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’m a lesbian who has been frequently called homophobic (though only on this site funnily enough) because I also support trans people - like most of the lesbians I know.

Please do not call homosexual people 'homophobes' for having serious concerns about a movement that waves a lot of rainbows and claims to represent them while wishing to end homosexuality.

As a gay person I’ll call anyone I like a homophobe where they express homophobia but thanks for the lecture.

Oh lord, not 'most lesbians will give sex to straight men and only you hateful weirdos say no' again......

Got the bloody t shirt mate. Heard it.

I'd ask you to define what you mean by 'homophobe' when it requires acceptance first of what homosexuality means, but why bother. You do you. A bit of coping with the idea that other people exist too and would like to be homosexual in peace might be nice though.

Sure. Other people exist.

And on this thread many of them are engaging of the age old practice of falsely linking an LGBT+ organisation to paedophilia, and decrying the sort of support networks gay and lesbian people have relied upon for generations.

You can pretend that’s not homophobic all you like. It has no credibility however.

I don't give a fuck who sleeps with who.

If you are a lesbian who likes to have sex with penis people and call actual lesbians who don't 'homophobic'...then I'm not sure what right you have to call anyone anything. Because that would make you 'straight' or 'bisexual'.

Because this organisation supported this declaration. Putting the organisations support behind any political declaration needs to be run past legal eyes in my point of view to ensure that, in fact, the exact wording of every single clause is something that organisation agrees with. It also needs to go past the strategy team, and the marketing team. Not just the PR team.

You are here telling us what you think this organisation should have done PR wise, yet you seem to have failed to grasp this detail. While yet again seeking to shame and emotionally manipulate posters on this thread who are pointing out alternative views.

So, just to be clear. Yet again. It is not homophobic to point out that the wording of that clause was problematic.

An organisation could have and, in this case, should have ensured that such wording is never used again.

Yes they are using PRIDE whatever that is these days, to make money. I'm asking question about the impact of that.

You know we didn't prepare the marketing pictures right?

The ones with kids in.

That is them. Not us.

How do you know it wasn’t run past legal teams?

Ive seen nothing to suggest ILGA disagree with what the clause means. They disagree with the dishonest interpretations that have been put out about it.

And yes, when a gay rights organisation explicitly says it does not support a reduction in the age of consent but someone continues to falsely insist that they do - that is homophobic, plain and simple.

What’s that got to do with my post?

Do you think two kids featuring in a marketing campaign with who I assume is their mum somehow proves that ILGA supports paedophilia or that found families are grooming?

Those are the two claims that I say are homophobic. How does Primark using kids in its promotional material affect either of those two claims?

How is it their mum when the whole campaign is about 'found family'?

Some of my found family have kids, as do I. Don't die of shock.

Oh FFS - a campaign focused on found family does not mean every one in the campaign is found family.

Are you seriously implying that the mixed race kids who look about 7 or 8, with the mixed race woman who looks to be in her thirties or forties, and who are described as ‘Lowe and Family’ are being groomed?

You lot are genuinely barmy.

Now let’s get back to the question - how do these two kids appearing in this marketing campaign support the two homophobic claims made on here that:

[a] ILGA supports paedophilia; or
[b] LGBT+ chosen families = grooming?

Also, to clarify, found family can also apply to someone’s kids depending on the context.

She may well be their bio mum, and they are not a ‘chosen’ family in the traditional sense of the term (nothing implies that everyone in the promo are related to each other through a found family).

It may also be that she is a step mum, or the found family of mum or dad.

There are many less batshit, homophobic explanations for the relationship between that woman and the kids than that she is grooming them.

Can I just clarify? You do think that lesbians can have a penis?

And when you use the word homophobic, you do include same gender attraction in that? So opposite sex?

By the way, any way we can get the link to where that exact phraseology has been used in U.N discussions or papers please. Because you claim that that phrase had been commonly used.

I am referring to this section :

“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;"

That is the statement under discussion. I believe that has been the one that has been shown to be poorly written by safeguarding and legal experts.

You have stated this language is common. So show us where it is ‘common’ to make such an open statement as:

Eliminate all laws and policies …. including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents , people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex

I have to admit that the continued doubling down and dismissal of the potential harm of this statement is troubling. The fact some posters have taken your ‘it is just common language’ as being satisfactory as an explanation is also troubling. But I am very happy to see your support for this claim. Please do link it up.

or

Has this statement been written and affirmed by everyone because they all just made a dangerous assumption that everyone else read it closely?

Are you generally satisfied with organisations of this supposed caliber making statements that are clearly open to misinterpretation, because only a ‘hateful person’ would ever think anything else? And do you then wonder why people point out issues with those organisations?

I don’t believe any organisation that put their name to that declaration should be considered completely reliable to understand safeguarding needs. And if I were a politician and having one of these lobby groups talk to me, I would be taking extra steps to deeply check everything they recommend from every angle before ever repeating anything one of these organisation’s publishes.

For what it is worth, I don’t believe any poster on this thread would disagree with the standardisation of the age of consent for any person. Just to be clear, I don’t believe any poster on this thread would disagree that a teen of same sex orientation or bisexual orientation should have the same age of consent as for heterosexual teens.

However, any strategy, any recommendation, any communication needs to be very clear, very precise about what it is supporting. No ambiguity. No unclear statements.

Your continued accusations of ‘homophobia’ are ludicrous and are simply a tactic to silence this discussion.

The question I am asking is, again, why are Primark getting involved in this, and what qualifications do they have to get involved in it? What is it they are actually doing and why choose young kids as part of their promotions? Who benefits? Who does any of the money that Primark makes from this funnel through to?

And what is that being spent on?

Feel free to provide actual answers if you can write a sentence without 'phobia' in there somewhere.

There is tons of literature out there discussing non-criminalisation of adolescent sexuality. It’s really not my job to do your research for you.

But you’re now just proving the ridiculousness of this thread. The worst you can now argue is that ILGA got the PR and handling of this wrong.

They have been explicit that they do not want a lower age of consent and do not support sexual activity below the age of consent. So what are we left with? What’s the outrage about? That they could have handled it better.

I disagree for the reasons I’ve set out above. But even if you were right, the level of outrage over what you are essentially calling a PR problem is ridiculous.

Thats to say nothing if the poster who saw two kids with a woman who looks like their mum and assumed that because the woman is also (presumably) queer, the kids are exemplars of grooming.

Can you point out just where IGLA’s statement directly refers to the declaration under discussion here.

“ILGA World is appalled that false stories are circulating attempting to imply that ILGA World is advocating to lower or eliminate the age of consent. ILGA World categorically, and in no uncertain terms, does not advocate to eliminate or lower the general age of consent, nor supports paedophilia in any way, shape or form - and never has. Our position on this is clear and a matter of public record. These spurious claims, as old as homophobia itself, are dangerous and irresponsible, and we urge those making or sharing them, to stop.”

“ILGA World calls for the strengthening of the rights of children and young people, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and condemns all forms of abuse (including sexual abuse), coercion, and exploitation of children and young people.”

”As regards our member organisations, we take strict measures to ensure that they abide by our values, and they are thoroughly screened during the application process. Any complaints or information received about members advocating or promoting paedophilia, are dealt with, and if founded will result in their expulsion from ILGA World.”

Yet, they continued to support the declaration. You find anyone who disagrees homophobic. I find that a lazy dishonest tactic. Because to me, this is about safeguarding. And this organisation represents 1600+ (1700 by your reckoning) other organisations.

And you wonder why we have expressed significant distrust in their statement and their words? You obviously want to position people as being ‘against’ homosexual and bisexual people if they point out the significant problems with the wording of:

“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;"

Instead of engaging with the substance, you tried to dismiss it numerous times while resorting to personal attacks.

I think, unless you can find the exact wording used elsewhere, we can dismiss your breezy “it is common use” with its appeal to higher authority as ‘in discussions in the UN’ and wherever.

Similar language, maybe . Similar language that is clear in making sure it doesn’t inadvertently advocate elimination of age of consent for adolescents ? Most likely. But that is not what you have said. You have resorted to doubling down at all costs on this thread. While attacking others.

This language- I would be very very surprised. And anyone believing your hand waving is missing the point being raised.

Go sealion someone else

Those questions have been answered.

Now can you explain how any of that is relevant to the claims I have made about homophobic viewpoints in here.

In particular - do you agree that it is homophobic to claim a gay organisation supports paedophilia even after they have been explicit that they do not support a reduction in the age of consent?

And do you agree that blanket claims that important support networks that have been critical for gay people for generations are ‘grooming’ are homophobic?

And can you back up claims that this campaign supports grooming?