Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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
Ereshkigal · 05/09/2018 15:43

the cumulative negative effects of excluding trans people would easily outweigh it.

In. Your. Opinion. Forgive me if I don't think that's the arbiter of right and wrong.

momentomori · 05/09/2018 15:44

An extremely small percentage of the total of violent or sexually abusive acts against women occur in unisex public locations; even relatively private ones

Do you mean sexually abusive acts against women that have resulted in a conviction? Or do you mean actual real life sexual harassment / acts that most women have to deal with on multiple occasions during their lives and don't even bother to report because they know that nothing will be done about it?

What little prevention is achieved by segregating toilets in 2018 in the UK is just as easily achieved with full length lockable doors, well thought-through building design that ensures toilets are not in remote locations, and the ubiquitous CCTV - which is everywhere these days anyway

CCTV is not a preventative measure.

When I was stuck on a late night train with a man who thought it was OK to sit and masturbate in my general direction the BTP said that this was a common problem on trains and that this was how some men got their kicks. CCTV did not prevent him from doing that to me. Furthermore the CCTV was not of "high enough quality" for them to identify who the man was or what he was doing.

RatRolyPoly · 05/09/2018 15:44

In. Your. Opinion. Forgive me if I don't think that's the arbiter of right and wrong.

Um.. yes. In. My. Opinion.

Based on the crime stats from the ONS on the locations and perpetrators of sexual and violent assaults on women in the UK.

But as I said only earlier on this very thread, I'm not trying to convince you because I know the same facts can be interpreted more than one way. I'm just telling you why there are a lot of us out there that you fail to convince!

tillytop · 05/09/2018 15:44

Rat, why do you no longer want this way smaller than slim preventative effect for women and girls?

RatRolyPoly · 05/09/2018 15:45

tilly because the alternative is far worse for everyone.

tillytop · 05/09/2018 15:49

Explain further please Rat. How is the alternative to smaller than slim protection for women and girls, far worse for everyone?

tillytop · 05/09/2018 15:54

This is intriguing

RatRolyPoly · 05/09/2018 15:55

I think I just did that tilly....

For as long as there are trans people there is no way of enforcing a xx/xy split in toilet usage, and no way of enforcing a third space that must be used by trans people.

And, well, I assume you're resigned to the fact there will always be trans people, right?

Let me ask you this. If you would like toilets to be xx.xy segregated, how would you know that a "man" walking into the ladies who says he is a trans man isn't actually just a pervy man walking in off the street?

You're scared a predator would have to put on a dress. In your world he wouldn't even have to do that!

RatRolyPoly · 05/09/2018 15:57

And let me add to that, if there were a third space, what would you say to the "man" walking into the ladies' who insists that they are indeed a woman but that they have rejected gender stereotypes?

Good luck with that one.

RatRolyPoly · 05/09/2018 15:59

And don't tell me "people can tell". They quite patently can't, not all of them. if you won't take anecdotal evidence to prove that then how about the oft-quoted study that shows people can tell 99% (or something) of the time...

Isn't it just the 1% of the population who are trans?

Soo.... absolutely no guarantee we can "tell" when people are trans.

tillytop · 05/09/2018 16:07

Rat You've complicated a very simple issue as usual but you've also confirmed you no longer see the need for smaller than slim preventative measures for women and girls. You're making it absolutely clear that you've thrown yourself and women and girls under the bus. How do you feel apart from your low self worth?

Mrbatmun · 05/09/2018 16:11

tilly because the alternative is far worse for everyone.

How is it far worse for everyone?

Vickyyyy · 05/09/2018 16:12

I think everyone does agree on it, Big, but some people think it isn't worth talking about if we can't first all agree that trans women aren't women

But thats not what happened, not even close.

You weren't even on the thread, yet you seem to know what happened from a deletion message (actually, they said they would reopen the thread today IIRC, which hasn't happened)

titchy · 05/09/2018 16:15

I called it "slim" in the context of fully unisex loos

What about the context of DV shelters? prisons? Showers? Changing rooms? Hospitals?

Is there a need to protect women in those contexts rat?

Ereshkigal · 05/09/2018 16:16

Actually I just Googled "RatRolyPoly Mumsnet Woman Definition" and look what I found...

Yes, I remember that thread! It was quite something. I was actually going to quote from it on another thread as an example of one of your "answers". Glad we're on the same page.

Woman = an adult human female, or one who identifies as such

Damn, that was hard.

LOL.

Mrbatmun · 05/09/2018 16:17

So Rat you are saying just have mixed sex facilities for all? Even though a report came out the other day about a rise in sexual assaults being linked to unisex facilities?

OK, changing rooms aside, what about other sex segregated places? Refuges, rape crisis centres, prisons. Just throw them open?

RatRolyPoly · 05/09/2018 16:18

Rat You've complicated a very simple issue as usual but you've also confirmed you no longer see the need for smaller than slim preventative measures for women and girls.

That's complicated is it? The idea that when you have two possible outcomes and one is worse than the other you choose the less-bad one??

Christ, I'm not sure that engaging in debate is for you Confused

You're making it absolutely clear that you've thrown yourself and women and girls under the bus. How do you feel apart from your low self worth?

I feel like you're wrong, obviously, and probably quite unpleasant. It doesn't sound like you think I have low self-worth, it sounds like you want me to.

Unlucky for you.

How do you feel attacking the self-esteem of women whose opinions you disagree with?

Ereshkigal · 05/09/2018 16:18

I'm just telling you why there are a lot of us out there that you fail to convince

Not all that many, when they get the full unvarnished truth of what's actually being demanded.

Mrbatmun · 05/09/2018 16:18

And I think I have asked you this before Rat but I don't think I got an answer. What about women and children who just aren't comfortable changing or being vulnerable in front of someone who is obviously male? What about their feelings?

RatRolyPoly · 05/09/2018 16:20

What about the context of DV shelters? prisons? Showers? Changing rooms? Hospitals?

Is there a need to protect women in those contexts rat?

Yes. And personally, having expended quite a lot of energy researching and engaging with other on each one of those topics individually, I have opinions about how best to go about that for each and every one of those instances.

It appears you would prefer a blanket rule of exclusion.

I mean I know that makes it easier to get one's head around, but it's not exactly the best we could do, is it?

Anyway, I have a job that needs me. Icing a cake if you like (I don't bake), but you can take the hours I've spent on this thread alone as evidence of my hardly running from the debate.

Ereshkigal · 05/09/2018 16:21

Based on the crime stats from the ONS on the locations and perpetrators of sexual and violent assaults on women in the UK.

It's not actually just about whether you are statistically likely to be raped. I hope we have a higher bar than that for addressing women's concerns and feelings, given that we apparently need to bend over backwards to pander to male feelings.

birdsdestiny · 05/09/2018 16:21

If there is no real risk in toilets then why would transwomen need to use female toilets to escape male violence.

Vickyyyy · 05/09/2018 16:21

Well quick read it seems more an issue with Stella Creasy, timing and Stonewall rather than subject of street harassment and misogyny - though some thought provoking points about hate crime in general.

Yup, this was pretty much it. It was suspicious that stonewall had been consulted when they are very anti-women in their current form. Stella also came to us late in the day, the DAY before the consultation asking us to contact our MPs. Most MPs wouldn't even have checked their emails at night anyway, and even iof they did, whos to say they can attend on very short notice. Most of our emails would not have got read until after the fact. So it seemed very odd. Pointing this out however earned deletions. Replying to mods earned deletions. Mods deleted some posters posts, then reinstated them after the posters asked why they were deleted, then it was claimed they were never deleted, when posters called this behaviour gaslighting, they were banned. TRAs were tagteaming and saying the meaning of misogyny needs widened to include male people being targetted and that it should be based on 'gender' rather than biological sex, replies to this nonsense were deleted while the TRAs posts were left to stand. Posts were deleted within seconds of being made. And so on.

It absolutely was NOT deleted as feminists banged on and on about the GRA. Most of the deletions were nothing to do with that and were questioning mods frankly..odd decisions.

Then the Posie thing came out, the TRA started kicking off that by condemning their behavior we were 'defending a known racist' and that basically Posuie deserves anything coming to her. And then, the thread was locked, apparently to be reopened in the morning.

But...even if it was reopened it would be too late because its all happening TODAY. As I said, even emailing last night as we were asked to do would have made no difference as it was too late to come to us the DAY BEFORE its all happening.

Ereshkigal · 05/09/2018 16:22

And I think I have asked you this before Rat but I don't think I got an answer. What about women and children who just aren't comfortable changing or being vulnerable in front of someone who is obviously male? What about their feelings?

You will never get any sort of answer that respects other women's feelings.

Ereshkigal · 05/09/2018 16:23

Bye Rat! Do hurry back!