It's a sad day when pie has power on mn

Are we pretending that this dangerous material isn't in our primary schools now? Are we pretending that teens-with-a-secret (regardless of medical interventions) aren't prime targets for abusers? Are we ignoring the fact that all our safeguarding procedures were bought with the suffering of children and are there for very good reason?

Wow. Yep. Nothing worrying about an airy brushing aside. Nothing at all.

Puberty blockers when taken from a young age do not allow the child to mature psychologically.

@floorplan @confessions
I get your logic but... Most trans youth begin hormone therapy at around 16 and start going through the puberty the hormones are signalling for. So they wouldn't be pre-pubescent for long.

Not to mention this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how child abusers work. I mean, it's not like kids below 16 aren't going through puberty already and despite that are still targets for abusers.

Abusers aren't all that interested in how far developed someone is, they tend to be interested in manipulation and the power they have over someone. That's why they choose 'weaker' victims like children, who they know often don't know how to report anything or are scared of threatened consequences if they do.

And considering trans youth see a whole variety of specialists, including numerous therapists, along their journey towards medical interventions. It's hard to imagine that child abuse would slip through the gaps and not be noticed by someone.

Plus when we add the tiny minority factor in - that is that trans kids are a teeny tiny majority of kids - it all makes it seem really unlikely that child abusers would target trans kids.

Not to sound grim as heck here, but with the sheer number of young cis kids vs trans kids on blockers, even the creeps who prefer pre pubescent kids would have a far easier time targeting cis kids, not trans.

So I don't really think this worst case scenario idea you've got going on holds all that much water.

My post was deleted, I'd love to know why exactly? I'm not sure how exactly I was outing the user I posted about. All I did was show some of her tweets to show how the attitude that trans and Paedophilia are linked is definitely present on this forum. @MNHQ?

De Becker states it is not your responsibility to work out the motive of someone who breaks safeguarding. And that;

"The best cons make the victim want to participate."

@sophiemumsnet

Why should we avoiding conflating tactics used by TRAs and by PRAs? Do you mean conflating motives? because I get that, although I might not agree, I could stick to that. But pointing out the similar tactics, and the risk that PRAs could benefit from TRA lobbying is reasonable and necessary. Why is it verboten?

But what I do question is the reaction of the trans lobby groups to those who point out these safeguarding failures in their material. Information about safeguarding loopholes brought to them should result in an immediate change to the material, not shrieks of bigotry. That shrieks of bigotry is the reaction and the material remains the same tells me a great deal about the fitness of such groups to advise anyone about anything, ever. And about the fitness of such groups to be given government funding of any kind.

This, with bells on.

I don't doubt there are many PIE members who would love the concept prescribing of puberty blockers to children

But what I do question is the reaction of the trans lobby groups to those who point out these safeguarding failures in their material. Information about safeguarding loopholes brought to them should result in an immediate change to the material, not shrieks of bigotry. That shrieks of bigotry is the reaction and the material remains the same tells me a great deal about the fitness of such groups to advise anyone about anything, ever. And about the fitness of such groups to be given government funding of any kind

YY. This Lang.

Any other group would have to immediately retract, grovel and maybe someone would resign. When has a TRA or Stonewall ever apologised or condemned any 'extremist' trans statements? Like transwomen are female? Or the violence? Or the attack on Alison Moyet? Never that I am aware of. They do not distance themselves at all - that is deeply concerning.

Because however well intentioned this is, and however innocent people’s motives, it’s going to reduce safeguarding - it already is doing; for example in Scotland the confidential disclosure in schools. We need to be very clear that these loopholes will be exploited. Not by transpeople - by people who want to harm children.

I do agree Babel

I think we also need to say that some transwomen are paedophiles, as there are also tranwomen sex offenders against women. There are 3 convicted transwomen paedophiles (who abused in positions of trust not as family members) in my small neighbouring region alone, (that have been reported in the paper) all of whom are MtF. Again it is not female women that we need to be so wary of.

It is entirely conceiveable that these transwomen paedophiles would try to reduce safeguarding for children by influencing policy in their favour.

I want to be able to say this without getting shouted down or banned.

With the steamrollering of women's and lesbian's boundaries that is happening already, I do not trust all TRAs to be able to look at their policies objectively and make sure that see the downsides of the polcies that they are pushing.

When we post here, we are not hiding anything or keeping thing back.

Scrutiny and in particular public scrutiny is essential to democracy.

I've been wondering about this since even before I joined MN (just over 18 months ago). My experiences with some male TRAs in real life spiked my spidey senses (although I didn't use that term until post MN).

What rubbish bigoldscaredycat. This sort of hyperbole does no one any favours.

If there were any remaining doubt that Mumsnet is an active participant in the silencing and censorship of women, this should remove it.

Mumsnet and Justine are not on the side of GC women, even when we have legitimate safeguarding concerns.

Mumsnet and Justine are on the side of Mumsnet and Justine. It shouldn’t be so, but there it is.

Because however well intentioned this is, and however innocent people’s motives, it’s going to reduce safeguarding

This. What difference does it even make if it's conspiracy or cock-up? None: the consequences are the same.

I genuinely couldn't give a single shiny shit if the people proposing the liquidation of safeguarding frameworks are trans lobby groups or the Society of Soap Opera Addicts. I'm concerned about the dilution of safeguarding; not who is proposing it.

But what I do question is the reaction of the trans lobby groups to those who point out these safeguarding failures in their material. Information about safeguarding loopholes brought to them should result in an immediate change to the material, not shrieks of bigotry. That shrieks of bigotry is the reaction and the material remains the same tells me a great deal about the fitness of such groups to advise anyone about anything, ever. And about the fitness of such groups to be given government funding of any kind.

and posts which say the political demands of the transgender lobby should be critically scrutinised because they weaken protections against predators, which quite rightly should stand

Exactly. This whole issue is going to be an example of unwanted consequences. We cannot tar all transpeople with the same brush - the vast, vast majority are law abiding people who want a quiet life and I think we support that. What we can’t stay silent about is the loopholes that will be created.

Because however well intentioned this is, and however innocent people’s motives, it’s going to reduce safeguarding - it already is doing; for example in Scotland the confidential disclosure in schools. We need to be very clear that these loopholes will be exploited. Not by transpeople - by people who want to harm children.

These loopholes will harm children questioning their gender too. This cannot be shut down with accusations that people are conflating trans and paedophilia- MNHQ should delete any posts which imply all transpeople are a danger because it’s incorrect, unpleasant and slanderous. MNHQ already do this - the sweeping statements rule.

What we are talking about here is loopholes and what will come through them. And that’s a very, very important thing to talk about.

Any major law change needs to be scrutinised to see what the effects will be - I don’t think that’s happening here and that’s a big worry.

offred I don’t know if you’re still around but I just want to say that it was your posts, along with a few others that made me look long and hard at this issue and indeed about what my entire notion of feminism actually was. When I looked critically I found my position wanting and so I read more. Thank you, truly. I don’t know you but you’ve made a positive impact on my life.

"By parents for parents" but dont discuss child protection
Think clearly about this MNHQ

Sorry for typos - health probelm. But wanted to show support

This is just awful. there are barely words to say how awful thi is. Child sex abuse has ruined so many livs and my own family's in so many ways. Whay re people not more willing t see the insdious nature of these abhorent people? It is horrifying to think about the threat but denial will not make it go away. I have aregued with people about his in RL. OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE.

Thank goodness fo ryou women

Excellently put @LangCleg

So glad I am not the only one that has seen through and can see where a lot of this bullshit is going to end up.

and posts which say the political demands of the transgender lobby should be critically scrutinised because they weaken protections against predators, which quite rightly should stand

This

I dont see what the problem is with this,

Ex governor of a school here and dh still is, im as concerned as everyone else on here that safeguarding could is being weakened for already vulnerable children and may well be weakened for all

I'm glad Sophie linked that thread. I hadn't seen it before and even with all the deletions, it's a hair raising read so thanks MNHQ for bringing it to my attention.

These are some of the current threads on FWR raising Safeguarding concerns:

Health:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3313760-Up-to-150-youngsters-treated-with-puberty-blocking-jabs-might-not-even-be-transgender

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3308996-Oh-Munroe-the-irony

Education:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3311534-attention-draft-new-sex-and-relationships-education-guidelines

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3312963-Every-parent-should-read-transactivisms-dangerous-myth-of-parental-rejection

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3301871-What-do-educators-make-of-what-is-happening-in-our-schools

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3309052-I-have-written-a-very-blunt-letter-to-DD-school-regarding-their-sexist-behaviour-and-am-slightly-freaking-out-handhold-anyone

Criminal Justice System:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3309758-This-never-happens-male-offenders-in-female-prisons

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3312143-James-Kirkup-speaks-up-again-Are-female-prisoners-at-risk-from-transgender-inmates-The-Spectator-20-07

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3260133-You-need-to-read-this-article-about-the-Leeds-red-light-district

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3313583-15-yr-old-Indonesia-girl-jailed-for-abortion-after-being-raped-by-brother