A trans-Identified BDSM fan/gun nut is now a senior leader at Girlguiding

It's about whether you have appropriate boundaries and follow the rules of your workplace, so there are not pictures all over the internet freely available to kids and parents of you engaged in showing off the exotic bits of your sex life.

Thanks to barleybadminton and her "most people have a fetish, it's perfectly normal" I've only just discovered what frotteurism is

As far as I'm concerned anyone who has practiced frotteurism even once is a sexual abuser and shouldn't be allowed to work with children - or vulnerable adults, or even (if I had my way) travel on public transport or go into a crowded place.

Rubbing one's genitals up against an unconsenting person in a sexual manner isn't a fetish. It's a crime.

It's very telling when a new poster spends so much time talking about the needs of adults to share their kinks and fetishes, ignoring all questions about safeguarding, adults as role models for children and the impact on children.

Do you post pictures of yourself with suggestive captions in your BDSM gear?

It's not the link that's the issue

It's the lack of self awareness and the total disregard of all safeguarding that is the issue.

Remember safeguarding protects the staff member and the organisation as much as the user group.

If you are so blind to that that you think posting such pictures us just fine and dandy then yes, you too would have, would be a problem to your employer

Do you share it with the children in any way @fairynick

What’s wrong with being into BDSM?
I am, and have worked with children in different scenarios.

barley

Which is it?

A bit of a joke?

Or a fetish and kink that everyone is doing?

You remain inconsistent in most things you post, except for not actually answering the questions posed to you (despite people answering you questions) and showing how little you either know or care about safeguarding children.

In most places someone wearing a leather dress and making a bit of a joke on a social media page unconnected with their work is not the great career ending horror that some people seem to believe it should be.

I will admit I did reply:

So, that's it? Be quiet woman, we have spoken?

You will regret this. One day, in the not to distant future, your lack of safeguarding will destroy what used to be a wonderful and supportive space for young women to grow up in.

Shame on you, one and all!

And they were telling the truth, I've had no more replies 😁

So, that is it. They have decided that an unsuitable leader is more acceptable than a court case about that person's inclusion.

I won't be sending my teen to any level of GG's again.

So even GG uses no debate when it cannot fully explain itself!

Well, I had the same initial email as above. Precisely the same.

I pushed back on their
understanding of the EA2010 and got:

We understand that you don’t agree with our approach to equality and diversity. We appreciate that we think differently and probably won’t agree on this.

We’re proud of our commitment to inclusion and accept that not everyone will agree with our vision.

We’ve already provided the information you need to understand what we do and why we do it.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts – but we won’t reply to any more emails.

I'm baffled by the argument that people being worried about the erasure of boundaries and the reduction in safeguarding will be reassured by how prevalent it is.

And I am continuously baffled at how people can make that argument, 'look everybody is doing it' and not then make connections between that an lax safeguarding, including the dramatic increase in child on child sex abuse and rape in schools, let alone the reporting of just how prevalent women are reporting unwanted sex acts that they are being coerced into.

And genuinely seem to think that if it's someone regarded as a feminist, we would change all the rules!

The loudest TRAs don't believe that we genuinely care about children. They don't even believe we genuinely care about women; they seem baffled by the concept, honestly. They think the sole purpose of everything we do and say here is to be mean to transwomen. So of course they think our moral judgements, just like the moral judgements of TRAs, are going to be entirely dependent on whether someone is on "our side" or not.

There's a word for that kind of worldview, but I think it gets comments deleted. But the projection is always so revealing!

Evidence for removing safeguarding, so far:

I am a 1950s prude.🤣 ok.

2016 self reported study of 1000 Canadians, with some dodgy funding.

A 2015 photograph of a groupnof fully clothed girl guides, at a sports centre, responsibily holding guns.

A 1960s third wave feminist set up a potn mag inv1969.

Well, I for one am entirely convinced.

The one that gets me, and the one that I knew badminton would use straight away is everyone's doing it. Here's a study, look everyone is actually doing it!

I'm baffled by the argument that people being worried about the erasure of boundaries and the reduction in safeguarding will be reassured by how prevalent it is.

I do hope @barleybadminton keeps posting.

VERY revealing. VERY clear about priorities. VERY instructive for lurkers. Makes it so much easier for people to reach that WTF moment when the arguments are so clearly laid out.

Queer Theory seeks to destabilise society to reform boundaries to suit different agendas. Sadly those agendas are not necessarily (a few might have been early on) the best for women and children. You only have to look at what motivated Foucault to understand it. Maybe barley should explain how Foucault's theories of destabilising boundaries is good for Girl Guides.

Still looking forward to hearing barleys explanation why destabilising boundaries as advocated by Queer Theorists is of benefit to Girl Guides? Why on earth the destabilisation of boundaries of any sort that involved Foucault is of benefit to Girl Guides?

So, far we still have

• you are prudes.
• you are homophobes attacking non-heterosexuals .
• you are prudes and everyone is doing it.
• doncha think that the kids have already seen it on the TV, so seeing their GG leader's sexualised posts are nothing to worry about.
• it is the porn industry and nothing at all to do with a movement decades old to make kink and fetishes acceptable to be posted on social media for everyone to see and the basis of redefining women and destabilising proven science and stuff.
• you are prudes and everyone is doing, here is a study telling us that nearly half the respondents (where they a true sample of the population even or just a self opt-in sample) were voyeurs, unwanted touchers and masochists and that this is a good thing, and shows that there is no safeguarding issue.... at all.
• straight males are the abusers, go attack them (by the way bringing attention again to the sexual orientation of this individual like it actually matters in this discussion. And the implication is again that anyone disagreeing is homophobic).
• what about this feminist 'gotcha'.
• and these girls are in a picture with guns 'gotcha'.

I think I have covered all the twists.

I look forward though to the answer to that question above. Because that is actually a fundamental question underpinning this entire discussion.

Sacred castes can lead to all sorts of abominations, like Jimmy Saville, Rotherham and it would also seem the death of little Star.(!! Very upsetting article!)
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10314469/I-fear-surrender-liberal-dogma-cost-little-Star-Hobson-life-writes-JULIE-BINDEL.html

Safeguarding must be front and centre of any organisation dealing with children and no group, no matter how marginalised or even famous, should be free from scrutiny.

It's such projection.

No sacred castes.

Should this have prevented her from... working in a school at some point?

A school for under 18s? Yes, obviously.

It occurs to me that it's REALLY weird how the same contingent of people who want to get academics drummed out of universities for exhibiting even a hint of independent thought are the same people who want teachers in primary and secondary schools to be allowed to do sex work and publicise it on social media.

Really weird, and not a little sinister.

She worked in universities for much of her life, and helped found the pornographic magazine Suck in 1969. Should this have prevented her from teaching potentially vulnerable students or working in a school at some point?

And the people attending those universities would be what, adults? Not children?

Again, do you read what you write?

These are girls posing with guns at a sporting centre. They are not posing with guns in a hap hazard fashion in their lounge room to show off their latest find.

In fact, the front three are sitting there making sure there weapons are not pointed at anyone and they are in stable positions. The other's standing with weapons are again not shouldering the weapons and they are not looking like they are about to or have just shoulder those weapons.

And again, they are in a shooting centre so they are being responsible.

What part of this photo did you think was comparable to 'Tetley's'? Oh, I know. They had weapons in the photo with them.

I would be very interested in your comparative analysis barley.

Do you think someone like Germaine Greer, given her public comments on adolescent boys, should be prevented from working with children out of interest?

Safeguarding applies to everyone. There should be no sacred castes.