Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Weakening of safeguarding is an acceptable risk for a more progressive society

36 replies

ABitCrapper · 14/11/2018 10:51

Isn't that really the issue?
Girl guiding are weakening safeguarding to be more inclusive.
The guidelines about children sharing is changed if one is trans.
Schools.
Government.
Etc.

Maybe they should all just be honest and admit that.

OP posts:
HappyPunky · 14/11/2018 11:24

Upholding stereotypes is regressive not progressive.

bigKiteFlying · 14/11/2018 11:23

I'm also not sure that progression is what's happening.

bigKiteFlying · 14/11/2018 11:20

Concerns being raised are dismissed, concerning cases are dismissed as one offs, I’ve read some concerning background stuff about people lobbying for the changes.

I think it increasingly looks like wilful blindness or just not giving a fuck - maybe that is tin hatted.

deepwatersolo · 14/11/2018 11:19

Weakening of safeguarding is an acceptable risk for a more progressive society.

That weakening safeguarding can lead to a more progressive society is a logical fallacy. Weakening safeguarding always benefits those who have power and creating a Society where the powerful can lord over the weak unchallenged is pretty much the polar opposite of a progressive society.

I do not dispute that some may genuinely fall for this fallacy, but those who are driving this do not. They know very well what they are doing and to what end. And it pretty much amounts to a 'do what thou wilt'. Of course only those with power will be able to live by that, and the weak will pay, silenced.

UpstartCrow · 14/11/2018 11:15

How does weakening safeguarding lead to a more progressive or inclusive society?

Why is it a risk?

BitterAndOnlySlightlyTwisted · 14/11/2018 11:09

The question we should be asking ourselves is "cui bono?" Who or which group would benefit from the relaxation of safeguarding? I think we know

Needmoresleep · 14/11/2018 11:08

Not more inclusive if, say, Muslim women feel unable to take part in activities

Not more inclusive if it becomes impossible to measure women's recruitment, promotion and pay against men because data is meaningless

Not more inclusive if the most vulnerable in our society (women prisoners, women in refuges) bear the heaviest cost.

Not more inclusive if elderly women no longer have dignity.

Original poster
ABitCrapper · 14/11/2018 11:08

Isn't that a bit "tin hat"? Do you have any evidence for is it just a hunch? Not being rude , really want to know what makes you think that.

OP posts:
bigKiteFlying · 14/11/2018 11:06

I believe that's the plausible cover for something altogether much more sinister.

^^ I fear it's this.

BitterAndOnlySlightlyTwisted · 14/11/2018 11:03

No, I don't think that is the true issue. Nothing to do with the appearance of "inclusiveness" or "progressiveness". I believe that's the plausible cover for something altogether much more sinister.

Call me delusional and paranoid if you like, I really don't care

ThePrincipal · 14/11/2018 11:01

They have not thought about it. They are swept along by the Stonewall brainwashing.

They do not recognise the risks, so they have not considered it.

Swipe left for the next trending thread