Our children should not be able to get advice on DIY Transgender HRT from Reddit. Like this 13 year old.

I just said I had no experience of parenting teenagers, not that I couldn’t possibly comment.

THIS THREAD isn’t just about child safeguarding online, it’s ALSO safeguarding from genderism ideology. Like I already said. They are linked. They aren’t mutually exclusive. Read the thread title, you seem to have forgotten about it.

You might have to look at your own comprehension skills. I’m out as you’re boring me now. Stick to commenting on threads you are actually interested in, makes for a better forum experience (in my opinion).

You're the one who made out you couldn't possibly comment on how to protect children online because you've never parented a teenager but you imagine it must be hard.

Spoiler alert, it's not hard. Just don't give them access unsupervised! Then whether it's the scary genderists or paedophiles or groomers, your child won't be harmed by them!

No, the thread, at its core, is about children not being protected from harm online due to poor parenting. Again, this is not new, when I was a teenager we were all buying diet pills on dodgy sites and Pro Ana was everywhere.

The internet is dangerous for all sorts of reasons and parents should be protecting their children.

You literally said ‘you have no experience of parenting teenagers so what do you have to add to the discussion’ whilst having no experience of parenting teenagers! 🤯

Someone is at it, or been at the Kool Aid.

You come on to a thread which at the core is genderism, moaning about genderism, and that people who are interested in genderism (and the negative effects) are going to turn up and speak about… genderism.

I couldn’t think of a more waste of my time than commenting on threads I’m not interested in because I wanted to prove some weird point that no one else cares about.

If anyone needs a hobby it’s not me 🤣. While you’re at it learn how discussion forums work.

I have addressed it. My daughter is not yet a teenager but she won't be having unsupervised internet access at 13.

Are your comprehension skills as poor as they appear? Like you said, you're making a tit of yourself!

It was relevant to mention the usual posters, because it was predictable. And here you are! One of the others turned up too but didn't feel the need to argue with me about my prediction coming true.

I told you why I'm commenting despite not being interested in the topic, I'm interested in yours and others behaviour. I find it amusing. Are you ok? You seem ruled up and confused.

If you're so superior, why are you 'biting' and doing exactly what you always do, like I said you would before you did it? You need a hobby!

Is wringing my hands about other people's poor parenting going to have any impact? Will it protect their children? Will any of the posts on this thread make any difference? Really? What have you done to improve online child safeguarding today? Simply caring doesn't equate to actually doing anything useful btw.

You mean older teenagers - who could easily be 18 or 19?

@Glitterknickerbockers you also didn't address whether you had yourself parented teenagers, as that seemed to be important to you whether one was allowed to comment or not.

If you’re not interested in the topic why are you commenting?! 😂 And why are you asking me why I’m commenting on a thread about child safeguarding?! The thread is about a 13 year old on a forum called Transgender UK wanting to access HRT, and you are surprised when people want to discuss or ‘froth’ as you put it about Genderism - it’s LITERALLY WHAT IT’S ABOUT. Are you ok?!

The same old posters are saying the same old things because the same old shit is still happening when it comes to gender nonsense - which I’ll repeat again because you aren’t grasping this - IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. Child safeguarding includes safeguarding from gender ideology.

However if you hadn’t mentioned posters which wasn’t really relevant to the post in the first place, then said poster (note just one poster, me) wouldn’t have felt the need to to comment. So really, no point has been proven here. The regulars didn’t show up, I merely answered your point that you had to make twice before you got a bite. Also discussion evolves, of course it’s going to possibly discuss that Reddit forum in general. The clue is in the name.

Honestly, at this stage you’re making a tit of yourself.

Your comment that you're "not interested in child protection" speaks volumes. Every adult who says such a thing should be ashamed of themselves - protecting children - even if it were their parents' fault - should concern all of us.

Why do you think that I hate it when women agree with other women? What an odd conclusion to come to. Half the population are going to have many things to agree on.

My points were that the same old posters are still saying the same old things many years on and surprisingly have not got bored of doing something you have proved this point. My other point was that the Reddit post being deleted is irrelevant, the thread would be about transgender people and the same old GC rhetoric by page 2 with the original starting post forgotten about. Also proven this one 👍

My post didn't mention child safe guarding because as previously mentioned, I'm not interested in the topic, it's quite simple, children who are groomed or harmed online have shit parents who have failed to protect them. It's an open and shut case. What interests me is the frothing over genderism that is incessant on MN. You clearly don't want to engage in conversation about the actual topic of safeguarding teenagers online, you want to make it about the genderists and women's rights. Another point proven. Thanks!

13 year olds should not have unfettered access to the internet, and when we are aware, we adults should not respond to children posting on the internet in the same way we respond to another adult.

There are already legal limits on using social media, they're just easy to get around because the enforcement on the platforms is minimal. Governments are talking about banning all social media for under 16's because it has had popular push for those wanting to blame social media for everything and it perpetuates the common refrain that the government is needed to solve problems, which benefits them

I'm on my 4th 13 year old, he doesn't have social media, but is still aware of all of this going on. Social media isn't the only place this type of thing is talked about where kids can access it.

Lock it down. People are stupid and don’t care. The average is is 100. Half the people you see In The street are 99 or less.

Locking it down requires people to do so. The people who would be locking it down and controlling it would be those in and working for the government. Do you think they understand and care enough to be trusted to do so? Do you think those in government may have a conflict of interest in controlling information and being seen as the solution to all problems?

I presume by 'the average is 100' that you mean IQ. 100 is the mean average for IQ tests because that how people make IQ tests. The different types of IQ tests are redone regularly so that 100 is the average for a particular age at a particular time. People are, on average, about 17 points higher than we were in the 1950s, depending on which data is used to compare, but the tests and scoring have been adjusted to accommodate for that to keep it at 100 average. 99 or even 90 isn't a poor IQ, and no IQ score says anything about whether or not someone cares or knows anything on a specific topic.

I’m no longer sure what your points actually are so I don’t know if I’m proving them (I don’t think I am though). I know that you hate when women agree with other women though on various points.

Your first post was this - ‘I'm surprised this thread is so quiet, is Mumsnet finally getting bored of posting the same thing over and over again in the gender wars?’

What did your post mentioning gender wars have to do with child safeguarding?

I also ‘banged on’ about impressionable teenagers and the effect gender ideology has on them, which is part of this thread.

Do you only get to comment if you have direct experience of something? What a bizarre take. I’ve never been raped or murdered but I could still muster up opinions on them. I have also been 13 at one point with access to the internet. You say your daughter is a baby so do YOU have experience of parenting teenagers yet?

Has it not occurred to you that you have proven my point?

You have managed to bang on about women's rights on a thread about child safe guarding just because trans gender was mentioned.

You also say you have no experience of parenting teenagers so what useful points do you have to add to the discussion? I was doing all sorts online when I was 13, now I'm an adult and understand the danger of what I was accessing I'm horrified that my parents allowed it. My daughter is only a baby but when she's 13 she sure as hell won't be having unsupervised internet access. She won't be having a smart phone or internet access on her computer. Governments are talking about banning all social media for under 16's for a reason.

It's also hardly 'proving your point' when I'm the only one who bothered to engage with you.

Undoubtedly - so the answer is the lock down/censor/dumb down absolutely everything because some people are ignorant/stupid?

Or perhaps it might be better to educate people?

It’s a discussion forum. Do you know how they work?

You were being sneary about those who all agree that gender ideology in the most part is negative for women and impressionable teens.

You pondered if those had got bored with gender chat as it was quiet (thus robbing you of your chance to sneer further).

No I’m not bored of gender chat, that’s why I responded, why would I be? Until the madness stops I’ll continue to debate it/agree with those who also understand basic fact and biology and want to retain single sex spaces, sports and leave kids the fuck alone.

Why that bothers you is anyone’s guess. Scraping the barrel for entertainment but it’s par for the course like the rest who pop up on FWR to complain about women discussing women’s rights. What part do you actually disagree with, out of interest? I was bored enough to respond to you though while I was getting my hair cut, granted.

Shit parents and genderists I would say. How much protection can a parent give a teenager and what they access on the internet? I’d imagine it’s quite difficult to keep tabs on even with privacy settings etc. I’ve no experience of parenting teenagers.

Unfortunately many parents have no idea their children are exposed to all this stuff until it's too late.

Exactly.

You could have just ignored it and scrolled on by instead of proving my point 👍

Clearly you haven't got bored like I initially assumed! Oh well. Maybe one day you will. I didn't engage in the post because I'm not interested, I just find the behaviour the FWR usuals display entertaining.

What is your opinion on shitty parents not protecting their children from harmful online content? Are they blameless here because it's all the genderists fault? This whole post can be summed up as shit parents don't protect their children from harmful online content.

It never went away but the tide has definitely turned and the gender woo grift has been well and truly exposed.

Sanity in believing biological reality is starting to return. Operation let them speak is doing its job

Unfortunately many parents have no idea their children are exposed to all this stuff until it's too late.

From the person whose only initial contribution to a topic was ‘where’s the regulars to all agree on a topic’ ‘it’s quiet without them’ blah blah without actually contributing to the topic in hand. And somehow manages to find offense when your two crap pointless posts are scrutinised.

Do you think if you’d just posted your first paragraph instead of looking to pick fights with ‘FWR regulars’ and falling over yourself to use the phrase ‘FWR bingo’ this dialogue would be happening?

You’re right, you can’t make it up. Just post about the topic the OP posted about and these interactions you hate but were clearly seeking wouldn’t happen. That’s what’s hilarious. Though what one finds hilarious is up for debate clearly.