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.

We have. There is going to be debate, whether certain people like it or not.

Eresh

It's frustration, we all want answers, but there is a way to ask and behave. If an org thinks they are on to a loser from the start, that their chat will be derailed, that their answers won't be accepted, that they will be hounded and abused, of course they won't interact.

Why the hell would they? There are other platforms they can use. I certainly wouldn't come on here.

Debate is two sided, not one side shouting.

But I wanted to know about PANTS!

What specifically, seeing as you didn't actually ask a question?

I think most people that posted wanted to know how it interacted with current guidance particularly in respect of girls' activities.

Why should your non-question trump those that did have questions.

Honestly this is beginning to sound like those people who turn up to work late, do nothing and then complain bitterly it wasn't done right.

Posters were invited to submit questions. Posters submitted perfectly valid and relevant and pertinent questions. Not the "right" ones though apparently.

Sigh,

Indeed.

There are other platforms they can use.

Then why haven't they used any of these (nicer) platforms to answer the questions? Why haven't they addressed them, for example, on their own website? Why is their only response to the substance to deny there is even a substance - nothing to see here?

They are actively denying these safeguarding holes exist. If you don't think they should be held to account for this, the problem isn't women who think they should: the problem is you.

If you don't think they should be held to account for this, the problem isn't women who think they should: the problem is you.

Not for Mumsnet, it isn't.

Because the answer would never be accepted and there would be an abusive and derailing pile on

Aka: 'asking questions' and 'reminding of facts' and 'pointing out clashes in policy' and 'pointing out current British law'.

No thinking person should ever accept 'no debate/because I say so' as an answer. As I said to you yesterday on a FWR thread (despite you saying you never click on them) not agreeing with you and explaining why really isn't abusing you.

Debate is two sided, not one side shouting.

Then engage. The GC side of the debate is always ready to discuss, to listen and debate. The other side of the debate are where you find the shouters and the refuse-to-engagers.

It's pretty straight forward.

NSPCC: 'here's our PANTS campaign. Which emphasises a child's right to say no, and to have feelings of embarrassment and discomfort respected'.

Thread: Great. Except according to standard guidance a child's right to say no and to say they are uncomfortable and embarrassed applies unless it's about a male bodied person who wishes to be included as female. These two recommendations don't marry up. What do you think?

NSPCC:

How dare you point out that clash in safeguarding and ask for an explanation? You may not have those questions and seek answers to them, how awful of you!

And there we have it in a nutshell, the case in point,

Not one person has said that. Not one.

But the attacks and abuse continue. What's been repeatedly said, and proves the case of not listening, is that it's the repeated asking of the same questions, in a variety of different ways, with varying levels of aggression and a point blank refusal to accept any answer that does not fit with your view, and then the hounding and abuse of people because of having a different view.

So what's your answer to that fact, it seems it's to make up even more accusations and attack again. It's ludicrous and self defeating. You're doing yourselves no favours.

You see? Even when you outline the safeguarding failures with regard to the trans-identifying children themselves, it is still more important to make women shut up than address those failures.

Not one person has said that. Not one.

No. You've studiously ignored all the substantive points in favour of telling women to shut up. What is your view on the safeguarding failures with regard to trans-identifying children? Do you think that the NSPCC should review their endorsement of this guidance? What do you think about the substantive points?

Even when you outline the safeguarding failures with regard to the trans-identifying children themselves, it is still more important to make women shut up than address those failures.

No, Jesus Christ, no. What is still more important is that MN is able to act as a platform for someone else's message every once in a while!

You can talk about what you want to talk about on as many threads as you'd care to start on the subject. Seriously, you chat about that until the cows come home. But when someone starts a thread about something else, particularly really worthy individuals and orgs like Stella and the NSPCC, they really should have that same courtesy extended to them - particularly when it is so demonstrably beneficial!

We have a thousand trans safeguarding thread - if you want another, start one! Invite the NSPCC!

But the only people being silenced here are the people like NSPCC who specifically want to talk about something else!!!

God, I'm losing the will...

The GC side of the debate is always ready to discuss, to listen and debate. The other side of the debate are where you find the shouters and the refuse-to-engagers

No, I think you will find people willing to discuss and people who only want to shout opponents down on both sides of the debate.

Seriously, you chat about that until the cows come home. But when someone starts a thread about something else, particularly really worthy individuals and orgs like Stella and the NSPCC

It's not about something else.

NSPCC wanted to discuss the importance of PANTS, while the NSPCC itself is simultaneously undermining PANTS. The questions were germane to PANTS.

Creasy wanted MNers to lobby their MPs about her legislative amendment and the questions were about her legislative amendment.

Everything completely on topic.

This is not difficult to understand. What is difficult to understand is why topical questions should not be put to those in authority.

Debate is two sided, not one side shouting.

Absolutely. I’ve outlined some of the concerns I have above. I’m willing to discuss them and I’m abusing and attacking nobody. Are there points you disagree with or would like to discuss/query?

My question to NSPCC was basically why their excellent work on boundaries and consent is contradicted by this issue, and what their stance on that is. I think that’s a reasonable question to ask and I would have liked them to either answer or consider/consult/re-examine.

The problem is that people are asking these questions and getting no answers, or just being told to shut up. If there’s no case to answer and no issue then it should be straightforward to answer. Instead we just get told ‘horrific abuse ! (Ummm... where? I asked a question calmly and politely..) transphobia! Bigots! women shut up..

If I’m wrong, show me why.

You've studiously ignored all the substantive points in favour of telling women to shut up

Why do you continue with the abuse? Can you really not see how self defeating it is?

But that’s not abuse. It’s someone asking an (admittedly awkward) question. Do you see that as abusive? If so, why?

The NSPCCs excellent PANTS campaign is directly contradicted by guidance from organisations like mermaids. This would put all children, and in particular gender questioning children, at risk and outside the safeguarding framework.

I don’t think that’s ok. Do you? It’s not abusive to ask these questions - it’s really important.

RatRolyPoly there is information about PANTS on the NSPCC website that you can consult freely and easily.

And if you do click on it and have a look at it it will be obvious to you that much of the advice given in the PANTS campaign is contradicted by the current recommendations given concerning trans identified children and adults.

So where do we go with that?

Don't know about you but I'm not good at holding 2 condradictory thoughts in my head at the same time so I need the NSPCC to clarify.

And I'm very concerned about official recommendations for trans identified children to be excluded from the safeguarding that is recommended for all other children.

I hear a lot on here about how hard it is for trans identified children and how vulnerable they are. I don't understand why those who hold that view (which I agree with) want to stop MNers from asking questions about a policy which clearly puts those children in danger of not receiving the same level of safeguarding as all other children.

It doesn't make sense.

Unless of course this is really about placing a general political disagreement with gender critical women above the safety of trans identified children in order to the smear gender critical position at all cost...

There is another, rather more sinister, explanation. And that is that some people actively desire safeguarding for trans identified and other children to be eroded. I think there are rather too many people who have this abhorrent desire but one would assume none of them are genuine MNers. I only bring it up because I think it is a vital and increasingly pressing consideration that anyone who cares about safeguarding (I imagine everyone on this thread) unfortunately needs to take into account.

Not one person has said that. Not one.

Ok, if you want absolute literal quotation let's do it.

Asking these questions has been called, directly on this thread:

Self defeating
Abusive
Attacking
Should not be mentioned in a thread started by someone else (an organisation specifically talking about safeguarding) even though the questions are absolutely relevant to the integrity of that message and of the organisation and point out a major contradiction of it
Discourteous
Aggressive
Hounding
Ludicrous
Refusing to accept the answer given (even when it's because there are obvious flaws and problems within that answer)

To summarise this as 'you may not have these questions' and 'how awful of you' really is not a stretch in any way, is it?

RatRolyPoly there is information about PANTS on the NSPCC website that you can consult freely and easily.

Yes, and that's where I had to go in the end isn't it. I'm sure MN would have rather myself and others could have had access to that info via their site. You know, for the advertisers.

Why do you continue with the abuse? Can you really not see how self defeating it is

What abuse? I'm quite confused re how and why you think this is abuse, especially having read some of your posts on AIBU which are often quite nasty.