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???

All the heteronormativepatriarchialmadeupwords stuff generally boils down to nothing more than 'I wanna smash everything'. For no reason, with no plan of what will come from it that will be better, but promoted by a whole lot of people very keen to remove boundaries from others. And it takes very little looking to discover the interest and histories of those keenest.

No thank you.

What they could have done is a simple one line statement that they do not believe the age of consent should be lowered. Or as they're international they could make a statement that they believe the age of consent should be 16, for example. Either of these would be simple and a clear refutation. Instead they wrote three paragraphs that avoids saying entirely that they don't want to lower the age of consent.

Yes, very telling.

The family is the bedrock of safeguarding. We KNOW that children without families are far more vulnerable to abuse.

The shaming of women who don't want kids/teens/young people adopted/groomed/child catched by random rainbow men/women/otherkin/furries by calling them heternormative patriarch capitalists is quite the take I've got to admit.

The thing is. Narcissistic, screwed up people are pretty evenly spread throughout society. The nuclear family is no more likely to have narcissists in it than anywhere else. The ‘chosen/found’ family is, therefore, no safe haven from screwed up people - they have no legal responsibility either.

This thread is the perfect illustration of why so called gender critical dare actually just anti-gay too.

The concept of ‘found family’ or ‘chosen family’ has not mushroomed. It has always been a key part of queer culture and history. And homophobes always claimed that kids were being groomed or turned gay or trans or led down some awful path by finding communities that supported them.

In addition the continued lie that ILGA supports lower age of consent has been debunked. They literally put out a statement saying explicitly that they do not support that. And yet, posters here still need to smear them.

Why? Because homophobia and transphobia.

It is anti groomer.

Unless you are saying gay people are groomers. That's pretty homophobic.

What they could have done is a simple one line statement that they do not believe the age of consent should be lowered.

Quite. What's the point of furiously claiming to make a statement addressing an accusation which you then go out of your way to avoid addressing!

it couldn't be more obvious.

That’s bollox.

Its homophobic precisely because it takes the leap that when gay people find their chosen families, those families are groomers.

It is a homophobic trope as old as time. It’s disgusting and those peddling it are scum.

Their statement explicitly said that they do not support lowering the age of consent.

All of the smears to the contrary are just typical homophobic dogwhistles.

Yes. I agree.

The messaging has been chosen for that exact emotional response. It is highly manipulative.

It is highly dangerous too. Because ‘found’ can also indicate desperation and this ‘finding’ community can be abusive to the foundling who had no where else to go.

On so many angles this messaging is horrifying.

They haven't addressed the specific reference. Why not? Why wouldn't you??

" Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents , people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use;"

According to the WHO "WHO defines 'Adolescents' as individuals in the 10-19 years age group"

Anyone with any familiarity of the context knows that this relates to those countries which have higher ages of consent for gay people or which criminalise sex between two people of the same age.

The declaration does not call for an elimination or reduction of the age of consent.

The wording is clumsy but ILGA have since specified that they do not support reducing the age of consent. Anyone still claiming they do are simply engaging in age old homophobic smears.

That statement did not actually address anything. Did they then go and reword their document? Yes or no?

Because that kind of open communication in that document with those clauses posted are absolutely ripe for abuse.

Issuing a weak statement that doesn’t explicitly say anything about maintaining current age of consent laws and safeguarding and not making modifications to include those protections is a distractive tactic. And shaming others for pointing it out without acknowledging there is substance to the argument is showing an ideologically entrenched mindset. Particularly when some posters then tie it to homophobia as another way to distract from what are valid arguments about poorly worded documents.

Why are you continuing to claim that ILGA don’t explicitly say they oppose reducing the age of consent when their statement says exactly that.

Could you post where they modified the declaration?

Perhaps if it isn't explicitly clear you should get on to Primark to warn them their actions look predatory rather than have a pop at people who point it out?

You think Primark weren’t aware that this campaign would enrage homophobes who have objected to the concept of a chosen family for as long as such a thing has existed?

You said that they ‘Issu[ed] a weak statement that doesn’t explicitly say anything about maintaining current age of consent laws’

That was a lie.

So where are we at now?

The orginal declaration was withdrawn after the very blatant loophole in the wording was pointed out. Was it ever modified? Yes? No?

So this supposed expert group IGLA, who are influencers of law and policy across the world just made an error?? And released a ‘how hateful are those who pointed it out’ statement without acknowledging they were complicit here.

And supposedly this leading world group didn’t run it past legal people first?

And feminists concerned with safeguarding are the haters here? We are the ones who are wrong to point out the issues with that declaration and the communication message from Primark.

Nothing to see here…. It is all just clumsy wording. No harm at all….

Ok. I was wrong.

You caught me out. How wonderful are you! Have you found where they put their words into action and changed the declaration?

I also said it was just words. Because that is what that statement was. If you wish to continue to argue your support for this organisation, fine. But your attempt to portray concern about safeguarding as being hate is quite clear.

Why should any person support a organisation who was part of releasing that document in the first place? They also did not acknowledge that there was cause for concern. The doubling down without making modifications is a sign that either they didn’t do their due diligence or they supported it until people pointed out the issue.

Neither is a sign that this organisation should be involved with people under the age of 18. Yet, you wish to support them. Go ahead. But stop trying to portray others as doing so from hate.

We can perhaps deal with that once you acknowledge and retract that your claim that ILGA ‘Issued a weak statement that doesn’t explicitly say anything about maintaining current age of consent laws’ was not true.

If you’re not willing to correct a blatant falsehood then you’re obviously not engaging in good faith.

And again. Did you post a link to a modified declaration?

I find your accusations of ‘not engaging in good faith’ to be rather empty and hypocritical.

“Anyone still claiming they do are simply engaging in age old homophobic smears.”

and

“Its homophobic precisely because it takes the leap that when gay people find their chosen families, those families are groomers.”

“It is a homophobic trope as old as time. It’s disgusting and those peddling it are scum.”

and this is just from this page. All emotionally manipulative, absolutist and distractive.

You are determined to frame concern as homophobia. And yet, you accuse me of ‘not engaging in good faith’.

But stop trying to portray others as doing so from hate

is ‘not doing so.’

Sometimes it is better.