The Guardian have upped their game, we’re now Anti-trans for asking for same-sex spaces

I think that many lurkers who have read across recent threads will have picked up the lack of credibility some posters have.

Like posting that one of the founders of stonewall should educate themselves about gay rights history. Like starting a thread about a group that pulled out of a protest about the women who have been murdered by males recently because they said the protest wasn’t ‘inclusive’ of all women. Without further reading that the organizers of the protest have said all welcome and did everything to make sure that the numbers and victims mentioned had included males who identified as women, but there weren’t any victims. They even checked with stonewall. That level of credibility stays with a poster when they do it often enough.

So, yes Mishy. Your arguments have been well and truly shown to be simply lacking in any critical thinking. And across more than one thread on this very incident.

There are some issues which simply don't map onto conventional right/left political positions and this is definitely one. What an article, with labels flying thick and fast and assumptions clogging the works.

The icing on the cake was the asinine "Trans rights are human right" quote. What does that even mean? Nobody could argue that trans people aren't human, but where do human rights include anything that privileges trans people over women? Or men for that matter?

That's not journalism, it's a hot, sludgy spill.

Saw this earlier and nearly puked. Such ridiculous nonsense, where is the balanced journalism? This reads like some third rate blog post.

I only hope it tweaks more people to the madness of this cult-like thinking.
Like our very own Mishi who is a great beacon of bullshit and never fails to put their foot in it .

As for the Guardian losing money, they may be getting funding from Arcus Foundation or similar. It wouldn't surprise me, as it seems they are now nothing more than a TRA propaganda machine.

I wrote earlier I'd stopped my additional contributions to the Graun. Now I've stopped the monthly ones as well. I wrote explaining why. I doubt it'll do any good. There can't be many Graun readers in Los Angeles. Now there's one fewer.

BTW, as someone wrote earlier, the Wi Spa is in Korean town, not in Boys' Town ( = the area around Santa Monica Blvd in West Hollywood). Many Koreans are Christian and also fairly conservative politically.

They will be logging this - they know. They don't seem to care though.

I remain very sceptical on this! I'm all for safeguarding, but it needs to be appropriate, proportionate and inclusive. Not based on fear of a minority.

Oh honey...... No.

Safeguarding is also always fully inclusive that it applies equally, to everyone, without exception.

It sounds very much like 'safeguarding should be flexibly applied and loosened in consideration of some adults who find the boundaries it presents to protect others to be inconvenient to their own wants and needs'.

Reminds me of almost every serious case review I've ever read, which sooner or later finds that the needs of vocal, needing adults in the situation took over time, energy, attention, focus that should have gone to the person in need of safeguarding. And so safeguarding failed.

No one who can say 'safeguarding should be inclusive' can know one single thing in reality about safeguarding.

”safeguarding should be inclusive”

........what does that even mean? It's a nice sounding piece of burble, but what on earth does that translate into in terms of plain English?

This is what I was wondering, surely we are be inclusive by saying that anyone and everyone could be a potential danger and therefore should be subject to rigorous scrutiny?

Just catching up with all this and it's appalling. Lost count of how many times they described it as a 'far right' protest.

It's such a dishonest tactic. How many people stop from speaking out on this issue for fear of being labelled far right? I certainly did.

Coming out the other side and seeing it for what it really is makes such a difference.

This story doesn't seem like it will go away anytime soon. There's so many competing narratives. Yesterday, Patricia Arquette tweeted an article from Slate about it being a hoax and in the replies there is a guy saying he witnessed the confrontation in reception. He's posted a video too.

twitter.com/bennetkelley/status/1416561456741421056?s=19

The goal of safeguarding is literally to exclude the minority who would do harm, whether advising people to ask for ID when someone asks to read the meter or teaching children that people they meet on line aren’t necessarily who they say they are.

There is nothing intrinsically virtuous about being in a minority or inclusivity.

safeguarding should be inclusive

........what does that even mean? It's a nice sounding piece of burble, but what on earth does that translate into in terms of plain English?

Safeguarding should safeguard. End of. That it presents inconvenient boundaries? Good.

archive.fo/fvKRK

Absolutely awful article with a convicted child sex offender gaining legal aid numerous times and officials failing to prevent numerous traumatic court cases. How the hell did social services, legal aid and the court system enable this to happen? Surely this case needs to be taken forward and lessons need to be learnt, legislation passed to prevent a repeat.

LangCleg wrote Thu 21-Feb-19

"How did the scandal of TV entertainers grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of Catholic priests grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of on-street gangs grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

Because if you create a sacred caste of any group and silence anyone asking questions about individuals on behalf of the sacred caste, abusers will see, infiltrate, and groom and exploit children. That''s how."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3512177-Julia-Long-asking-Munro-Bergdorf-about-child-exploitation?pg=12

Well yes but it's only the left's extremists who are being promoted and supported by supposedly mainstream outlets from the Guardian to the New York Times isn't it

Yes it is, struggling to see how ive implied otherwise

Far left is just as bad as far right, they just do shit things in different ways

My takeaway, at least in the UK, is that we are expected to adopt the stance of "Trust no-one. Document everything." At no point in our consultations of the Care Act 2014, the local Safeguarding Adults/Children Boards or any relevant policy, was there the instruction that safeguarding should be inclusive - Unless the poster was paraphrasing the many obligations roughly as:

Safeguarding must include what some people describe as sacred castes because individuals, settings, and organisations are never exempt from safeguarding scrutiny.

The amount of stupidity and bad faith floating round here and on twitter today...have people got heatstroke?

Just when you think you have heard it all, we get safeguarding should be inclusive

Just out of curiosity mishy how many women and girls should come to harm before you consider their needs?

That story nauticant linked to is worth a read in its own right and also: "Julia tells her story in Dispatches: Torn Apart — Family Courts Uncovered, on Channel 4 at 10pm on Tuesday" - suspect this will be eye- opening.

‘Really not clear how that is supposed to help trans people’

It doesn’t, its designed to derail threads and stop women voicing their concerns to each other.

They just wait until a new thread is created then jump on and say the same embarrassing, factually incorrect, bullshit, over and over again.

Really not clear how that is supposed to help trans people.