Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Thread on twitter. The paedophilia plan.

345 replies

TERFragetteCity · 01/05/2018 22:32

twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/991258039511670784?s=19

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
Rufustheyawningreindeer · 02/05/2018 23:00

Thanks reluctant

ReluctantCamper · 02/05/2018 23:00

it's clearly not OK to imply that all trans people are paedophiles.

However it's unreasonable to expect people not to see parallels between the tactics described in the link in the OP and those employed by transactivists to achieve unthinking acceptance of their demands.

C'mon MNHQ, the similarities are really obvious. And those tactics are working nicely for transactivists - take a look at your inbox why don't you?

So surely it's important to be able to discuss and understand them, because I think we'd all agree that what ever your views on transgender ideology, no-one wants paedophilia gaining that kind of acceptance in society,

Not everything is bleeding transphobic for pities sake.

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 02/05/2018 23:01

Where did yelling TRANSPHOBIC go anyway?

Bed?

ReluctantCamper · 02/05/2018 23:02

I suspect they were escorted to the door by kind people and given their bus fare home

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 02/05/2018 23:03

Oh

Ive seen movies where that happens

It doesn't usually end well

(No bus....)

LangCleg · 02/05/2018 23:04

Ok. Now I can type in a relatively temperate manner, I'll give an example.

A paedophile has managed to make it through teacher training without being discovered, is now working at a school and has taken on pastoral duties. A child comes to them and discloses that they think they have a trans identity but don't want anyone to know or their parents to find out. Thanks to the dilution of safeguarding proposed by you-know-who groups, the paedophile teacher can accept this disclosure as confidential and not tell anyone. The paedophile teacher is overjoyed at this dilution because a confused and vulnerable kid with a secret is the easiest to groom, exploit and abuse.

How reckless and arrogant and disgusting is your political activism that you cannot stop screaming TRANSPHOBIA! BAN THE TERF! BURN THE WITCH! at women trying to point this out to you?

Our safeguarding frameworks were bought with the crises generated by the pain and suffering of generations before us. We can't throw them away for anyone, trans or otherwise.

Trousersdontmakemeaman · 02/05/2018 23:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Lefthanddown · 02/05/2018 23:19

Back on topic - paedophiles are manipulative and will exploit situations and people to gain access to children, then minimise the abuse and harm they've caused.

Having spoken to family members and friends of paedophiles I'm aware that they also minimise and/or deny the abuse, often attributing blame to the child, even in cases where their own child may have been the victim of abuse.

One of the things that astounded me was the number of teachers visiting their partners convicted of child abuse. I could never understand how someone whose job involved safe guarding children could rationalise staying in a relationship with somebody convicted of paedophilia. Which then leads to thinking if you can justify that, how high are your own boundaries regarding safe guarding children?

Self ID will be exploited by paedophiles.

Disclaimer: not all teachers are paedophiles, not all paedophiles partners are teachers.

throwawayagain · 02/05/2018 23:24

This is a highly emotive subject, and rightly so. Due to some confusion in terms, I think we are talking about child sex offenders/ criminal sexual activity involving children. This includes viewing, creating, promoting and distribution of related material.
This has an overlap with paedophilia, but is not the same:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

There are people with unwanted sexual desires towards children. Those people may have never acted upon them, or viewed associated material. Those people are paedophiles, but not sexually abusive to children unless they choose to act upon those feelings. Many will seek help, and some can be rehabilitated. That is a recognized medical health condition, and I believe that support should be offered when requested/needed.
I am aware of a small subsection of these people who would choose suicide over acting upon those desires.
I know that it is pedantic, but worth mentioning for clarity.

FWIW, child sex offenders, of any kind, are completely worthless members of society, who should be removed from any capacity to interact with children, or access images of them. Those people aren't necessarily technically paedophiles, but many are.
Regardless, there is no excuse whatsoever to support their narrative.
Those are the people that need to be targeted here.

I know that the supposedly 'harmless paedophile' is still a risk, and I would not want such a person to have freedom of access to children.

I'm not defending anyone - just pointing out that the common labels used are not technically correct. This is important, given the seriousness of the content under discussion.
Many of the most serious child sex offenders will not be classified as paedophiles. This narrative is giving those despicable individuals an opportunity to attempt to circumvent the topic, due to being aware of the accurate technical terminology, and twisting it.

You can't ever make it right for an adult to engage in sexual activity with a child. Or view/seek associated material. Paint it how you want, it's the worst kind of fucked up.
They know it. We know it.
They think they are clever enough to create some kind of public positivity, due to spinning words, terms and agendas.
I think they can fuck right off.

WasIEverBored · 03/05/2018 06:58

I've known two men get arrested for having child porn on their computers. One worked for the NHS as an anaesthetist, the other was a member of the Royal Marine Band service.

Chilling. Ny dn (7) has had surgery last autumn and my sister said that it felt really weird wheeling her dd to operating theatre and having her put under ga. That her dd was so incredibly vulnerable at that time and that she hadn't liked the way the anaesthetist and his assistant (?) had talked to her dd. Imagine people with such a vile habit have access to children at their most vulnerable and completely away from parents' access. Chilling. I'll ask again, has anyone watched Marcella 2? I didn't manage to view more than the first 10 min or so but had a feeling that the programme was questionable.

KateMumsnet · 03/05/2018 10:03

Hi all - just to repeat: It is absolutely not on to draw an implied connection between PIE and TRA because they share some tactics.
All 'campaigns' look around for tactics that work. They may (or may not) have decided that TRA tactics are effective and adopted them - just as they may have cynically adopted LGBQT tactics. They may equally have adopted New Labour tactics - I don't know. It means nothing beyond the fact that PIE are clever and manipulative.

To keep focusing on TRA, as one of several groups that PIE doubtless are learning from is disingenuous and after a certain point, yes, transphobic. We absolutely wouldn't allow this relentless focus on a connection with LGBQT for eg, and we won't allow this.

As I said up thread, a conversation about whether one unintended consequence of GRA might be to loosen safeguarding frameworks is a different thing. That conversation can certainly take place, as long as it is not implied that trans people are more likely to take advantage of that loophole, once established. It will be a loophole that could in theory be exploited by any predator, so to focus on trans predators is, again, not on.

AnitaLovesVictor · 03/05/2018 10:34

As I said up thread, a conversation about whether one unintended consequence of GRA might be to loosen safeguarding frameworks is a different thing. That conversation can certainly take place, as long as it is not implied that trans people are more likely to take advantage of that loophole, once established. It will be a loophole that could in theory be exploited by any predator, so to focus on trans predators is, again, not on.

Kate, as I said upthread, that will also be considered transphobic by the twitter activists. Any mention of the GRA being a loophole for predators is howled down.

What will you do when those posts are mass reported via twitter and screenshotted?

Jennifer James was reported to Labour Party Compliance for saying just that.

KateMumsnet · 03/05/2018 10:42

@AnitaLovesVictor

Kate, as I said upthread, that will also be considered transphobic by the twitter activists. Any mention of the GRA being a loophole for predators is howled down.

What will you do when those posts are mass reported via twitter and screenshotted?

As long as the posts stay within the terms that I just outlined, Anita, they'll be within our TGs. Posts that don't will have to be deleted and we'll have to take a view on posters who continue to do so.

litereally · 03/05/2018 10:59

Throwaway again Don't fall for the bullshit of medicalised paedophilia. Even if you do accept that some people are just innocent and their brains are just "like that", you are doing exactly what this document wants. Equating paedophilia with a sexual orientation is bullshit and hurts children. Paedophiles create demand for child sexual abusers. I do not have sympathy for them. Possessing and looking at "child porn" is a crime. Consuming pictures of child abuse contributes to child abuse.

I don't want paedophilia to go the way of BDSM, where we start of saying its wrong to beat women...then say there are accepted ways to beat women...that its totally accepted to want to beat women...but that provides cover to people who...like to beat, manipulate and rape women, and if they can just say the right magic words they can get away with hurting people because its their "sexual orientation" and their "fetish" and they can't get off without it.

Datun · 03/05/2018 11:02

@KateMumsnet

Can I just ask. You are talking about unintended consequences of a law change, right?

There will be people who realise that this law change is going to deliver them an opportunity.

They will be supporting the law. So as far as they are concerned, the consequences are not unintended.

Can we talk about that?

Also, if we can show a link between those people, them supporting the law, and then looking forward to the consequences, are we allowed to post it? Or can we only post if they're not trans?

LangCleg · 03/05/2018 11:25

It will be a loophole that could in theory be exploited by any predator, so to focus on trans predators is, again, not on.

I've no idea what others have said because I can't see the posts!

But I am glad to see my posts are still standing. My concern is to maintain safeguarding frameworks and to oppose any group lobbying for dilution, even if the intentions of that group are good.

And that includes any trans group lobbying for dilution - which some of them are. My point is that any loosening of safeguarding - for any reason - will create opportunities for predators regardless of their trans or non-trans identity, and will create dangerous risk for children including children with a trans identity.

Datun · 03/05/2018 11:43

LangCleg

Well exactly. I need clarification on this. Because it is trans lobby who are calling for the dilution of safeguarding laws. That's just factual and undeniable.

We have to be able to address it. We have to be able to call them out on it. There is no way they have not been informed of the consequences, unintended, or otherwise. Because that's virtually our entire objection.

They have to be held accountable for doing something that will be exploited by paedophiles. But also it will be exploited by people who say they are trans.

Are we supposed to put a caveat in that says we are not talking about trans people, even though it's ludicrous to suggest any group gets a free pass. And yes, we are talking about some transpeople. Just because some trans people will be predatory statistically.

Autogynephiles for instance are fully behind a law that reduces boundaries for the explicit reason that they enjoy violating those boundaries. Are we not supposed to speculate on whether or not that would include safeguarding boundaries?

Are we supposed to say they are perfectly happy reducing women's boundaries, but I'm not sure about children's? Even though the same law will apply to children?

HQ, can you please clarify.

Melamin · 03/05/2018 12:28

But I am glad to see my posts are still standing. My concern is to maintain safeguarding frameworks and to oppose any group lobbying for dilution, even if the intentions of that group are good.

This is important because safeguarding has specific risks to vulnerable people in mind. Are there any other groups who call for changes in safeguarding?

ToeToToe · 03/05/2018 13:19

twitter.com/CasparBaldwin/status/992007410058395648

This on twitter - the account you have asked to "please" send you any more reports...are now rejoicing.

And already it's "loophole, what loophole?"

KateMN, no matter what HQ does to capitulate to these activists, it will never be enough.

ThatDoctorEM · 03/05/2018 15:55

It is as the name suggest, I am that Dr EM of the twitter stir.

Irish feminist - thank you for your kind comment. It was a lovely change to some of the nastiness I have recieved. (You can confirm it is me - coffee, panini and watching the door from our hideout). Who knew that exposing a paedophile's self declared tactics would be deemed so bigoted and ignorant? That opposing child abuse would warrant and incur such anger and accusations?

As to the veracity of the source (which is now linked to on my page) I was using an 8chan text dump hosted on archive but significantly the same text is listed and reproduced as a resource on a genuine website for paedophiles. They are taking it seriously and proposing to act on it, so we should.

In regards to comments that I am inadvertently promoting paedophilia, I had to balance the need to bring this to wider attention with that idea of promotion. I hope I have done it in a critical way and made it clear that I find it abhorrent. If we can not talk about the problem or their tactics, can we safeguard? Would denying it and covering it up, hiding these things and this useful information make the world safer? Or would our knowledge and ability to prevent and stand against child abuse be hindered? I feel like I have been in their war-room and taken some of their secrets to those wishing to defeat them. I did not want to link to these sites because of the notion that I could enable a predator to access this information but alas, as people tried to discredit the information my hand was forced.

If you find information online please report it to the Internet Watch Foundation.

Protecting children from abuse for me comes above any personal politics. I am still grieving the loss of my dearest friend from suicide because of child abuse. I genuinely, in contradiction to some willfull distortions by RedHoodGirl who feels she knows my inner thoughts and motivations, tried to seperate the two issues - trans and paedophilia - out. I can only use the evidence in the text which proposed a conscious co-opting and abuse of policies being lobbied for. Anything else would have been a deliberate distortion. Maybe someone else should have done it, it would have come from a better voice, but does that mean I should not oppose child abuse because I am a radical feminist? That my voice should not be heard anymore? What are the implications of this concept? If it was proposing using feminism, my own cause, I would have posted it up. It does in fact co-opt the language of feminism in sections. Do I therefore believe that all feminists are paedophiles? No.

This horrible text also serves as a warning to protect Lesbian and Gay rights as once again predators are trying to cloak themselves in the rainbow. The author specifically outlined ways to manipulate their cause.

As a historian, the idea that we may not speak of history or parallels would entail that we are forever starting from scratch and underprepared.

A side note, a plea not to dismiss history: Imagine how different now would be if all children were taught the achievements of women as well as men.

Thank you for the women of Mum's Net for discussing this and associated issues.

Melamin · 03/05/2018 16:28

Thank you for that thread EM I have just spent the last half hour reading through it and will start on the manifesto shots later. It is worrying.

athingthateveryoneneeds · 03/05/2018 16:58

A side note, a plea not to dismiss history: Imagine how different now would be if all children were taught the achievements of women as well as men.

It makes my heart hurt that this world is (as yet) imaginary.

MipMipMip · 03/05/2018 18:26

Hi @ThatDoctorEM thank you for sharing this. It is very important. I wish MNHQ would read it so they recognise the tactics as and when they are used against them. And yes, I thought you were very clear on the separation from trans.

Would you mind copying your post on to here? It's in chat so that.more people see it (and I've tried, and failed, to keep all trans mentions off it). It will have more impact if it's not coming from the OP, although I may highlight it later. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/3238310-Normalising-paedophilia-I-think-you-need-to-read-this?pg=1&order=

Apologies for all the spelling mistakes on my last post. Just close your eyes when you see it.

ThatDoctorEM · 03/05/2018 19:05

MipMipMip your wish is my command, tis done.

I'm glad it has been of some use, to take something positive from something so evil is only what I can hope for.

I'm cool with spelling mistakes, my former PhD supervisor has been routinely correcting my grammar for almost a decade.

athingthateveryoneneeds everything starts as someone's idea, maybe it will be us that changes things? Don't get angry, get active.

MipMipMip · 03/05/2018 21:36

Thanks very much Doctor. I can understand people questioning Its authenticity- it does sound extraordinary. But depressingly people really do go to these lengths .