MNHQ We Have a Problem

[DioneTheDiabolist]

In the past week, we have had the NSPCC pull out of a Web chat about their Speak Out Stay Safe (teaching children how to stay safe from abuse and what to do if they have any concerns) and PANTS (teaching parents how to talk to young children about staying safe from sexual abuse in an age appropriate way) programmes.

We have also had Stella Creasey MP pull out of a Web chat about making misogyny a hate crime.

As I am interested and invested in the safety and wellbeing of women and children, I am disappointed that these Web chats did not take place, seemingly because the views of the NSPCC and Stella Creasey regarding Trans issues do not align with some GC MNetters.

I want to ask MNHQ, what are you doing/can be done to prevent this from happening again? Plenty of women and parents here would like to hear what they have to say about keeping our children safe and legislation being drafted to protect women.

I cannot understand why the questions weren't answered. I assume that is why everybody felt they had to repeat the questions as they felt the person in question was avoiding the issue.

The NSPCC is currently endorsing lobby group guidance - and, indeed, repeats this guidance in its own materials - that does not only affect girls as feminists often argue, but also places trans-identifying children outwith statutory safeguarding frameworks and therefore makes them more vulnerable to infiltrating abusers than other children.

It's not a GC vs Genderism clash. It's a pro vs anti safeguarding clash. If you want to protect trans-identifying children, you should be asking these questions regardless of your views on the trans issue overall.

Here, staggeringly, the NSPCC is in the anti-safeguarding camp. And when uppity women ask them questions about this, they run away rather than provide answers.

If you don't find this shocking - the problem is you, not the women asking the questions. And if any of you bothered to read what the women on FWR were saying about this instead of smugly sneering transphobia, you'd know this.

What questions should we be permitted to ask child protection agencies, then, Dione? Favourite biscuit uncontroversial enough for you?

Mumsnet is not about controlling speech. Mumsnet is one of the most important resources for freedom of speech right now. If organisations visit with a message to disseminate or an agenda to push, let them stand up for themselves using the same polite, relevant, rational, free speech that MNers use in their questions.

This bears repeating: the material being pushed in schools places trans-identifying children outwith statutory safeguarding frameworks and therefore makes them more vulnerable to infiltrating abusers than other children.

Even if you’re the staunchest supporter of GRA reform, that should worry you. every single bit of that safeguarding framework was brought in after loopholes were exploited by predators. Any group, who for any reason, are trying to actively dismantle safeguarding, need close scrutiny.

places trans-identifying children outwith statutory safeguarding frameworks and therefore makes them more vulnerable to infiltrating abusers than other children.

Please give detail here.

Mumsnet is not about controlling speech.

Mumsnet is a business.

... or at least, a link to the specific guidance. TIA.

Sure Mumsnet is a business. And we are its USP.

Please give detail here.

Ok, I presume you are aware of the general feminist arguments about girls and I'll just point out a few (of many) safeguarding holes created by lobby group guidance for the trans-identifying children themselves. I'll be as brief as I can for the purposes of this thread but there are umpteen more detailed threads on FWR - many women had been waiting a long time for access to NSPCC to ask why they were endorsing this stuff.

confidential disclosures safeguarding 101. A child with a secret you are keeping for it, is a child easiest to control for grooming and abuse purposes.

parental alienation/not keeping parents informed - parents cannot parent successfully if they are not informed of things going on their children's lives, nor can they be alerted to or protect their children from the possibility of abuse. Best practice is to inform parents (unless they are abusive themselves)

no involvement of other agencies - multi agency working provides a check and balance against abuser infiltration and is helpful working with children who may need different expertise to resolve issues. This is statutory practice.

These are just three points of many. And it should be noted that with regard to SEND children, some of this advice is almost certainly unlawful.

Good Twitter thread with other detail here: twitter.com/mrkhtake2/status/1011552247132704770

Statutory safeguarding guidance here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-safeguard-children--2

This is the trans lobby group toolkit: www.mermaidsuk.org.uk/assets/media/Trans-Inclusion-Schools-Toolkit.pdf

And we are its USP.

Who do you mean by "we"? Mumsnet users? Or staunchly GC Mumsnet users prone to activism? The first existed long before the second and would continue were they not here. Let's not anyone get above themselves now, MN doesn't need any single subset of us.

The feminism boards are generally the only place you are guaranteed to find real intelligence on MN. The rest of it is watered down and frankly verging on downright dull. Has Maryz been banned?

Mumsnet is a business.

Yes, it is. And the women on FWR are doing it a big favour. It drives huge traffic. Figures for traffic entering FWR directly:

June 2017 - 15,000
June 2018 - 177,000

Mumsnet is a business, not a social service. It is not reasonable to expect it to do anything which might alienate its advertisers. Simple as that.

Lang you and I both know that a large proportion of those visits won't have been on the back of hearing how wonderful a forum MN is.

Sadly.

I don't think you should go around confidently trotting out that stat as if it's been good for business.

Traffic is good for business, you nitwit! Doesn't matter if the visitors are nodding along sagely or lollygagging at the vile women daring to type words. It's still traffic figures for advertisers.

Go ask MNHQ for figures for the other boards and see if they've got a single one where traffic increased 12x over the last year.

The feminism boards are generally the only place you are guaranteed to find real intelligence on MN. The rest of it is watered down and frankly verging on downright dull.

Nice insult of thousands of people there.

Unfortunately it is true sally

The site is buried under cheeky fucker crap.

Lang you really don't need to talk to me like I'm thick, particularly when it's you who is spectacularly missing the point.

Yes, advertisers like traffic, regardless of their intent. But they don't like associating with brands which are becoming increasingly synonymous with contentious fringe political movements. And when they become SO well known for that that people flock here from Twitter specifically to "gawp" at the MN transphobes... well there's only so long you can consider the traffic a net gain.

Dur.

Lang, again, you're missing the point. If that increase in traffic is down mn's increasingly poor reputation, no-one is going to be patting you on the back.

mostdays

Another thread for you with more detail:

twitter.com/mrkhtake2/status/1011225868075757568

Like I say, the NSPCC cancelling a webchat because it could not answer questions about why it is endorsing this guidance is something that should be concerning both sides of this debate. And that nobody on the non-GC side will ask these questions is a very loud silence if you ask me. Trans-identifying children are being placed outwith safeguarding frameworks by the country's leading child protection charity. It's a disgrace.

We all get irritated at puff pieces in magazines or appearances on chat shows by celebrities who are there to plug something, and will not be sidetracked into discussing anything else.

This was the same thing. The NSPCC were appearing on their own terms, to publicise campaigns. Their "spokesperson" for the MN chat would probably have been a bright and bushy-tailed media-trained young person who would not have been able to cope with difficult questions.

They had to pull their lamb out of the lion's den quickly, but they should come back with one of their top brass who is able to articulate what the NSPCC policy on safeguarding is and either allay concerns or have the decency to admit there is a problem.

It's bad enough losing FWR to the GC crew, but now it seems to be spreading to AIBU and chat more

I'm confused as to how the minority of GC women is somehow preventing the majority of posters from posting?

Has Maryz been banned?

I think so...

I'm going to post what I put on the NSPCC thread (way after the NSPCC had pulled out, btw).

And again, getting back on track.

The NSPCC's PANTS campaign.

P = privates are private
A = always remember your body belongs to you
N = no means no
T = talk about it (i.e. don't allow an adult to coerce you into keeping secrets).
S = speak up, someone can help.

The trans material going into schools from organisations who are uncritically pro-self-ID cuts across this.

So - male bodied teen identifies as a transgirl. They should be allowed into girls' changing rooms according to these guidelines - and screw the P, A and N bit for the girls already there. If they object, they're the bigots.

Teen of either sex goes to see a teacher because they're confused about their feelings of dysphoria about their body during puberty (not unusual in teens) and feelings of gender confusion (not surprisingly in a society which is increasingly intolerant of gender non-conforming individuals). The trans teaching materials suggest that the teacher should keep everything in the strictest confidence - not inform other teachers, those with responsibility for safeguarding, and particularly not the child's parents. At that point, there goes the T and S of PANTS too.

That's the whole point of this thread - the PANTS rule is about good safeguarding practice, some of the materials going into schools purportedly supporting trans youngsters goes directly against this long established code of practice (drawn up the hard way, through a whole series of catastrophic safeguarding failures) and the NSPCC is not prepared to talk about this - to parents who are raising concerns.