UK Drag Queen Charged for CSA materials

Indeed, projection now too. Abusive men do take pleasure in abusing women.

Ah yes! I need reminding too

Are we still being scolded or are we allowed to carry on with the thread now?

it is very concerning the number of persons related to mermaids and DQSH etc who turn out to be the very people you would not want to be around children. It’s almost as if the rainbow sparkles are used to disguise the true nature of the predators, just as cassocks and being on childrens tv were used in the past.

Sorry you misinterpreted my comment as patronising - It was a genuine question, asking which definition of 'gay' you are using.
Same sex, or same-gender-identity? If not clarified, it can cause huge confusion when discussing it particularly with regards to policy and law.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't extend to me, and assume that you didn't actually realise that there were different usages according to queer theory or English language definitions. Ironically it's addressed in some detail in the book you dismiss.

Anyone can see what I've written and read it for themselves.

Yes.

Yes, they can.

I've already stated last night I wouldn't be responding to chicken again, after giving her several chances, as they refused to stop completely bullshitting. And I see they are still talking to themselves still bullshitting. Anyone can see what I've written and read it for themselves.

And as for you, anyone can read the other thread and see what I've actually written. If you're going to join in with the bullshitting saying I've said things when everyone can read what I've actually said I don't know what more I can say.

I believe in protecting women and girls from the actual risk which includes trans women as both threads show. It's a shame you're so tied up in making untruths you're blind to it. What do you think lurkers think when they read all the lies and inaccuracies you are spouting? It's almost like you are doing it on purpose. Why would that be?

Yes between the sea looming and the squirrels we’ve got a whole zoo going on. I just wonder why some people are so keen to blur boundaries and defend the indefensible. If they are posting in good faith I would worry about any women and girls they are associated with as they don’t seem very keen on promoting their safety or well being

Yelena is also sealioning on the thread about a paedophile in a women’s shelter, arguing that male people should be in the women’s shelter, but separate, but prevaricating over why men should be there.

Faux innocence is right.

I happen to remember it because it was in the news. It's not rocket science.

I work with people who do literacy searches, although wiki isn't used as a referenced site it's often the first place they look when they know nothing of the material as it references other sources they can work from so a good starting point. No source is completely neutral because of opinion, bias and who funds the research.

Yes we agree.

Oh yes,that innocent paper he wrote where he claimed ejeculating on or in a child is equivalent to ejeculatinh on or in a shoe? That one? Totally innocent. That’s what you’re defending @YelenaBlackWidow funny you seem to have missed that detail.

but before I look it up was that the member of the board that presented a paper ~10 years(?) ago when he was a student for a charity supporting mental health for paedophiles. My understanding when I read it at the time was the charity provided mental health to people who had not offended to help them stop the urge and therefore not offend and hurt innocent children.

For someone who claims no knowledge about any of this you seem to know a lot of cherry-picked detail about this particular case.

never mind I'll do my own research online

You don't seem to be particularly good at doing your own research online. Wikipedia isn't actually a neutral site.

How would no education at all be any better?

Because suggesting harmful things to children with the intention of lowering their boundaries is worse than not talking about highly adult concepts in schools? Are you really this obtuse?

If you think there should be safe, age appropriate sex education in schools which isn't trying to sexualise children, normalise harmful practices or push adult political agendas, then we agree!

Right I'll just pop on Amazon and buy that book and wait for delivery in a few days and that will help me with this conversation... oh wait... never mind I'll do my own research online when I'm back from taking my children out to Sunday lunch. I know what a gay person is thanks, I'm Bi myself but thanks for the patronising comment.

Tell me what you think the 'theory' is and I can help. I provided a book reference in my earlier post.
In fact, what do you think a 'gay person' is - a person who is attracted solely to those of the same sex?

I’d say sealioning with a bit of squirrelling

I have not argued against softening of any boundaries, on the contrary I've said safeguarding for all.

Is this 'what about wry' or 'sealioning'?
I never can distinguish.

Whatever it is, someone is trying hard to obfuscate the problem which is a softening of safeguarding boundaries to enable abuse. It's a predator tactic.

This man is an example of why safeguarding needs to be robust.

When you work in a safeguarding field of some kind, certain things set off your spidey senses. Other people will hear what you say as crying wolf, bigotry, or anxiety. They will defend poor practice, and attack those who have nasty minds and are suspicious of the nice man in the wig.

That calendar should never have been associated with mermaids. Totally inappropriate.

Drag queens should not be doing story time.

Boundaries matter. It's not about pearl clutching.
Suppose we're drawing the boundaries too tight, and a really nice guy is stopped from doing something. A fundraiser can't run. Someone doesn't get to go to an activity they wanted to be part of. What a shame.
Suppose we draw the boundaries too slack, and organisations get infiltrated by people like the man in the OP, who should be nowhere near children. That would be our shame and our responsibility when children are groomed and abused.

I know what I prefer. Ask yourself why you are arguing so hard against boundaries?

@LaughingPriest I read the wiki page on queer theory I couldn't see anything specifically on harming children or anything like that. Do you have a better source of info? It appears to be saying let's get away from heteronormativity, are you saying it covers more than gay and bi people? If it covers furries, kinks, illegal, underage and what have you I can understand and would expect children to be protected.

I haven't looked this back up so I am definitely not confirming what I'm saying is completely accurate: but before I look it up was that the member of the board that presented a paper ~10 years(?) ago when he was a student for a charity supporting mental health for paedophiles. My understanding when I read it at the time was the charity provided mental health to people who had not offended to help them stop the urge and therefore not offend and hurt innocent children. It seemed reasonable, is that not the case? I will look into Mermaids to see for myself and if they are harmful I will say so.

With respect Yelena, you haven't understood what 'queer theory' is so haven't understood the comment.

Appropriate sex education is really important. It is important to understand how queer theory attempts to encroach on it. Again, it's not to do with 'being gay'. I do suggest you read up on it.

How would no education at all be any better? Make sure the education is not harmful, follow policy.

I haven't asked you to prove anything to the nth degree. Yes I'm against paedophiles and child abusers, I've made that clear in the thread. Your analogy is more akin to shouting your house is on fire when it's actually the house down the road. The fire brigade turns up at yours, realises you were 'mistaken' (given the benefit of the doubt) and goes back to the fire station leaving the real fire burning.