Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Statement on safeguarding to be added to sticky ?

37 replies

janeskettle · 23/01/2020 22:25

In the most recent LangCleg thread, I asked if the idea of asking Mumsnet to add a statement of safeguarding support to the FWR sticky had any merit.

What do feminists on the FWR board think ?

I had in mind something like 'Mumsnet acknowledges that safeguarding of children and vulnerable persons is a valuable and acceptable topic of discussion on FWR'.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Mayomaynot · 24/01/2020 10:16

Great idea, but good luck with that!

ALittleBitofVitriol · 24/01/2020 08:30

Spartabix, Justine comments on pg 33 of Lang Cleg 2 thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3802343-lang-cleg-2?pg=33&order=

Spartabix · 24/01/2020 08:23

Thanks Only.

OnlyTheTitOfTheLangBerg · 24/01/2020 08:10

Spartabix there are two or three comments on the Lang Cleg 2 thread.

Spartabix · 24/01/2020 08:04

Please can someone tell me which thread to look at to find Justine’s statement? I’ve tried advance search for her posts, but found nothing. The LangCleg discussion threads are huge, so difficult to search and a waste of time if that’s not where she commented. I’d really like to see what Justine said please.

BelleSausage · 24/01/2020 07:48

No one should be exempt from safeguarding rules. No one.

This is how abuses of power occur.

Gronky · 24/01/2020 07:46

Apologies, I misunderstood and thought this referred to preventing contact with known abusers.

Gronky · 24/01/2020 07:37

In the end, it's clear to most people, including some trans people themselves, that claiming a trans identity does not mean your behaviour, if problematic, should be given a pass.

Are there any prominent activists specifically arguing otherwise?

OnlyTheTitOfTheLangBerg · 24/01/2020 07:34

Good idea in principle but I’m afraid after yesterday’s posts by the site owner, I wouldn’t have any faith in the substance of such a statement. The evidence of the site’s actions have demonstrated that they don’t believe in the importance of safeguarding to the extent that I consider a parenting website in particular should.

Spartabix · 24/01/2020 07:14

I'm still reeling from Justine likening pro-safeguarding FWR to an aggressive orthodoxy...

Where was this said please?

Datun · 24/01/2020 01:16

I'd agree with a sticky. I'd also agree with a separate board. Whether it's in FWR, or elsewhere, is irrelevant.

I would love to hear more, understand more, be directed to the right places.

Original poster
janeskettle · 24/01/2020 00:32

There is no Teflon sainthood that is conferred along with the identity.

OP posts:
LangSpartacusCleg · 24/01/2020 00:22

In the end, it's clear to most people, including some trans people themselves, that claiming a trans identity does not mean your behaviour, if problematic, should be given a pass.

This! A million times this!

Original poster
janeskettle · 24/01/2020 00:21

I'll put you down as a 'no' then, while noting nobody said it was an FWR only issue.

OP posts:
Fieldofgreycorn · 24/01/2020 00:08

Why would you think safeguarding is just a FWR issue? This is a parenting website. It isn’t just relevant to this board.

Also it’s an anonymous Internet forum. No one here is a ‘safeguarding expert’ any more than they are a five legged sea badger.
And if you’re taking real world safeguarding advice from an anonymous forum then you really are going to have problems.

Original poster
janeskettle · 23/01/2020 23:40

It's just frustrating.

In the end, it's clear to most people, including some trans people themselves, that claiming a trans identity does not mean your behaviour, if problematic, should be given a pass.

And that belief in transideology does likewise not confer a sort of saintliness that puts organisations off limits.

OP posts:
Original poster
janeskettle · 23/01/2020 23:38

If it is on a sticky, I worry that people will consider that enough and not take it as seriously as I think it should be

Makes sense.

out-with the general FWR mod'ing rule

I didn't think anywhere was outwith, just that FWR is more closely monitored.

OP posts:
TheBewildernessisWeetabix · 23/01/2020 23:32

It has only been a few weeks ago that MN agreed that framing the sticky as a trans rights issue was prejudicial and changed it to gender.

GirlDownUnder · 23/01/2020 23:32

Maybe safeguarding (of children, and vulnerable adults) should have its' own forum in Feminism but out-with the general FWR mod'ing rules so as not to conflate the need to safeguard with trans people which is what seems to happen.

Feminists are generally referring to men, some of whom may use current popular ideologies to hide their true intent to access their victim pool, and this often seems to get confused with transwomen in particular.

LangSpartacusCleg · 23/01/2020 23:27

Safeguarding is important enough that we should be talking about it every damn day.

If it is on a sticky, I worry that people will consider that enough and not take it as seriously as I think it should be. Speaking personally, I frequently disregard stickys as the information is out of date. I have only recently realised that the sticky at the top of this thread has name changed in response to poster requests about the language used. When did that happen?

So, Janeskettle, I think threads like these (calling for a sticky) are actually more useful than having a sticky in highlighting the need for safeguarding.

Original poster
janeskettle · 23/01/2020 23:09

makes sense, Vitriol

OP posts:
ALittleBitofVitriol · 23/01/2020 23:02

My vibe is: depressed that it needs to be explicitly stated, pessimistic that there'll be any response more than just lip service.

I don't know that I'd say deliberate strategy on the part of MN. If I'm being real honest- and probably will be deleted- I think MN mods are tired and tied in knots by the constant reporting and be nice stuff, that becomes their normal lens. Every forthright post from an effective poster is reported by Twitter monitors stirring up trouble, viewed in isolation by mods and deemed 'hmm, could have been said nicer, best delete'

Original poster
janeskettle · 23/01/2020 22:57

a real kick in the teeth

Yes. I think I'm numb to it, but yes.

OP posts:
ALittleBitofVitriol · 23/01/2020 22:56

Yep, but after everything, a real kick in the teeth.

Original poster
janeskettle · 23/01/2020 22:55

So the vibe is 'yes, we should have an explicit statement re safeguarding' but 'no, we won't get it because MN doesn't protect safeguarding discussions, and that's a deliberate strategy' ?

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread