Hollyoaks - well this is creepy!

An equivalent would be an older male affirming an anorexic and asking if she sure she's fat.

How lovely of you to slut shame me, especially in the context of me recalling childhood abuse, even if the abuse was less severe than others have experienced. How feminist of you. And what do you know of my sexual boundaries, not that they are relevant to anything?

And by the way having counted the seconds is obsessive.

You have already shown that you have low sexual boundaries. What part of this male person sliding their hands up and down a child's shoulders, both shoulders, while leaning towards them from behind to talk in their ear is appropriate behaviour?

For what was it? 28 seconds I calculated yesterday?

Do you even stop to think that you could be really very wrong here?

28 seconds of 'warmth and affection' from an adult male.

And he is grooming by encouraging her to think her real self is a boy.

Gaining her trust. Pretending to understand her. Pretending to promote her relationship with her parents. little innocent familiar touches.

This would be the start. There is lots of time. The child will rely on him more and more. The parents will think that as a trans person he will understand their child and be good for her.

The man in fetish get up looks as though he is about 35 at least. The girl looks twelve or thirteen.

It's not a man, she's not very old, and surely even if it was a man, it would depend on context. I find this whole pathologising of normal human relationships very worrying. Of course, sexual abuse and grooming are huge issues, but that doesn't mean all human relationships should be seen as sinister. And I say that as someone who was touched inappropriately by a male relative as a teenager. (He was later convicted of sex crimes, but not against me.) Doesn't mean that when my partner, brother, father or male friends are affectionate to children I see it as sinister. It is a normal part of life, and children should experience warmth and affection from those around them. I really don't know anyone who lives according to the views and rules on this thread. I'm not talking about in a professional context, I mean in terms of family and friends.

He is a much older man. She is very very young. They are alone. No, a man like this is not allowed to lay so much as a finger on her.

Oh dear God, that is creepy.

A real feminist sees women as whole people, equal in every way to men, and doesn't define us by what body parts we have, or as different in some way because of them.

So the definition of a woman should be based on magic feelings then and not, you know, reality? Or maybe we can go by whether we have a lovely frock on that day. If we are identical in every single way and would never be treated any differently to men because of those differences where would be the need for feminism?

The whole storyline and scene is a safeguarding nightmare and the move to straight away convince a young girl that 'Oh you feel uncomfortable? Better go down a medicalised path that will utterly change your body forever' is just plain wrong.

I bet there are people who won’t see he is creepy.

At least we're no longer talking about that pesky safeguarding anymore though, eh?

Yes. This is true. I think that some posters still consider superficial platitudes to be empowering to women and they declare wonderful things like 'equality' without having the critical thinking ability to understand quite what that means and what it doesn't mean.

"A real feminist sees women as whole people, equal in every way to men, and doesn't define us by what body parts we have, or as different in some way because of them."

Sounds more like someone's egalitarian belief than feminism. And completely misses the reason or the need for female people to be liberated from oppression. Equality 'in every way' is truly not what feminists have fought for, no matter how they have stated it. It is 'equity' not 'equality.'

You have again shown you don't really understand discrimination and oppression.

It's no surprise really. It's an easy way to derail a thread about the child grooming on Hollyoaks.

To be fair to Fox, this bullshit is what women are being fed. I was a Liberal feminist once upon a time- before the wise and sensible women of FWR handedme my arse encouraged me to question the trite fallacies and contradictions inherent in bullshit feminism. But it does require a willingness and ability to use critical thinking.

Comments like this really demonstrate a mix of naivety, ignorance and perhaps a deep seated dislike of women?
Discrimination against, and hatred of women is based on hostility to those bodily parts and their functions. Pretending that they don't exist denies the whole history of women's oppression including the world wide discrimination currently in evidence today all over the world. I'm not going to list all the countries where the lives of women and girls are currently at risk because of extreme levels of misogyny. Women on here are thoroughly educated about this.
But it is a surprise to see a poster attempting to lecture women on here while displaying such a profound ignorance about the roots of women's oppression. .

She didn't act very relieved at the time but she was a PITA and I was glad to have had a concrete reason to finally extract myself from the friendship.

A real feminist sees women as whole people, equal in every way to men, and doesn't define us by what body parts we have, or as different in some way because of them.

We don't find it difficult to comprehend We find it disappointing. Or we understand their fear if they choose not to broadcast their GC views.

That one woman you knew was brave enough to speak out. Many of us are not due to threats to our personal safety, jobs, family and just about every area of our lives.

The GC woman you cut out of your life is probably relieved. Most of us don't like to give up on family or friends. We feel there is a lot at stake. I would never want a child - girl or boy - to go through what I went through. However, blurring boundaries is making it easier for men to groom children.

Can you explain what feminism means to you? And the difference between an actual feminist compared to a self-identified feminist? I'd be really interested to learn if some people (I know a few male feminists) come out of the womb with a stamp on their bottom making them actual feminists rather than us pretend self-identified GC feminists.

Hopefully the storyline leads to the older male reported to Police and appropriate help sought for the young female child. I don't watch Hollyoaks and obviously won't start now when it's basically glamourising grooming.

I don't think that's what happened, but whatevs.

Not every woman who disagrees with you is a man. Why do so many on this forum find that so difficult to comprehend?

Well, I wouldn’t know, because any man who says he is a woman, is.

I’m not sure why it’s so difficult to comprehend this.

No, I just took you literally. When discussing online, it’s best to avoid statements that make no sense if taken literally. It may have been mischievous of me to point out the daft implications in your post. But the serious point I made is that unclear, or misleading, language doesn’t help people to reason.

Indeed. Apparently 'radical feminists' were also not actively working to support women with religious needs in the 90s. Not like Fox was apparently. Apparently other types of feminists stood in solidarity with women with religious needs to support their 'expression of their religious beliefs'. While apparently radical feminists merely scolded those women for wearing hijabs and didn't provide any support or resources.

In addition to this claim, I was quite surprised that some posters only consider those women wearing hijabs to be the only religious women requiring support from feminists too. I mean, they most certainly require the support of feminists, but they are certainly not the only women and girls with religious needs. It is merely one more inconsistency from some of the posters who have arrived to scold and shame people they seem to have some very entrenched prejudices about.