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

I would say wow how sheltered BUT this is coming from someone who is expert in these matters?!

They might just identify as someone who is an expert and be no such thing.

Thanks Rowan, I was trying to make it as simple as possible for the hard of understanding.

The lack of thought-through critical thinking is very disturbing. Almost ostrich-like.

I realised that tillytop, I just wanted to add to it!

Thanks again Rowan Do you think we're getting through yet?

To the Do-gooders, going back to the cinema scenario. How do we differentiate between the nice transwoman and the child molesting transwoman? Please explain.

This is the email I sent to Any Answers BBC R4 a few weeks ago after they had discussed gender identity. I was pleased that they read (most of) it out.
Last week I visited the gym. I showered and changed in the women's changing room, an open space with benches and hooks for clothes, but no cubicles. Showers have flimsy curtains.
In the changing room with me were two girls aged 12-13. There was no one else. I am a 65 year old woman, but with gender self ID I could have been a predatory fully male bodied man - no surgery or hormone treatment - simply claiming to be a woman in order to access women's spaces. It is known that predatory men enter professions that give them access to vulnerable people. Should we be surprised if they decide to take advantage of being able to identify as female for the same purpose?
I have granddaughters and I am concerned for their safety if proposed changes to the GRA are implemented. I have sympathy for those individuals suffering from gender dysphoria and feel they should be given appropriate medical help, but their rights should not be prioritised over those of women and girls.

There was a thread recently about a 'mixed gender sleepover' and many posters thought it was a bad idea.

Do-gooders, cinema scenario again. Unfortunately, it wasn't a decent transwoman (there will be many, I know), it was a child molester who sexually assaulted one of the little girls then left the cinema. Again, how do we differentiate, genuine question?

Thanks again Rowan Do you think we're getting through yet?

James Kirkup's article in today's Spectator makes many issues explicit (references include Green Party, the Challenors, WPUK, private prosecution of Linda Bellos, Twitter's mass 'terf' blocker, Dr Adrian Harrop) and is definitely worth reading in its entirety:

'How Caroline Lucas fell foul of the transgender thought police'
(extract)
"But of course, in the looking-glass world of transgender politics, this is not OK to talk to people who might take a different view of the world to your own. It is bad, and must be punished.

Never mind that Lucas had been an outspoken advocate of trans rights in general, and of Aimee Challenor in particular. Never mind that all she said she would do is meet some people and listen to them. None of that could mitigate her sins against transgenderism. The online mob quickly gathered to ensure Lucas was suitably chastised: she said she’d talk to witches, so she must be a witch! Burn her!" (continues)

He concludes:
"And that, dear reader, brings us to the end of this very (post)modern tale of political spite, a story that offers another glimpse into the curious world of transgender politics where no-one – or at least, no woman – is safe from the mob. Remember to mind your opinions, ladies: you could be next!"

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/how-caroline-lucas-fell-foul-of-the-transgender-thought-police/

MN thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3355425-James-Kirkup-on-the-Green-Partys-meltdown

Thanks to Rowan and others who continually provide us with information. I really can't believe this is happening and that so many are willing to place children and women at risk! Including NSPCC, by the looks of it. Genuinely horrified! But of course, I'm just another hysterical woman as we all know. Cinema again, if a transwoman was there, I would have felt obliged to wait to ensure their safety (just in case).Is this really what we've come to?

Born to be quiet an excellent email. I don't suppose you've had a response (and I really hope you didn't get told to fuck off).
I suspect the answer to any of these question is if girls don't like it they don't have to go. So girls will slowly but surely stop using facilities and attending events where thfey expect to have a single sex toilet or changing facility.

Let's assume the vast majority of 'real' trans women are decent people, I'm sure they are. By real I mean those whose decision to be trans was nothing to do with accessing women's spaces.
There will then be a group of men who are predatory or entitled or drunk or all th ree who see an opportunity.
There will also be teenage boys who are not sexual predators but who are fuelled by alcohol, dares or general idiocy to, say, get to change with the girls.
What will happen? Please no fuck offs.

The United Nations put out a report that lack of single sex toilets is harming girls education. So they think it's important.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/single-sex-toilets-unesco-un-international-womens-day-period-a8244776.html%3famp

I urge everyone to watch this. Trans rights DO NOT negate the rights of women and girls. This principle is being ignored. We must not stay silent.

www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/littlehey-prison-paedophiles-cambridgeshire-cooper-15108328

Never happens.

At least they have been reported as 'identifying as' and not 'is' a woman.

David Icke is tweeting about this now!

The paper would have to say 'identifies as' , as I understand it women can't be convicted of rape as this particular scumbag has been.

Didn't say never happens, said rarely. But then that wasn't a man posing as a woman to enter woman's spaces to commit abuse. Just finding a trans person who committed a sex crime is not evidence that the particular thing you keep banging on about happens, we know some trans people comitt offences.

Not enough for you to derail a Q and A by a charity that would help avoid the 99% of other types of abuse with their advice.

Not enough for you to derail a Q and A

I don't think you can derail a Q and A session where no-one has actually asked any Qs....

You can derail it prior by forcing the conversation to your own pet subject and dominating those threads, as well as providing the provocative bile that your crowd always does.

This argument just gets too desperate.

You know sexually violent offences are committed by men 98% of the time. You know that this doesn't change however they identify. You know that cross dressing is the top paraphilia for male prison inmate. You know that predators go to extraordinary lengths to access their victims, including hiding in septic tanks, taking up the priesthood and becoming teachers. You know that every single time they commit an offence they are taking enormous risk, risk averse they are not. You know that nearly half of all transwomen in prison are there for sex offences. You know that removing sex segregation increases sexual offences of men against women. You know that IPSO has told reporters they must report males as females if they identify as such. You know that Stonewalls own definition of transwoman includes men with a fetish that involves the subjugation and degradation of women.

So you can fuck off show me the proof.

The answer is no.

No.

Why are anti-trans posters such fans of anaphora?

tomcat how do we differentiate between an honest, decent transwoman and a sexual deviant transwoman? Genuine question?

sessionExpired it allows them to string together a load of barely related statements that are each themselves misleading in one way or another so as to give the impression those things are all connected and that the connecting factor is the demon trans.

As perfectly demonstrated above.

It's the perfect hyperbolic delivery of multiple "facts" such that one could not possibly start to untangle each one individually to point out why it is flawed, and even less could one then hope to have the time to show how categorically they are barely related.