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 dont know why they dont do their research...but they dont seem to

MNHQ bear responsibility here too, they should be briefing their guests properly. None of this was in any way unpredictable.

Again i agree nona

Which could probably be covered by point B...if i was being extremely generous to myself

They shoud have researched and MNHQ should have given them a heads up ...apologies to MNHQ if they did

I suppose MNHQ can’t exactly say “we briefed them thoroughly but they were unprepared and had a tantrum” regardless of what actually went on behind the scenes.

It’s disappointing though, I’d have expected a long established organisation like the NSPCC to be more professional and to have the courage of their convictions.

nona

No, i agree...again

(I wish they would though , that would be awesome)

All these things that MNHQ should be doing with their guests on their site in order to account for a vociferous minority of posters who, frankly, cause them more trouble than benefit.

I don't whether to be gobsmacked or amused at the lengths GC posters think MNHQ should go to to have the privilege of continuing to host them on their site. Didn't you say there was nowhere else that would have you??

And the tellings off doled out to MNHQ if they ever fail to bend MN around them... Bonkers.

So, apart from saying 'organisations must answer the questions', what are people proposing here? I suggested something on page 5, but that seems to be about the only concrete suggestion on a way through so far.

What winds me up about this thread is everyone from both sides says 'its terrible' but just blames the other side rather than trying to find a way to let at least some discussion continue (which is surely better than none?).

I'm with the OP.

Anti trans feminists, what on earth do you expect MN to do? Handcuff these people to their chairs before they've seen the questions?

Ffs noon rod “anti trans”

Poster voicing concerns about the saftey of women and girls because of *self ID” is not transphobic.

That should read

None is anti trans.

Well solutions-wise, there's always been this unwritten rule on MN that you show a reasonable degree of respect to the OP of a thread that it is the subject of their OP that you are there to talk about. Sure, things can go off on a tangent, but deliberate derailing has always been frowned upon, and anyone wanting to talk about something other than the OP is encouraged to start their own thread about it.

It seems that mutual respect is waning with regards to guests.

Perhaps it's time to get it in writing.

The thing is, if the NSPCC really thinks GC feminists like me are frothing loons, they ought to be able to blow our arguments out the water effortlessly, engaging in the "talk to the lurkers" mindset (i.e. remember you won't convince the loon, but you'll be able to show the rational people reading what's wrong with that question.)

So:
My 14 year old daughter has been told she has to shower with a transgirl. She's very uncomfortable about having to get naked in front of someone with a penis. What should I get the school to do about this?

NSPCC takes deep breath and explains why the questioner and her daughter's worries are entirely irrational and ill founded and there's no risk...

Or
I've just found out that my daughter has been wearing a binder at school and getting them to call her Mike for the last year, and is now buying testosterone off the internet - and the school didn't tell me. What should they have done?

NSPCC takes a deep breath and explains to the parent why the answer is "exactly what they did do - you as a parent had no right to know and there is no safeguarding issue here."

C'mon guys, if we're frothing loons, it should be really easy to do this, like shooting fish in a barrel, no?

Poster voicing concerns about the saftey of women and girls because of self ID” is not transphobic.*

Who on earth said it is??

When people here mention anti-trans, don't you think they're smart enough to know the difference between concern for women and girls and transphobia? Give them some credit!

What winds me up about this thread is everyone from both sides says 'its terrible' but just blames the other side

Im attempting not to blame anyone

I dont think its MNHQ fault at all

Or those who asked questions which concerned them

Or those who didnt ask any questions

I dont even blame the NSPCC for not answering any questions regarding trans, but they should have answered the other questions

When people here mention anti-trans, don't you think they're smart enough to know the difference between concern for women and girls and transphobia?

No.

The thing is, if the NSPCC really thinks GC feminists like me are frothing loons, they ought to be able to blow our arguments out the water effortlessly, engaging in the "talk to the lurkers" mindset (i.e. remember you won't convince the loon, but you'll be able to show the rational people reading what's wrong with that question.)

This. OP didn't know why not -anyone else?

but deliberate derailing has always been frowned upon, and anyone wanting to talk about something other than the OP

All the questions related to the OP. It wasn't "deliberate derailing". Did you have a question? Didn't catch it.

What's that got to do with mumsnet though erish?

You can make the point all you like about how things ought to be but people have freedom of choice. I don't see how your post is relevant because MN will not be able to force anyone to do what someone thinks they ought to do.

What's what got to do with Mumsnet?

I'm not asking MN to "force" anyone to do anything.

The fact that the NSPCC ought to be able to come on and effortlessly dismiss your frothing.

Hard to see the relevance of your post on this thread then.

Ah, the ambiguities of the English language - when I said "ought" I meant (as should be clear from the context to anyone with a basic comprehension of English) "it should be easy for them, they should be able to do this without even breaking a sweat", not "ought" as in "morally compelled to do so".

Still, if you want to wilfully misread a post, I can't stop you.

I'd love to hear your answers to the actual questions, but I guess I won't get that, will I?

Hard to see the relevance of your post on this thread then.

My posts are relevant, unlike yours.

The point is that we are calling out the NSPCC for not being able to answer. It's very telling. If you weren't just jumping on the bandwagon without knowing what you're talking about solely to have a go at GC feminists, you might grasp this.

when I said "ought" I meant (as should be clear from the context to anyone with a basic comprehension of English) "it should be easy for them, they should be able to do this without even breaking a sweat", not "ought" as in "morally compelled to do so".

YY. 🙄

And my point is that you have turned the OPs thread (about something very specific) into a continuation of the previous NSPCC thread which is actually a great illustration of why guests no longer want to talk to m u mumsnetters.