Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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?

999 replies

loveyouradvice · 02/09/2018 13:37

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
gendercritter · 03/09/2018 09:16

Its really beginning to irritate me

Ditto. I can only hand round gin in solidarity and manually unroll my eyes which are quite frankly close to getting stuck looking backwards.

R0wantrees · 03/09/2018 09:16

Really so boys just say "I'm a girl" and the school accepts that?

A year ago a male-born pupil returned to school in the female uniform, advising the school that they were a girl with change of name, pronouns and inteding to use the girls' toilets and changing rooms.

The school did not imediately comply.

The school were threatened with legal action.

The school complied and the pupil has since ganed a great deal of media and political attention as well as influence.

Nov 2017 Interview with Lily Madigan, The Times:
"When I ask whether she agrees with the government’s former children’s mental health adviser Natasha Devon, who says we should avoid using the term “girl” at school for fear of offending transgender pupils, she [Lily Madigan] responds: “I don’t really. I prefer girl. What I would push is that you need to have a choice. I choose to be referred to as female.”

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lily-madigan-im-a-transgender-teen-agitator-imake-an-ideal-labour-womens-officer-2ctxksngx

R0wantrees · 03/09/2018 09:22

Blush school was threatened!

Sotiredallthetime · 03/09/2018 09:36

This was the first web chat question I have put forward, despite being a mumsnetter for over a decade.

Mumsnet told me about the web chat. Though I can't remember if it was directly on the forum or on their Facebook group.

So I searched the forum for NSPCC and found the web chat questions thread and posted my question.

"I would like to know the difference between a boy and a boy who indentify as a girl ?

No child can have a GRC, so all children are biological and legally their birth sex.

There must BE a difference as a standard boy is subject to many safe guarding rules, where as a boy saying he feels like a girl is subject to none !

How does declaring an unverified internal feeling mean safeguarding rules can be ignored ?"

I am concerned with the breaking down of safeguarding rules which are in place to protect females (I.e. girls and transboys).

Plus I am also concerned that a minority of teenage boys will use these rules to upset females.

My 12yo daughter is very pretty and starting to develop. She has to wear cycle shorts under her school skirt, as boys stand under the stairs with gaps, in order to take upskirting pictures. This is IN school.

When my child walks home from the bus stop. Teenage boys film her walking down the street whilst shouting 'banter' at her.

I have told her to report the first set of boys again and ignore the local ones.

She needs a break from the male gaze and the thought that any cheeky boy who is willing to say "I am a girl" being allowed to follow her into the toilets and changing rooms, makes me worry.

Any boy willing to push into female space knowing the distress he will cause, is precisely the boy who needs to be kept out.

All children are legally and biological their birth sex, a third space should be created for those children who don't want to use the bathroom for their sex.

Safeguarding rules need to apply to everyone and in relation to reality of biological bodies. Not ignored when a boy claims to have an internal feeling, which does not decrease the risk he poses to the girls over any other boy.

Interestingly girls who claim to be boys are happy to stay in female spaces. Strange that female bodied people have a good grasp of how to keep themselves safe.

The exception being female Gavin in USA. The boys and the boys parents sited embarrassment and lack of privacy as issues when a girl wants to share with boys. The boys didn't like it and initially the boys opinion took priority, like it always does over the opinion of a girl.

I am very disappointed that the NSPCC refused to answer any questions. I want to be reassured. I want to know the right way of protecting my young daughter as she grows into a young woman. If my daughter who is confident and speaks up for herself is having so many daily incidents from boys, how her shyer peer group is coping I don't know.

My daughter is human and deserves the right to live her life free of street harassment. Until that day arrives, she deserves female only spaces where she isn't followed by boys. Spaces to regroup or call home.

Boys with biological male bodies do not belong in female spaces.

Feelings do not change this fact !

CertainHalfDesertedStreets · 03/09/2018 09:41

We don't like your evidence. It's from the wrong county, or the wrong newspaper, it's just one example, it happened in a home not a toilet. It'll never happen. It won't happen very often. You're all hysterical and mad and scaremongering. You're Sun readers who hate children and charities. We're the ones who want to protect children and we say There's. Nothing. To. See. Here.

Hmm
Gileswithachainsaw · 03/09/2018 09:52

Whilst still not addressing the favt thatbshe same loopholes leave the trans chikd open to the very same horrors themselves.

And why is it now we've decided to even pretend that immediately affirming the child and children being allowed into the changing areas is even happening when Lila Perry and Lily madigan stories are all out there for anyone to read.

They haven't proved one thing

CertainHalfDesertedStreets · 03/09/2018 09:52

You are supposed to think the unthinkable with safeguarding, right?

A sex offender likes to masturbate in front of women. If he has access to women's toilets will he a. not go in there - he's not trans and it wouldn't be right. Or b... well you know what b. is right?

There are THOUSANDS of people like him. This isn't even 'the unthinkable' - it's just common sense.

AlmaGeddon · 03/09/2018 09:54

I'm not an expert when it comes to company reports but I posted towards the end of the thread their figures for 2016/17 and it seemed to say that half the income went on salaries (income 130 million or thereabouts ) 49 people earning over 60,000. But I hoped someone more knowledgeable than me would comment to see how they saw it -anyway the thread went poof. But I'm no expert.

WrongOnTInternet · 03/09/2018 10:02

I would like some of the 'right-on' posters on here to answer three questions I desperately want an answer to. The first has been posed a number of times already:

Why do you think sex segregated spaces and safeguards in relation to the opposite sex ever existed? They have existed throughout human history after all.

Another question I really really want answered is why do you suddenly believe that male violence or lesser unpleasantnesses are no longer an issue? Why do you believe they magically go away when a couple of men put on dresses and start raving about how they are magically female?

Thirdly, do you really believe that women asking questions about male violence is literal violence, and real actual violence to get them to shut up is the only possible solution?

R0wantrees · 03/09/2018 10:08

All children are legally and biological their birth sex, a third space should be created for those children who don't want to use the bathroom for their sex.

March 2018: An Essex school which had supported a male pupil who identified as a girl with regards name pronouns etc provided an alternative gender-neutral toilet for the child to use (rather than give access to the girls' facilities).

A campaign was organised and pushed via social media by local trans-rights group 'Transpire' to allow the male pupil to use the girls' toilets and changing rooms. The founder of Transpire is police officer Gina Denham (quoted in BBC article below) who has also given talks in schools. Some of the content of these talks have raised concerns.

The school changed its trans -inclusive policy and allowed the pupil to use the girls' facilities.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-43462823

The rights of the girls to safety, dignity and privacy are legitimate concerns and asking questions about them is not transphobic. There are also single-sex legal requirements which in some schools seem to be misunderstood, perhaps having being misadvised?

R0wantrees · 03/09/2018 10:13

The reason this website EXISTS is because there is no data being collected by police or cps and many of the crimes are recorded as being committed by females.

2014 CPS Transgender Equality Management Guidance provides background, focus and outline of CPS policies:
www.mermaidsuk.org.uk/assets/media/CPS%20Transgender%20Equality%20Management%20Guidance.pdf

WickedWitchsFlyingMonkey · 03/09/2018 10:19

No, our papers would never report men’s crimes as being committed by women. It never happens.

metro.co.uk/2018/06/26/man-beaten-gang-women-dresses-heels-night-7660555/

Notmyname789 · 03/09/2018 10:20

I don't think I'm "right on", but I'm definitely not in the obsessive anti-trans camp. I'll have a go, Wrong.

Why do you think sex segregated spaces and safeguards in relation to the opposite sex ever existed? They have existed throughout human history after all.

Not sure that they have. Back in the days when people lived in one room huts and caves there wasn't much by way of sex segregated space.

The fact that something has been around for centuries doesn't make it right. One view that has been around for centuries, and still exists in some areas, is the view that women shouldn't be educated. Does longevity make that view right?

But I don't think the so-called "right on" view is that there should never be sex segregated spaces. It is that people who genuinely feel that they are the opposite sex from that assigned to them and have demonstrated that this is the case, notably by having surgery, shouldn't be put into some sort of limbo by being excluded from one type of segregated facility whilst simultaneously being unsafe in the other. I also recognise the fact that the reality is that trans people have been using the opposite sex's facilities for years without other users even knowing, let alone being harmed.

Another question I really really want answered is why do you suddenly believe that male violence or lesser unpleasantnesses are no longer an issue?

I don't. But I do wonder why people think that female violence or lesser unpleasantnesses aren't an issue. Yes, I know it is less of an issue, but it undoubtedly exists and should not be dismissed.

Thirdly, do you really believe that women asking questions about male violence is literal violence

No.

BettyDuMonde · 03/09/2018 10:21

I know I am already dedicated to cause of preserving single sex facilities (and sporting categories and accurate crime data recording and the right to political assembly and representation) so I’m not exactly a unbiased observer...

But how anyone can look at the links supplied by various posters to back up multiple assertions about really dubious THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING NOW is utterly beyond me.

It really is like Where’s Wally. It can take a while, but once you’ve seen it, you can’t unsee it.

R0wantrees · 03/09/2018 10:24

Helen Joyce, finance editor at The Economist:
twitter.com/hjjoyceecon/status/1036530318537367553?s=21

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?
ArcheryAnnie · 03/09/2018 10:29

You know they would be easy to find because sure as shit the newspapers do not report them as "being women."

Topcat. you haven't done your homework. It happens all the time - especially in local papers. Even Crimewatch advertised for the public to catch serial sex offender "Lisa Hauxwell" using "she" pronouns and describing "her" in every way as a woman, the only clue being at the end of the appeal: "She may be living as a man". If you google "Lisa Hauxwell" now, you will find plenty of references to him as Craig Hauxwell, because he was indeed "living as a man" (because he is a man) when he was finally caught, but at the time, no, no, no, this sex offender is totally a woman, nothing to see here...

tl;dr: stop being so bloody naive, Topcat.

Mrbatmun · 03/09/2018 10:29

But I don't think the so-called "right on" view is that there should never be sex segregated spaces. It is that people who genuinely feel that they are the opposite sex from that assigned to them and have demonstrated that this is the case, notably by having surgery, shouldn't be put into some sort of limbo by being excluded from one type of segregated facility whilst simultaneously being unsafe in the other. I also recognise the fact that the reality is that trans people have been using the opposite sex's facilities for years without other users even knowing, let alone being harmed.

But that's not what we are talking about here is it? We are talking about the implications of being able to self identify as female and how that might impact on sex segregated spaces.

But I do wonder why people think that female violence or lesser unpleasantnesses aren't an issue.

98% of sex offenders are men. No one is saying that women are never violent, but its not an 'issue' in the way that male violence is.

LemonJello · 03/09/2018 10:34

When our children are liitle, we tell them that if they get lost, they should find a WOMAN to help them. Ideally, one with children, because we know that mothers are most likely to protect our child while we can't.

Except in 2018, mothers would rather stick it to the NSPCC than protect children because I don't know why, and we should tell our children that when they are lost they should ask anyone they see whether they are a woman or not and take them at their word.

WrongOnTInternet · 03/09/2018 10:35

NotMyName well the last is a start.

Male and female segregated spaces and roles exist in just about every developed culture I can think of. Because men and women are different.

You are aware that the proposed self-Id legislation removes all need for men to demonstrate that they are genuinely dyspeptic, yes? That the most vocal trans activists are those who literally think that they should be allowed to be female because they say they are? Who refer to their penises as ‘lady dick’ and are aggressively targeting all those who won’t agree?

Yes women can be unpleasant to men too. Are you really putting the number of incidents of that, and the content of those incidents, on a par with and worthy of equal consideration with the institutionalised daily shite and outright bullying and violence that women and girls put up with from men daily? Because that is a ludicrous position.

WrongOnTInternet · 03/09/2018 10:36

Oops. Dysphoric, not dyspeptic.

ArcheryAnnie · 03/09/2018 10:38

It's only very recently, historically-speaking, that women have had the ability to take a full part in public life, because they've had access to sex-segregated toilet facilities. (Eg one of the traditional arguments against women MPs, certainly still going strong when I was a kid, was always that there weren't ladies loos available for them - seriously.) You only have to look at how women are in danger elsewhere in the world when there aren't safe women-only toilets to go to, to see how important they are.

My DS' school has gender-neutral (ie mixed-sex) toilets. I think these are not ideal but not actively dangerous because there is a very, very high level of supervision (new build, single cubicles in a v short open corridor with responsible adults constantly passing, plus constant cleaning), but even so, when all the kids transferred from primary school I had to persuade some of the girls' parents not to keep them at home because of those toilets. I now wonder if I was wrong, slippery slope and all that, but it was that or have some very bright, ambitious girls not go to school at all.

Gender neutral (ie mixed-sex) toilets elsewhere are rank. Men very frequently leave the doors open. Girls should be able to go to the loo without seeing a male penis, and the NSPCC should uphold that right whether it's because a boy identifies as trans, or because the loos are mixed-sex.

MorningsEleven · 03/09/2018 10:47

Its so unlikely and will happen so infrequently you might as well be afraid of zombies

On MN zombies are far less scary than trans girls.

Gileswithachainsaw · 03/09/2018 10:54

Well if it all happens so Infrequently then why can't the trans girls stay in the boys room? I'm all ears...

Tanith · 03/09/2018 10:57

Heartsease68
“So fuck off with your arrogant, dismissive bullshit.”

You can post this and accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive?!! Grin

YetAnotherSpartacus · 03/09/2018 10:58

Hang on - let's get this straight. The chat was advertised and no one bothered with posting questions for a few days. Then GC questions began to be posted. Then the NSPCC bailed. Then the GC feminists were accused both on the thread and also here of 'attacking' the NSPCC and dominating the questions? At the same time few/no other questions were posted (including by all the morally outraged here)? Que? Have I got this right?