AIBU to be shocked that the NSPCC cancelled their Facebook Live session with Mumsnetters, because they didn't like the questions? That they can't explain why they aren't putting children in danger?

[loveyouradvice]

I am reeling from this - Mumsnet promoted a Facebook Live for Thursday 12.30... to talk about keeping Kids safe from Abuse, and to publicise their PANTS and SpeakOut StaySafe campaigns.

NSPCC just didn't turn up - and only 4 hours later published a brief statement that said nothing!!!! So lots of people waiting for a no show.

It is fine for them to have the policies they have - IF THEY CAN EXPLAIN that they really are in all children's best interests and that they aren't putting girls at risk..... They haven't even tried to do that... Just ignored us and run. Ignored MUMSNET - which is full of people who raise or give money to the NSPCC, and who use it.

HOW??? I am bewildered beyond words.....

Oh ... and hopefully clicky link here of the questions Mumsnetters asked - really thoughtful cogent ones!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_facebook_live/a3343961-Facebook-Live-about-talking-to-kids-about-staying-safe-from-abuse-with-NSPCC

The UK approach to gender dysphoria is about supporting children to explore their identity which is done with a minimum 6 month assessment of a child along with their family (eg to get an understanding of how the child was when very young, from the parents). After that its a multi disciplinary team that work with a child in various ways but essentially its all talking based. There's no medical intervention pre 16yrs. At the very most, a child might get puberty blockers to effectively 'buy them time ' or if psychologically they can't cope with going through puberty in that gender.

Genuine question here: what about the teenagers who just 'self identify' as trans, who just 'come out'? For example, from what Aimee Challenor has said about their experiences, I don't think that any of the above happened in their case. They said they wore a dress to their prom and that was their 'coming out' as trans. And then after that Aimee was universally affirmed as being a 'woman'. I may be wrong but I don't think there was any 'multi disciplinary teams' working with Aimee to address their gender dysphoria specifically, despite the fact that Aimee was in the care system. Lily Madigan is another who seems to have just decided they are a woman. These people claim that they can 'self identify' as women, and if that is the case, then is there just no need for all of the above?

Also, genuinely, if you have been formally advised in a professional capacity not to share on a need to know basis that a child tells you they are trans that really worries me. Theres a reason they've told you, are you meant to ignore them? They're at a higher risk of bullying, self harm and suicide. Yes you don't shout it from the rooftops but neither is it a personal secret, if that's what you understand your workplace policy to be then please challenge that.

That is exactly what the guidance from many organisations and - from Lemonjello's earlier post - the Guidelines produced for schools in Scotland (approved by Scotgov and endorsed by children’s orgs) says yes. Can you see the issue with that? You say you can in the abstract...

I'm not really sure why I'm helping you out again though given the level of snark you used to respond to me earlier. For the lurkers I guess.

Here you are lurkers -

I really want to try to be objective here.

I think the NSPCC should have broken the chat up in to two subjects one for normal safe guarding and one to do with safeguarding of trans kids etc

Having had a good look around I have failed to find a case of a man who dressed as a women to access female areas or abuse children.

Yes I know there are trans women in prison but most of those were men when they committed their crimes.

I do understand I really do, I’m trying with all the convoluted info given to make my mind up wether any of this is correct and what real risks there are it doesn’t help when threads carry on like this.

They don't have to dress as a woman, that is the point.

There are more trans people committing murders than have been murdered.

transcrimeuk.com

The point is no one knows the difference between one who's lying and one who's telling the truth. Get a trans woman and a man next to each other naked and tell me which ones the woman.

Even if you take safety out the equation girls wabt to change amongst people who have the same body.

A trans girl will have a male body.

No trans woman are beaten up in men's bathrooms.

Transwomen however keep their male crime rates and as we have seen mixed sex spaces have increased incidents of voyerism and assults.

Transforms are also no safer in the women's when any man can say they are a woman and follow them in there. Why are girls hysterical for wanting to avoid men in their spaces yet trans girls concerns 're taken seriously.

Why are girls hysterical for wanting to avoid men in their spaces yet trans girls concerns are taken seriously

We all know it is because they are men, right?

Of course.if they were actually treated like women they'd be ignored...

Which proves nobody thinks they are women. Nobody.

Except Rat. Who thinks everything a man says must be true. Because none have ever lied or been sexual abusers in any way, right?

And this was what I meant to write...

They don't have to be dressed as a woman jess. They don't have to be trans. They just need to say, 'I am a woman' if questioned (no-one is going to question them - only bigots question people's gender identity)

This ideology seeks to dismantle sex segregation - which is there to protect women and girls. Who will take advantage of that? Predatory men. Can people really not see how that is just true?

And 'it has never happened'? A man was sentenced to 22 years in prison this month for raping and torturing a ten year old girl. He liked to wear a dress and nappies and called himself Lucy.

I don't want 'Lucy' anywhere near women and girls. But actually I don't want to get changed in front of even nice guys. My dad, your dad, your dh. I just don't. That's not weird either - most women don't. And that's okay.

Funny how they are all proving to be liars and worse now.

And all on Twitter, face book, tv..

I don't know how the fuck the fuck they get away with it.

Sadly, I cannot say I'm surprised.

When you say "NSPCC" you might think of specialist social workers who have gained their knowledge and expertise by direct involvement in horrific cases of child rape, emotional abuse, assaults and prostituted children.

You don't think of someone designing posters. Or someone working on a "resource pack" for schools to deliver.

There is an image of the NSPCC that relies on their work in the 1960s and 70s, in front of a major business selling products and services.

You know very well that any charity is in an impossible position speaking to the feminists of mumsnet. They can't speak for both groups at once and this is a much, much more complicated area than you would like to think.

Their bad for not having a long, hard think before taking a position, or rather two (at least) irreconcilable positions. And I think we are all fully capable of appreciating how complicated it is for an organisation to get out of a corner into which it has painted itself, thanks.

Well Rat's just words on a screen right? Could be anything. Except maybe an actual Rat...

It’s always worth remembering that there are actual people experiencing actual emotions behind the screen.

Rat is usually pretty measured even though they’re usually debating with GC feminists not whole-heartedly agreeing with them. Could we not offer the benefit of the doubt that this particular thread has wound them up unusually, rather than dismissing them as a sea lion or any more offensive insults?

I’m still disappointed in the NSPCC, who I think do extremely valuable work. But I can see why others might feel it’s been derailed and be really annoyed about it. We’re almost certainly not 100% right whatever our position.

Nothing was derailed.
The rails are "children are entitled to say no, and adults should support them in this, unconditionally"

The women asking NSPCC to abide by this principle, without exception, are not the ones derailing. They are the ones saying "stay on the rails"

The ones who are demanding that the pants principle be suspended completely for their own exceptional purposes are the derailers.

The anger here towards posters who are demanding that we uphold a child's right to say no to a breach of their boundaries is utterly misplaced.

Take a good hard look at your own hypocrisy.

Children have the right to say no, and adults have the right to hold charities to account if they intend to undermine that

The NSPCC doesn’t consider there to be specific child protection concerns in relation to trans-inclusive policies.

Well maybe they should reconsider, particularly in light of the swimming changing rooms research.

Trans young people are at particular risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse from peers

I'm going to rewrite that one. GIRLS and young women are at particular risk of physical, especially sexual and also emotional abuse from peers. I think the stats would show in particular that as a percentage, girls are considerably more likely to be sexual abused than trans people.

These are dangerous times to be female. And I am enraged.

Children have the right to say no, and adults have the right to hold charities to account if they intend to undermine that.

I want this on a mug, on a t-shirt, embroidered on a cushion, projected in 100-foot letters on the side of the Charities Commission HQ...

jessrabbit there was a case heard recently where two girls were assaulted in a ladies toilet in a supermarket by a 17 year old male dressed as a female Lord.

Will try and find link.

There are loads of cases of voyeurism, video and photo taking of women and girls in mixed changing whether in shops or swimming pools.

At the very most, a child might get puberty blockers to effectively 'buy them time ' or if psychologically they can't cope with going through puberty in that gender

And these drugs are completely safe for children , yes? They definitely merely "buy them time" and don't have long term effects on health, growth and fertility.

No. Evidence has shown that these drugs are unsafe for children. There are going to be a lot of mentally and physically damaged adults as a result of being prescribed hormone blockers.

Whilst looking , found this.... 10 year old girl sexually assaulted by transwoman

nypost.com/2017/10/20/transgender-woman-convicted-of-sexually-assaulting-girl/

Having seen the torrent of single issue posts on the questions thread they were wise to pull the plug on a live event that was going off the rails of the topic before it even had a chance to begin

Absolutely agree. Of course they wouldn't show if the entire set of questions was going to be on trans issues, when they were trying to put forward a different campaign. I'm concerned about trans issues as well and a few questions on the subject would be reasonable.

But it is really unreasonable to have a concerted set of posters flood the entire set of questions with trans questions and shuts down debate for anyone who might have wanted to discuss something else. YABVU.

CertainHalf

I saw that I really feel for the young girl involved, I understand what you are saying, but that was also in his own house not out in a public area ??

This is the bit that worries me more than anything else and that’s being in someone’s own space and something happening rather than in a public area where people can help me, I’m still like there’s more risk from those that know me rather than a stranger, there’s so many cases of kids and women being abused by people they know.

I have seen photos of transwomen but I don’t think I have ever seen a transwomen in a changing area or toilet at all, not sure I’ve met one.

So, the NSPCC chose to run away rather than answer women's perceptive questions about child protection.

I stopped and thought about that one.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children ran away and hid, when confronted with valid questions regarding the protection of children.

WTF?