Telegraph article about NSPCC v MN users

What really worries me about men who self ID as female and are allowed to be in segregated areas for women is that, people who are fighting for it are so militant and refuse to accept other opinions on the matter - does this mean that any incidents that occur because of it are going to be glossed over and ignored? I feel like it will take several serious incidents before people would start a discussion about it's appropriateness! (Very tired so I hope although slightly incoherent that it makes some sense at least)

all the safeguarding norms that should apply to everyone

EXACTLY!

The whole point of safeguarding is to be sceptical. Nobody has an unimpeachable identity. Everybody who values child protection above their own self image understands that - every man, every woman, every teacher, every sports coach, every volunteer, and yes, every transsexual.

Nobody is above or outwith stringent safeguarding protocols. And anybody who tells you that such protocols should be relaxed under any circumstances at all, should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

So, you know, NSPCC, I view you with extreme suspicion. How fucking sad is that?

Speaks volumes when the leading children's safeguarding charity is just waving these policies through without allowing them to be scrutinized by actual parents.

I don't understand what's happening. It's slow but in medicine:

trials involving patients in the UK have to have Patient Involvement from the start of the trial design through the implementation to the distribution of the results;

important systematic reviews such as those produced by the Cochrane Collaboration have a relatively readable and accessible, one page lay summary of the findings;

NICE has lay members of all of its committees to scrutinise all areas of health care - they produce lay summaries of the papers that need to be read tho' people still have access to the full papers as well;

Why doesn't the NSPCC and all similar charities have to do this? E.g., have active parent involvement in their study design, information gathering, literature reviews etc, plans for disseminating results/outcomes?

I'm underwhelmed by the Scientific/Policy Advisory Boards of far too many organisations. One way of fixing this would be ensuring that they need to include lay people who represent the people affected by their decisions.

I have donated to and fundraised for NSPCC for years. Like all of us, child protection is close to my heart.

I had no idea until this the NSPCC were this wilfully ignorant of the risks to children by gender self ID.

Furthermore that NSPCC appear to be effectively advocating for suspending all the safeguarding norms that should apply to everyone, in favour of a trans activist dogma.

Like a religion, TRA dogma- led by middle aged men with penises who identify as women- preaches to ‘the saved’ (ie those who will provide questioning kids with total ‘affirmation’, which means rushing them into medical and surgical non reversible changes- puberty blockers are NOT harmless or fully reversible) or they face eternal damnation as a ’transphobe’.

‘Transphobia’ apparently means EVERYONE who questions the trans dogma. Best in mind this dogma revolves around everyone having to conform to gender stereotypes of what a man or woman is, whether they consider themselves trans or not.

Also beyond the pale for the TRAs are any advocates of the ‘watchful waiting’ approach and psychological support as first line treatment for kids, which the the NHS’ approach and which makes sense given most kids will change their mind later. Many just turn out to be lesbian or gay kids.

But in the TRA view, the absolute heretics headed for the fiery furnace are definitely anyone with a normal sense of appropriate safeguarding- about confidentiality (TRAs are even against parental knowledge), normal vetting and checking under all previous names and preserving single sex spaces for children, including on residentials with adults (see the Girl guides’ trans inclusion policy on this one).

Most people want everyone to wear whatever they want- we don’t care, though we all know that wearing clothes do not magically make anyone actually change sex. However much someone might wish it.

But why, does taking on the ‘trans-correct’ response that organisations are being encouraged to adopt, also have to involve a wholesale assault on established safeguarding norms?

That is the question I want NSPCC to answer.

Came across this on twitter this morning - in response to Caroline Lucas (Greens) tweet in which she said "I know nobody can undo David Challenor’s horrific crimes, but we must learn lessons & root out paedophiles everywhere"... someone describing herself as
Works for Circles of Support and Accountability in the South West but views expressed are my own. Worked in Probation for c.35 years. goes all cat's-arse prissy about CL's use of the word paedophilia, and describes it as a sexual orientation.

twitter.com/pcrousseau24/status/1036003948191207425

Where is the critical thought? Where is the common sense? Where is the oversight?
If the NSPCC had really pondered ANY of these questions beforehand, they would have come on Mumsnet to reassure everyone with their clever answers.
Speaks volumes when the leading children's safeguarding charity is just waving these policies through without allowing them to be scrutinized by actual parents.

The NSPCC is currently endorsing guidance which:

*removes the privacy and dignity of girls
*tells children to doubt their own instincts
*places trans-identified children at increased risk of abuser infiltration
*allows self-identification of adult volunteers with reduced oversight

And it wonders why women on a parenting website have questions for it? And, because it cannot answer these questions in a satisfactory manner, sticks its fingers in its ears and shouts transphobia?

Yeah. Fuck off.

I wish the In brief-transgender issues panel used by the Telegraph was more accurate. It makes is sound as if most transgender people are transsexuals or those with dysphoria. The new Stonewall definition is so much wider and the general public don't understand this.

Shame the article didn’t mention the fact that trans women can work as Guide leaders & be in a safeguarding role on overnight stays, sleeping within close proximity to young girls & parents are not informed.

De-writing' history in order to not find himself on the Wrong Side of it

Gutless wonder

tiredandweary Exactly, and the parents of the girl won’t even be able to prep their daughter for the possibility, or object, or question safeguarding, as GirlGuiding regs say it must NOT be disclosed to parents than a trans girl will be present.

I don’t think that came across as MN users are the problem, more that the NSPCC did not want to engage with MN users.

I think the uninformed reader might stumble at the phrase ‘transgender girl’.

It's one thing to have an insignificant labour volunteer throw a twitter strop, but it's quite another for the nspcc to ignore safeguarding questions from a group of mothers.

What exactly is going on, people will be asking. The more people see this a a safeguarding issue the better. Because that's what we've been saying all along, for years now.

Just to point out that the NSPCC recommends that boys and girls should not share bedrooms over the age of 10. Yet they see no issues whatsoever with a 16 year old boy identifying as a girl on an overnight stay with the Guides or getting changed for after school sports and sharing changing rooms and showers with 11 year old girls.

Why the danger in one scenario but not the other?

Being able to distinguish boys from girls and men from women, is pretty central to safeguarding

Girls being able to state the truth and be listened to is central to safeguarding

Girls and boys being protected from predatory adults is central to safeguarding

I don't understand why this is so controversial to the NSPCC

A staff member posted to say the event had been cancelled "because the questions here are so focused on gender identity, the feeling is that the NSPCC campaign itself and the NSPCC's specific safety messages are unlikely to get much of an airing."

Unlikely to get much of an airing.

Since when did people shy away from debate or from communicating policies "just in case".

NSPPC are an important charity. So why shy away from important issues. Especially if they've got it all locked down.

* fail there. No idea what a T*RF is

Owen Jones seems to have lately decided to shut up about it and start deleting his Twats about the evils T**RFS. 'De-writing' history in order to not find himself on the Wrong Side of it

Any reasonable parent would have concerns about an inpregnation-capable boy claiming to be lesbian and sharing overnight accommodation with girls.

Woah, lightbulb moment! I never considered it in that way..,how naive of me. I had a image in my head of, I suppose, a confused quiet asexual teenager, when in fact, they're probably going to want a relationship like all the others that age. And if they're heterosexual, I guess they would see themselves as a 'lesbian'.

I find that confusion all so sad. What a mess.

The original NSPCC chat thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_facebook_live/3343961-Facebook-Live-about-talking-to-kids-about-staying-safe-from-abuse-with-NSPCC

It reads as very even handed to me.
Mumsnet users have built up a reputation for being particularly focused on transgender issues, and the stance of some members has been described as "transphobic".
What does that say? "Built up a reputation" makes mumsnetters sound feisty, and the "stance of some members " is a very qualified statement, and "transphobic" in quotation marks suggests the author is not convinced, and doesn't expect the readership to be.
More importantly what does it NOT say? Imagine the Guardian version.

"Transphobia is rife on alt-right parenting hate site" - Lily Madigan describes her anguish at the transphobia displayed on major UK website.
Or
Owen Jones - why do mums hate trans kids and what does this mean for open borders?

"Trans young people are at particular risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse from peers. This can heighten the risk of abuse by adults...There should be high-quality, statutory relationships and sex education, alongside strong school safeguarding policies, to ensure that all children are kept safe in schools."

The NSPCC are happy with the advice to keep children's gender-identity-related disclosures confidential? No child-safety issues in the way schools are advised to ignore the established best practice in safeguarding when it comes to trans.

I liked the bit:

In a statement to the site the NSPCC said it "doesn’t consider there to be specific child protection concerns in relation to trans-inclusive policies."

• because it shows the entire world how idiotic the NSPCC are being. Any reasonable parent would have concerns about an inpregnation-capable boy claiming to be lesbian and sharing overnight accommodation with girls.

Good quote from Justine.

This journalist wrote quite even pieces about the BACP guidelines and the Littman ROGD study. And there is significant emphasis on Mumsnet trying to defend free speech....
She ends the piece by quoting Justine:
"But we fundamentally believe that with a bit of an effort all round then we can allow all voices to be heard and that by allowing all sides to be heard we can move towards a constructive compromise," she said.
In any case, it's probably worth bumping some threads.