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.

Yes. I noticed that and don't normally take part in them. Perhaps they don't want to be challenged???

It's specifically about how awful gender critical feminists MN posters are with regards to the NSPCC and Creasey threads. So yes, we are going to come and have our say about that. Don't like it? Maybe don't start or post on threads about other MN posters. This is basically a TAAT.

For goodness sake at th faux wide eyed innocence being played out. "Oh I really don't understand" "every one else ought to do something but me, I'm right"

The issue as you all well know, as everyone reading this knows, is you all gang up and ask the same questions in multiple different ways, with varying levels of aggression and the key issue? Only one answer will suffice for you. That's basically that anyone biologically male with his parts intact should not be allowed in female only spaces, and an extrapolation of that depending on the question.

Any other opinion and the poster is hounded, abused, turned on by a small handful of posters who then derail and attack.

That's why they won't interact. That's why no one wants to interact. And until the gc crowd learn to listen to other opinions. Not to attack or hound people for having different opinions, no one is ever going to come on here and interact.

That's why it's over.

So, in effect, you want to say "some questions are just wrongthink and should not be asked, and if we do that, the NSPCC quite reasonably will pull out", and we should be able to say this to GC feminists, but GC feminists should not be allowed to respond by saying "what questions are wrongthink? These ones? What's wrong with them?"

Wouldn't it be quicker to just answer the goddam question, show everyone why we're so terribly wrong, then get back to talking about other stuff?

I mean constantly harping on about "you shouldn't be able to harry people by asking this sort of question" does run the risk of making it look like you have something to hide. Which, coming a matter of weeks after David "Baloo" Challenor, prime mover in formulating Green Party trans policy, including "unquestioning affirmation" and self-ID as "access to all female areas" free pass, setting up the terf blocker on twitter while simultaneously holding green party membership records, Scout leader, coach in local youth gymnastics club, was found guilty of rape and sexual torture of a 10 year old and sentenced to 22 years without automatic parole, is really not a look you want to go for.

What I see repeatedly is questions being asked on the GC side and no reply being given, only the assertion that we are attacking, transphobic or being mean, and should therefore shut up.
^^ this

@MNHQ - any sign of that recorded video promised from NSPCC when they cancelled their webchat?

Here is the question I wanted an answer to:

Why is NSPCC endorsing guidance that places trans-identifying children outwith statutory safeguarding protocols, thereby making them more vulnerable to abusers than other children?

This is not a GC feminist argument. It has nothing to do with feminism even of the pomo-addled variety. It is only to do with child protection I notice that not one genderist on this thread has said bloody hell, I would like an answer to this too. The only contributions are women: don't speak unless it's in agreement with authority (and me).

Why? Why don't genderists care about the child protection of their very own children? Why can't the NSPCC answer questions about child protection of trans-identifying minors? Why is it detrimental to the MN USP to ask such a question?

Why?

Wouldn't it be quicker to just answer the goddam question, show everyone why we're so terribly wrong, then get back to talking about other stuff?

You'd think so, wouldn't you.

Wouldn't it be quicker to just answer the goddam question, show everyone why we're so terribly wrong, then get back to talking about other stuff?

Sigh and the faux wide eyed innocence continues, of course it it wouldn't be quicker. Because the answer would never be accepted and there would be an abusive and derailing pile on.

Multiple posters ,, hundreds if not more, have tried to answer and explain their position and all they get is hounded off.

Quicker my arse.

Don't be silly, Bluntness.

Disagreement is not "abuse". People are allowed to agree with each other and not you. AIBU is a pile on. Go and lecture people there.

No, they haven't, they really haven't ever answered the questions. They've waffled about how even asking the question is cruel to transpeople, but they haven't bloody well answered it.

Have a go at Lang's.

Guidance is now going into schools which says "if a troubled teenager with gender dysphoria comes to you to discuss this, you can assure them that everything they say will be kept in strict confidence and not disclosed to anyone else."

How does that square with multi-agency, joined up thinking in safeguarding. Let's leave aside the possibility that that poor trans teenager might disclose to someone like Baloo Challenor (a Scout leader, let me remind you) and take a more mundane case where everyone is working with the best of intentions.

The English teacher knows student A is struggling with gender dysphoria, but tells no-one.

The PE teacher notices that A has scars from cutting but tells no-one.

The maths teacher notices that A sits at the back of the class and looks on the verge of tears the whole time, but tells no-one.

The lunchtime assistant sees A being bullied in the playground, but tells no-one.

No-one connects up the dots and acts on the warning signs - then A tries to commit suicide and everyone throws up their hands and says "I had no idea it was so bad."

All because they were told they couldn't talk to each other - when talking to each other, sharing details about a case, are a central plank of safeguarding.

Multiple posters ,, hundreds if not more, have tried to answer and explain their position and all they get is hounded off

What are we supposed to do? Accept any answer as proof we are wrong? No one is hounded off. People are debated with, just as they are on AIBU where you post quite a bit, and often quite harshly Bluntness.

Children, I might add, who genderists and the NSPCC assert are at much higher risk of self harm and/or suicide. So why is safeguarding being abandoned for these children?

Why are they allowed to make confidential disclosures, making them vulnerable to infiltrating abusers? Why is parental alienation encouraged so that the parents of these at-risk children aren't aware so that they can take care of them? Why do they not need multi-agency support?

Why is the NSPCC running away rather than answering these questions?

And why don't genderists wants answers to them too? Why is it more important to tell me off and shut me up than to get answers?

WHY?

Nobody knows but just stop being mean, right?

Lang. It's not that I don't care about the answers. It's that I really would have liked to hear what the NSPCC had to say about their PANTS and Speak Out campaigns, as I have a 3 year old who isn't old enough to have yet learnt about these things in school.

I imagine I'm not the only one.

Because you can't have the PANTS campaign running simultaneously with the trans lobby group guidance as they run in direct contradiction to each other.

That is the whole point.

I would be really interested in the NSPCCs explanations. I see the contradictions between their PANTS campaign and the current Self ID stance, and the advice schools are to follow. Those contradictions are frightening me, a lot. Are the NSPCC going to come back with answers?

All girls and all trans-identifying children and all the adults safeguarding them cannot abide by PANTS and the trans lobby group guidance at the same time.

If only you were nicer, then people would engage with you. bluntness doesn’t feel compelled to be nice, yet expects engagement with their views and their opinion to be respected, however many times they repeat the same thing and however rudely they choose to address posters.

I seem to remember it being a bit of a badge of honour to be robustly questioned on your stance as a politician - or did I imagine the bear pit that’s the HoC and journalists like Jeremy Paxton? I’m unimpressed that a politican would urge people to contact their mp about an issue and then not want to clarify aspects of it. Particularly a crime bill when the definition of the people it refers to is unclear.

As a parent I’m massively concerned that any official advice enables adults to keep secrets for dc, regardless of topic. At least 80,000 adults currently view child abuse images - the number of holes that these scumbags can crawl through to groom children needs to be minimised. I’d be very concerned that a child that is gender questioning would put their trust in the wrong person, who can currently cheerfully say they were keeping secrets about gender identity as per their training and use it to hurt that child. Or is that too nuanced to understand and doesn’t help someone have a rant about what a massive meanie I am?

But I wanted to know about PANTS!

Since I became a parent Mumsnet has become almost my single point of access to current affairs, parenting advice, things I need to do and organise for the kids, household maintenance, health and relationship support etc. If people like me can't come across things like the NSPCC PANTS campaign here we may not come across it until school, and for some that will sadly be too late.

Mumsnet is huge. It makes parents lives easier. It does that by having access to almost everything a parent needs in one place. if in future all we can find out about is how something relates to trans issues the site will be much weaker for it. And parents like me, and our children, will not get the same benefit from this fantastic resource.

Jesus, it's moot. They aren't going to. For the reasons I explained. And yet here you all still are. All asking the same questions in different ways.

It's over. Accept it. They won't interact with you. No one will . Because you all pile on and won't accept the answers, display aggression and hound anyone with a different opinion.

I agree that it's a shame the NSPCC pulled out rather than coming on to publicise their PANTS campaign. Maybe a webchat (which invites questions) wasn't the most effective strategy if all they wanted to do was publicise it - maybe a blogpost would have been better.

But if you come on to do a webchat, you will get questions - that's the whole point. And if there is an apparent tension between two separate planks of your strategy - PANTS on the one hand, and self-ID/confidentiality/non-informing of parents in regard of trans issues on the other hand - then it is reasonable for parents to ask about this apparent tension. And it would have been good if the NSPCC had hung around and explained to us why the apparent tension is in fact not a problem in reality and why.

And here you are aggressively repeating the same thing over and over.

Not you Fermats, obvs.

It's over. Accept it. They won't interact with you. No one will . Because you all pile on and won't accept the answers, display aggression and hound anyone with a different opinion.

Sigh. Are we back to #nodebate? I really thought we'd moved on.