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

Well then perhaps there should be sone actual answers.

They really are simple questions ones that should easily be answerable.

Instead as usual no one answers them. And not a so how person has backed up the arguments against in any way that doenst involve insults and accusations of isms/phobias.

Most of the deletions were not about the GRA. Some of the deletions were people replying to mods. Some deletions happened, then were undeleted, then mods claimed no deletions had happened in the first place, and 2 members ended up banned. The thread was a shitshow, but saying it was hidden because people were going on and on about the GRA is just false.

I got possibly my first ever deletion on there, which was a reply to someone who was saying the definition of misogyny basically needs to be widened to include male people, I obviously said that was ridiculous, and was deleted but the original post was left to stand, and just anyone replying to it got deleted. It was kind of insane.

I know Gersemi, I thought so too.

Giles it isn't that people don't answer the questions. It isn't that they don't reference their responses with facts, or that their arguments aren't logical. It's that you and yours simply disagree with the answers and refuse to accept them. There are answers to your questions, I've written a good many of them myself, but they're not the answers you want to hear! I'm afraid no-one out there can help that.

The thing is, with any anthropological issue there are a number of ways to view it. There are a number of ways you can perceive that a situation will pan out, and they can all be perfectly well reasoned, evidenced and presented, and yet they can be entirely contradictory. Some people will think one situation is the most likely or the most beneficial to humankind, others will think another is.

That is just a fact of life when speculating on the effect things will have on human beings.

The plain fact is there are perfectly reasonable and researched arguments on either side. Not everything on either side is reasonable. Not everything is logical. But there are clever people on both sides and these people are not failing from the point of view of logic. THEY DO HAVE ANSWERS.

The answers to your questions are out there. You may not like them. You may not agree with them. But they are valid, and they are out there if you go looking. Stop saying no-one ever answers those questions when the simple truth is they do, and not you nor I can say with absolute certainty how this whole GRA/trans situation is going to pan out!

Where are these actual facts then.

Not the same already debunked stats from stone wall.

Actual documented facts that a they aren't male witg make bodies and ergo indistinguishable naked from any other men.

And that they are actually in danger in the UK because so far we have proven they aren't. More trans people in the UK have been murderers than murdered.

And would you tell the police they were male if one went missing because if you would use any male terminology or provide any pictured of them as a boy. Then you are as bad to them.as we are.

And why if they are so fragile that rejjecyolm from a.locker room.has them killing themselves then why are they deemed mentally stable enough to undergo transition hormonally or surgically ?

Relying on the world to lie to you is a pretty big gamble to take to stay alive

I didn't see the thread but when I looked at Twitter comments search 'Mumsnet' last night there were some concerning posts suggesting a deliberate nasty targetting of Posie Parker.

Someone has published a picture of Marilyn Monroe saying that Posie Parker thinks she looks like this, but really she looks like that, pointing a picture of Posie Parker, post partum in hospital, recovering from a C section.

Sorry, I meant to add that Posie's main upset is where they got the second photo. Since it's on her private Facebook.

Exactly. Vile behaviour.

that, pointing a picture of Posie Parker, post partum in hospital, recovering from a C section

Wow. That's low. However, I'm sure most sane people would simply register said photo as about an event that happens to many women and no transgender women and many would think "I've been there".

And why if they are so fragile that rejjecyolm from a.locker room.has them killing themselves then why are they deemed mentally stable enough to undergo transition hormonally or surgically ?

To be fair Giles you know this is pretty offensive, don't you? I mean generally offensive - not just to trans people - but to anyone who's ever experienced depression, bullying or suicidal thoughts. If there's one thing I could wish for it would be that you stop thinking this is a reasonable statement to make about anybody, because it is exceptionally ignorant.

If a woman isn't together enough due to PND to look after herself, why would she be deemed mentally stable enough to look after her baby?

If a doctor can be driven to depression and suicidal ideation by the death of a pet, how can they be responsible for their patients when they're on shift?

If a woman is deemed mentally stable enough to understand the implications of a hysterectomy but snaps when someone assumes she's the maid because of her skin colour, because it is on the back of years of racial prejudice and abuse... should her operation be cancelled?

And it's not that women don't like the answers. It's that they are not explained or evidenced.

The answer to do you ignore your usual safeguarding if a boy says he is trans, is yes.

This requires explanation/justification.

Trying to force women on here to say that he is a woman, whilst also harassing a woman for not looking her best straight after a C-section.

If that isn't male pattern abuse I don't know what is.

and many would think "I've been there".

Ironically, she looked gorgeous. And she was getting increasingly irritated with people for saying so! Because her point was where did they get the photo.

And it's not that women don't like the answers. It's that they are not explained or evidenced.

Let me finish that sentence for you Datun. They are not explained or evidenced to YOUR satisfaction.

And by "your" I don't mean "women". Because you don't speak for women. You speak for some women. A very small proportion of Mumsnet's 12 million unique users and and even smaller proportion of the general population.

Once again I have to ask you to stop referring to yourself as if you speak for women. It's exceedingly arrogant.

You certainly don't speak for me.

I don't do Twitter so I don't quite get what is going on and I have no idea how they got the photo :(

If that isn't male pattern abuse I don't know what is.

You don't know what is.

Let me finish that sentence for you Datun. They are not explained or evidenced to YOUR satisfaction.

Or in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

RatRolyPoly genuine question. If things do change re female spaces, how will we distinguish between harmless transwomen and harmful transwomen?

So the message is we should shut up

There are some quite determined campaigns of harrassment, attempts to 'doxx', bully, shame, silence, manipulate etc
There's a good example today, with explanation which is also relevent to the discussions on the thread:
twitter.com/mrkhtake2/status/1037249766445465600

There are some Twitter TRA accounts which have relentlessly targetted the FWR board for some time now in a number of ways.

So first we were bad little mummies for railroading a completely open thread where anyone could pose whatever question they wished, with our irrelevant, unrelated questions, which, despite referencing pants and speak out stay safe, were so off topic that the NSPCC has to run away from the bad mummies thus depriving thousands of children of the safeguarding protection of a webchat.

And now, it wasn’t that our questions weren’t relevant it was that they have actually already been answered, quite where or by whom you can’t say, but they definitely have, if only we would look.

stealth

About that issue. Sometimes. That's all.

If things do change re female spaces, how will we distinguish between harmless transwomen and harmful transwomen?

What change are you foreseeing here? Unisex toilets? In a unisex toilet I advise you to do what you usually do to tell between someone up to no good and someone simply using the loo, be them trans or otherwise.

If the chance is simply trans women using the ladies' I advise you to to what you'd usually do to tell between a woman up to no good and someone simply using the loo, be them trans or otherwise.

A tip: it's usually the stuff they do that gives you the clue.

*change, not chance

You don't know what is.

What is male pattern abuse then?