Return of women who were right about safeguarding

[RhannionKPSS]

AIBU to think Mumsnet should allow women ( & men ) who were right about lack of safeguarding in certain places back on this site? ( if they wish to return) ?

The Guides are very iffy on this subject.

It's a real shame.

I keep trying to 'like' posts and bookmarking them instead.

Agree!

'Safeguarding is transphobic'.

It will be interesting to see how organisations and individuals respond now it is clear that Mermaids is not a safe organisation to sign post children with gender issues to.

It is a shame that people have been removed and banned for pointing these issues out.

I'm not sure they would return if they were allowed to either.

IIRC the Weetabix criminal was banned for pointing out that MNHQ were possibly being coercively controlled by the external monitors of the feminist board. For anyone not aware, the sex and gender board attracts people with a certain agenda who report posts in the hope of getting them taken down. Anecdotally I think they target really effective, influential and knowledgeable posters, I rarely have posts deleted 🙁. They also seem to report posts about child safeguarding with a suspicious frequency, only a halfwit would wonder about their agenda.

There is also an international group who self ID as experts in trans healthcare who have been connected with a fetish website. This article is well worth a read as is the whole reduxx website.

reduxx.info/top-academic-behind-fetish-site-hosting-child-sexual-abuse-fantasy-push-to-revise-wpath-guidelines/

The silencing of women, to appease and, placate men that believe themselves to be women, is misogynistic and, the way Lesbians in particular have been targeted, it’s clearly homophobic.

What becomes particularly grating on me, as some that is mixed race, is how TRA link our racial struggles with them wanting to wear a dress. If people understood very clearly that blackfishing is wrong than why is that not same sentiment nor logic, applied in this case?

I am particularly concerned about the amount of paedophile and sexual predators and, apologists have hitched themselves to this cause.

Why does one require being a biologist to define what a woman is?

It’s particularly galling that these ‘trans women are women’ brigade know exactly what a woman is when trying to have a baby.

Now, coke fight me!

Its 2022 so women's rights, child safeguarding and same SEX attraction are transphobic.

Transphobes wanna transphobe. Simple

@entropynow, do you honestly, HONESTLY still believe that, after everything that's now emerging about the trans activism movement? I think you need to wise up a bit and read the room. We've moved on from this now.

Susie Green, Chief Executive of Mermaids UK and Girlguiding UK claim that including people who identify as female to join or lead groups does not put girls at risk.In an article for the Guardian Susie Green wrote:

In recent weeks we have seen arguments flare up around the Girlguiding’s policies that allow transgender people to join the organisation – one headline said that its stance poses a risk as young people face sharing showers or tents with men.

The deliberately inflammatory statement has no basis in fact or truth.

Throughout the piece, transgender girls are referred to as boys. And the tone of outrage at “boys” sharing showers and tents with girls invites the reader to imagine predatory young people stalking girls and abusing them in these settings. What is most worrying is that this will inevitably lead to prejudice against transgender children increasing, despite no evidence whatsoever that trans girls pose a threat.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/04/transphobia-daughter-guides-inclusivity-girlguiding-transgender-girls

In c. 1984, my "Captain" had to cancel camp because someone reported that she took her son on guide camp every summer. He would have been 11 that year. Now it would apparently be fine.

"right side of history"..........

Please, please, I beg you, keep saying this.

It's all you've got, and it's witless nonsense, and that's why I want you to keep saying it. Up against the statistics, the facts, the lived experiences, the hard science, the victims, the bleeding fucking obvious, this is all you've got and all you've ever had.

As people become less afraid to say that the empire-ruler-assigned-male-at-birth has no clothes (and he's clearly assigned male at birth), it becomes clearer and clearer that you have nothing but this worthless, empty, hate-filled, anti-woman nonsense.

You are doing us the most enormous favour. Please go up against the women cheated out of their sporting medals by males who think a woman is a slightly hobbled man, the women assaulted in prison by someone who was not a woman legally or biologically, the young girls who were traumatised on shopping trips, the Muslim and Jewish women who cannot use public facilities, the women losing professional awards to recognise women to intact male people who don't know whether they'll be female tomorrow, and give them this gut-churning bollock followed by a mic drop.

I beg you. Please.

Bait and switch, GC and people with safeguarding concern bring up adult males using this as a vehicle to access young girls.

SG: Transgender children aren't predators, you're all transphobes!

@entropynow

That tired old rhetoric doesn’t wash with some of us.

maybe I’ll resort to churlish retorts? Let me try….paedo apologists just want to be paedo applogists.

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

I think mnhq were offended by the implication they didn't realise they were being used /controlled.

It's really tricky. Look at the never ending list of organisations and people who supported Mermaids. I'd say that many of them were groomed into thinking Mermaids genuinely helped a vulnerable cohort of kids. That's not me being insulting. It's me being kind and giving people some benefit of the doubt. Insulting would be to say a person definitely agreed with sterilising and mutilating gay and autistic kids.

But I get that it's really really hard to admit to having been used /groomed /controlled. It can really destroy your sense of self agency. Look at how common it is for raped women to take years to be able to admit what happened to them. Or how long it takes women to leave abusive DV relationships.

A very balanced article

amp.spectator.co.uk/article/are-sex-offenders-exploiting-trans-rights-policies-behind-bars-/amp

now stay out of my toilets, my sports, my single sex safe spaces.

I hate that too, likening black women and transwomen as if they are both types of women, I mean who ever questioned whether black women are women? That's so offensive and untrue, just another example of TRAs hijacking other movements and trying to act like they are similar (same as the gay rights movement) when they totally different

The trans activism movement promotes the protection of a very small minority - which it claims is one of the most vulnerable in society - and puts human rights at the centre of its sloganeering.

I'd be horrified to have my name, my flag, my lanyard, my politics, misappropriated by MRAs who openly hate and persecute women, the coercion of lesbians to accept people they don't want as sexual partners, the bastardization of medical literature, the stigmatizing of 'woman' as a dirty word, the repeated targeting of rape crisis centres and refuges for females fleeing VAWG, medical contacts with dubious ethics (cf. closure of the Tavistock GIDS), irreversible alteration of the bodies of children (cf. the Keira Bell case), serious issues surrounding the safeguarding of children, now the misappropriation of children's charities by those openly promoting child sexual exploitation. These are all verifiable facts.

If such sinister manipulations of the cause as this - nearly every one of which focuses on serious safeguarding concerns - are deleterious to the interests of peaceful trans people as well as women and children, then what I want to know is: why isn't there a deafening chorus from within that movement, demanding 'not in my name?'

As for the former chorus of support for the key charity involved with children, no prizes for guessing what's happened to that.

Radio silence.

YANBU. I am deeply involved in safeguarding and have witnessed, over the past few years, a concerted effort to dismantle it. I've seen people on Twitter (and on here, to a more limited extent) dismissing safeguarding concerns and even mocking people for raising them.

There is nowhere that those who would seek access to your children will NOT go to gain that access. There are no limits to the game they are willing to play - and it's a long game. You dismiss concerns at your peril.

"Black" doesn't alter the meaning of "woman". It's a skin colour. Neither does "gay", "butch", "blonde", "unkind", "European", "beautiful", "ugly", "clever", "stupid" or any other adjective that has nothing to do with the meaning of the word "woman" as an adult human female.

"Male" however, does. A woman is a woman precisely because she is not a man. A black woman is a woman, a transwoman is a transwoman.

I had perhaps stupidly not realised that these people advocated making children ‘adults’ with 13 year old bodies…

wtaf?!!!!

Anyone very interested in this, research the Labour Party and their links to PIE.

This is why Rosie Duffield was left to be savaged by the TRAs.

@ComebackQueen
rosie duffield is one of the sensible people around… PIE I’ll need to Google…

Wow - I’d no idea…

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562555/Labours-child-sex-apologists-How-three-partys-senior-figures-campaigned-vile-paedophile-group-probed-police-abusing-children-industrial-scale.html