them more money

It’s not ‘prejudice’ to point out that the high priestess of transphobia is a far-right supported self-described non-feminist who is comfortable with abortion rights being rolled back, wants to roll back Gillick competence and has recently declared that affordable childcare is a bad thing because women want to be at home with their kids.

Those are all just plain facts.

Good lord.

I hate to break it to you tea, but slagging off Posie Parker isn't an improvement on your defence of ILGA.

high priestess of transphobia is a far-right supported...

Not this crap AGAIN

Factual statements of her position wasn’t ‘prejudice’ when the other one said it was, and it’s not ‘slagging off’ either.

Still, at least you and Posie Parker have in common that neither of you think women can have penises. Along with accusations of transphobia because of it, presumably.

Or is she is transphobic for thinking women can't have penises, but you're not transphobic because you looked like you were saying it, but, er, weren't? You know, in that wonderfully clarifying way you have.

And around we go again.

I don’t believe you have any intention in doing anything but denigrating people you disagree with.

You ignored the word ‘sex’ and went on some journey that you are now attempting to justify.

You have been the poster who declared that the Coalition did not represent LGB interests. I clearly pointed out that the first priority of their’s is sex. Which you ignored and are now attempting to portray me as homophobic.

What a surprise?

And by the way, you were the one attempting to use this organisation as some kind of example as being one that me and everyone should know about. Despite the fact you have not produced anything to show where you even found the reference for them being a signatory from.

Despite the fact that no list of signatories has been produced by you.

Despite you claiming that we should be addressing all non-LGBT representing organisations and because we haven’t, because the list has been removed from public view, we are only motivated by what you accuse us of.

You really have nothing else. All you can do is make ridiculous accusations to hide your lack of substance.

I have legitimate safeguarding concerns. Why don’t you? Oh that is right… because of the ‘intentions’ of the declaration. And because you felt a contradictory statement that was highly unprofessional and that didn’t address the issue of the declaration should make everyone trust an organization that proved that its ‘strict measures’ to protect children and adolescents was a demonstrably false.

And you keep using the language “link a queer organisation to paedophilia.” That is a tactic too. You write to attempt to delegitimise the safeguarding concerns with this language.

No. I have consistently pointed out safeguarding issues. Paedophilia links to queer organisations is your singular issue. Not mine. Have I even mentioned paedophilia? Yet you mention it constantly.

What benefit to children and adolescents do you think ignoring the safeguarding concerns that were associated with the language of that clause delivers?

Any? Or does it just make you feel righteous to throw around the accusations that you do?

What is the difference between its practical meaning and what it is intended to achieve? Please explain.

I am just as happy to go back and replace ‘intention’ with ‘what the declaration supports’. To me it makes no difference.

In your rush to jump on the inconsequential use of a word, you seemed to have missed the substance of the post.

Should people, by focusing on what the declaration supports, ignore the safeguarding concerns about specific clauses? Just hand wave the problematic clauses away? Dismiss it by accusing those who identify that there is significant concern as being driven by hate?

Because you explained what the declaration supports, no further discussion is acceptable on sections that have concerning consequences left with the original wording?

Just because you explained what the declaration supported. Nothing else matters.

Fucking hell. Who, pray tell, is ‘the other one’?

You really are giving this live demonstration your all tonight. All based on your own prejudice about posters on the FWR board.

It is remarkable to see. It really is.

Pages of baseless and meaningless accusations. Because of what? You don’t believe that IGLA should have its track record regarding safeguarding measures scrutinised.

When you see it reader, you cannot unsee it.

So many words. So many words to rewrite what we can see.
The found families idea started with the 'G' (yeah we all know the 'L' can tag along. What the 'B' is around too?) but the essence of the message is all about the 'T'. The crux of the message is we must accept the 'T'. That's all they are trying to say. It's the hidden forced teaming that's getting people's backs up. In this thread, the word queer is doing a lot of heavy lifting hiding.

The idea of creating a 'sacred caste' that cannot and shall not be questioned as their motives are pure, is the very reason that abusers and paedphiles flock to become one of the sacred caste in the first place.

And you cannot say that ILGA is not aligned with paedophiles as a paedophile was part of the group that started it and it had paedophiles as members for 15 years without anyone apparently lifting an eyebrow.

You'd think those associated with the sacred caste would want these abusers and paedophiles to be continuously kept out rather than shout down anyone looking into it, so the influx of people shouting down people looking into it, is indeed quite eyebrow raising.

Indeed. The creation of an untouchable group is exactly what happens with statements such as that put out by IGLA. And with what is happening here.

So what that someone ‘explained what the declaration supports’. It is absolutely laughable to think that should mean no discussion should be had. That no analysis should be done. Fuck that! It is simply laughable.

The attempts of bullying people by calling them homophobic and bigoted for pointing out legitimate concerns is exactly what creates untouchable groups. Whether that is the intention or not. That is the outcome.

If any movement or group cannot withstand scrutiny where something has gone awry, then there is something very wrong happening. And hand waving it away is just fucking dangerous.

@AlisonDonut I meant, that LGBTQI+ people can spend money on the people they feel "more connected to and accepted by.....who are not related (to them) by blood" as well as "anyone wishing to support Pride" at Primark by purchasing from the "Found Family" connection. So the flow of money is from the accounts of those who wish to give something to their "Found Family" or who might feel an affinity with the idea of a "Found Family" to Primark.