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???

I mean TeaKlaxon, you must know that organisations clamouring to lower the age of consent for children, remove safeguarding and teaching little kids it's wrong to identify men as men, are bloody everywhere. It's like whack a mole.

Organisations that used to be considered respectable have been captured. The bloody NSPCC had an employee in a rubber gimp suit pissing at work and uploading it all onto a fetish site. They called women who objected, homophobic too, funnily enough.

It's the to go to shaming tactic.

And it doesn't work.

I can calmly assure you, if you wish to adequately distance yourself from this PR nightmare, you absolutely acknowledge it and declare your intentions to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

Why do you believe a group who is so influential follows this: “You look at what the accusation being levelled against you is (that you want lower or no age of consent) and you issue a statement explicitly and expressly setting out that that is not the case.”?

The clause absolutely was clumsily written. It should have been amended and ANY future declarations should use very clear language. It really doesn’t matter what YOU believe is widely ‘understood’ as common language. That too is a failure, that it wasn’t run past legal people in each and every organisation.

“Anyone still falsely claiming you believe it expose themselves for the homophobes they are.”

No. Positioning objections on this thread to this as homophobia really is dishonest.

No. Positioning objections on this thread to this as homophobia really is dishonest.

And if ILGA thinks that, it's the work of a second to dispel it entirely.

Otherwise, of course, this is going to be coming up time, after time, after time. Every time someone reads it, in fact.

Ok. You have made this assertion. Please post links where the exact same language has been used in the UN.

Because you have now tried to double down that the phraseology is well used and well understood. I think it time for you to post the links so we see what you mean please.

I don’t know of any UN document that has not received significant pushback from feminists that has had such language open to interpretation.

It's what feminists do. They go through every single declaration with a bloody fine tooth comb, to make sure nothing has been put forward under the radar.

Maybe without the authors even quite realising.

We see it all the time.

What’s that got to do with the verifiable facts in this case that the lies that ILGA support lowering the age of consent are untrue?

That is all this really boils down to.

Does ILGA support that or not.

If they do not, and if it is clear that they do not, then continued false claims that they do can only be motivated by one thing.

Yes. And in all my years in comms, if someone popped a statement over my desk that was absolutely core to the values of the organisation, I would get it checked with legal.

And if we had misstepped to such a degree as this, and I was the stategist of the organisation, I would doing everything in my power not to be in that situation again. I would be absolutely working behind the scenes to make sure it didn’t.

But support for the declaration is still out there. What happens, next time someone mentions it? Are you going to call them homophobic until the end of time?

You might if you were dancing to the tune of British bigots, sure.

But if you represent 1700 organisations across the world advocating for LGBT+ rights, you probably have more important things to worry about than what some British bigots think. Especially because those same bigots would object to virtually anything you said. Because they lie beef is not with what they (falsely) claim you believe. It is with the people you advocate for.

You know, we had Stonewall insisting that they were not trying to remove woman's rights, whilst simultaneously trying to remove the single sex exemptions to the equality act.

So, just to be clear, you are now accusing women on this thread of not only being ‘homophobic’ but ‘bigots’?

Why British bigots? Hellofabore's not British, as far as I know.

British bigots.

I missed this one.

So, apparently you have just stated that I am homophobic and potentially transphobic as well.

I have since asked for the language to be confirmed with a link. I look forward to that since you here have offerred discussion about the language.

Just to repeat, yet again, you seem to be unable to engage at all without accusations of homophobia and hate. I think everyone reading this can see this.

Do you think this is a convincing tactic?

TeaKlaxon

You know there were loads of objections to that paragraph. That's why ILGA issued a statement.

They know it's been misinterpreted across the board. It's got nothing to do with homophobia or bigotry.

And the statement simply isn't sufficient. They will get asked again.

As soon as the next person comes across the declaration and thinks what the hell...

Do I identify as British today? Not today.

Can you please clarify who represents 1700 organisations please?

IGLA?

TeaKlaxon

Can I just clarify, when you use the word homophobic, are you using it in the correct way, to refer to an objection to same-sex attraction? Or in the trans ideological way, to refer to gender identity attraction?

Yes I noticed that. Interesting. 'Chosen' of course implies agency. 'Found', less so.

Sorry. Don’t worry about clarifying. I finally got my slow Internet to pull up the information.

So an organisation who is so massive that it represents 1600 + organisations did not put this document through legal advisors? And should not be interested at all in making sure this ambiguous wording is used again, and making it publicly known that the wording was ambiguous and that in future more care will be taken?

And apparently, at the same time, lack the influence to “dictate the language used in discourse around women’s rights to discuss a real issue that needs to be addressed.”

ok. We get it!

Not to be trusted to provide adequate legal services, and has no influence at all over any language used for women.

“ambiguous wording is used again”

should obviously be ‘not’ used again.

Meh she'll have to identify as one just as all the lesbians on the thread will now have to identify as homophobic lesbians!

What are they doing in this situation then?

Why this campaign? Why use kids specifically in the marketing? Where does the money that is raised by selling this stuff go? Who benefits?

I have no facts, I'm asking questions which are apparently not allowed to be asked. When you have no answers it is easy to throw 'homephobic bigot' in the direction of people who ask. But why not try and actually answer them?

If Primark are making money out of 'gay and lesbian found family legend' then on what basis are they entitled to do so?

You seem incredibly hung up on this idea of legal advisers. The declaration has no legal effect. I’ve no idea who in ILGA reviewed the document but there are absolutely no legal impediments to them signing up to the feminist declaration and absolutely no legal implications from a bunch of homophobes insisting that the declaration means something it doesn’t.

So again, the situation is clear. ILGA could not have been more explicit that they do not support lower age of consent. So why are people continuing to insist that they do?