You are safe with me

As a rule, I treat anything that people tell me about their own character with deep suspicion (I'm a nice guy, I'm really good at my job, I'm completely trustworthy etc) because when these things are true, they don't need to be said, and they certainly don't need to be said by the person themselves. I'd see this as on the same level.

However, I do also agree that this is positioning nasty women as dangerous, with their violent misgendering and potentially fatal thoughts. Nobody is saying that everyone who wear this badge is an active danger to children, but it will doubtless be seized upon by men who should never be allowed near a child, let alone to be alone with a child who is already confused about their identity.

I would instantly know that women like me are not safe around anyone wearing that badge. As I am sure the design team knew.

Because what they are trying to communicate is ‘ you are unsafe around those nasty women with their boundaries. I won’t be mean to you like those shrill harpies’.

Its actual message is to say we are the threat.

It’s like when someone regularly says (usually quite aggressively) that they are a woman

Same as "I'm a nice guy."

Don't trust it just because it says so.

If it was just a colourful badge, I'd think you were a bit of a fool, but whatever, people can be if they want. I find the wording sinister though. I don't think adults should be pied pipering children.

In case predators try to groom or abduct the kids. Predators look for ways to gain the trust of vulnerable children. This need have nothing at all to do with gay, straight, or bisexual; it's a bit of a leap to suggest it does, tbh.

I've got a rainbow badge on my jacket. It's literally because I love rainbows. It's not meant to show anything to anyone.

Can I ask why you would wear a badge? Isn’t this outing them to everyone who you meet? My own teen would be horrified with me doing anything like this.

Well put.

A plain rainbow badge without words is not creepy or disturbing.

In case ‘The gays’ try and convert the kids?

The wording makes it particularly disturbing, that wording on a plain white badge or with any other colour or pattern around the edge would also be creepy.

However, separately I do also have problems with “allyship” and virtue signalling more generally.

For me it's the words. Wear as many badges as you like with rainbows etc, but the words with the colours turns it into something else that could put a child/vulnerable adult in harms way.

A crucifix, dog collar or rainbow lanyard are definitely sooooo different to the I'm safe badge.
We should just settle for an enormous rainbow rosary the size of those rapper gold chains.

It's not about the rainbow, or the colours, or the wording. More the general principle behind the badge itself. Have not the last six pages made that clear to you?

How does inclusion of bisexual, asexual and intersex people equal not being supportive of lesbians?

Those who have concerns about the badge as it is:

Would you be okay with a rainbow and/or blue, pink & white badge with no slogan?

I'm trying to discern whether the "You're safe with me" wording is the issue, or if it's any display of solidarity and allyship.

Another way to ignore/erode safeguarding of vulnerable children and young adults. It just beggars belief that no one things hang on a minute, this isn't right when promoting/wearing said badge. Like every other safeguarding issue with GI community.

Just like Marsh. Who encouraged them to pay to subscribe to Patron and get special content. And the first special content was about how uncomfortable Marsh felt having sex with Marsh's partner at first, but to 'keep working on it'!! Because 'love was everything' (paraphrasing) but you get the gist.

And Marsh uses language aimed at under 18s and encourages children to view Marsh as their 'glitter family'.

Yeah.... nothing to see here. Just the usual dismissal of massive red flags because 'it will never happen'!

I realise I'm largely repeating what others have said, but the real problem with this badge is that it could do more harm than good. Because anyone can buy and wear the badge, including those who have malign reasons for wanting children to trust them. There's a reason that sexual abusers gravitate towards jobs such as priest, scoutmaster, doctor, teacher etc. It's not just that those jobs give them access to victims, it's that those jobs are ones that people trust. Parents will happily allow their child to spend time in the care of a priest, or the teacher running the extra-curricular debating team. And the child who says they've been abused by the nice friendly doctor, pillar of the community, is less likely to be believed than a child abused by an adult in a less respectable job.

If people using the correct sex pronouns about you when you’re not there makes the world feel hostile….dear god, some people need to get outside and touch some grass

It’s unfortunate wording. ‘Ally’ or ‘safe’ would be preferable. If my child identified as trans/non binary I’d wear the badge.

I don’t like the push to for children to transition medically/surgically as though this will ‘cure’ feelings of alienation and ‘wrongness’ when there are often other issues alongside the gender dysphoria that also need treatment/therapy. I don’t like surgeons overselling what they can deliver, leaving young people with permanent pain and disfunction. I loathe the gender stereotyping that seems to say dresses and makeup = woman. To me it’s regressive and reminds me of the disapproval of women wearing trousers in the last century. Non binary seems to be people who don’t conform to narrow and unrealistic concepts of what it means to be female or male - who would? Being a young woman now seems to mean being a hyper-sexualised, fillered-up doll - Love Island meets Only Fans. Being a young man seems to mean muscles like an action star and a thin skin of Andrew Tate style misogyny over an abyss of insecurity. I thought we’d broken down the stereotypes but they’ve come back stronger than ever.

I don’t think anything is improved by treating everyone who disagrees with you as an enemy. That applies to the gender critical just as much as to the trans activists. I won’t declare my pronouns but if someone wants to be addressed as she or he or they, I’ll do that. It’s basic humanity. You can disagree with an ideology without attacking the individual.

So many posters jumped to mention Jimmy Saville on this thread. There are individual TRAs who may be safeguarding risks and there are individual trans people who may be a risk to children but you seem to be heading towards viewing anyone who is pro trans as tainted by that. It’s akin to viewing the entire BBC staff and everyone who’s a frequent viewer as tainted by Saville.

If you really feel that the badges are some ploy to exploit a sense of isolation trans children may feel, how about not misgendering them. You might not agree with the concept but simply not using gendered words at all (avoiding pronouns rather than forcing yourself to use them) might make the world feel a bit less hostile to them.

"Suspicious badges, whatever next?"

Dismissive adults who have no idea about safeguarding and long term messaging. That is 'whatever next'.

Nrtff so apologies if I'm repeating a pp. I find these badges and statements made by celebrities (looking at you Radcliffe) as creepy as fuck. Not least because implicit in 'I support you', 'I'm safe', 'I love you', is ' but that lot over there hate you and want you dead'.

Think for a minute why they feel that way - the statistics (in the UK) don't back this up for violence or genuine risk but someone is telling these kids:

• if someone misgenders you they hate you
• if someone believes something different to you they wish you didn't exist
• you are the most vulnerable group
• there's a trans genocide happening
• if women say no, it's discrimination and a personal attack
• you're not safe with most people

Yes. And not one of these things are true.