Ending this madness but 'saving face'

[pombear]

I'm not good at starting threads so forgive me for the following clunkiness:

Given that the discussion is growing, thanks to the unswerving voices over the last few years, amplified by Mumsnet and other sources.

The sunlight is starting to be shone on disquieting practices, disturbing narratives, biased lobbying.

There are so many organisations who have been coerced into adopting policies, practices, changing their procedures and behaviours following 'training' and worrying that they are 'behind history' and wanting to avoid 'transphobia'.

More and more, the discussion here and in other places is shining a light on this coercion to highlight concerns and risks to women and children's safety, dignity, privacy and ability to define themselves.

Many contributors here, and the lurkers, are part of many of these types of organisations, and more and more are stating their concerns.

It seems there is a crossroads for organisations. With a couple of options:

1. wait until the inevitable scandal, once many individuals have already been harmed (though I suspect that the harm is already being done) and say 'we didn't realise'.

2. do something now, but risk, as an organisation, the wrath of the activist and 'scared-to-be-phobic' movement.

But no organisation wants to look stupid. No organisation wants to be the one 'to go first'. Most want so 'save face' and appear that they weren't part of a scandal.

How do we avoid getting to a moment, as we have over other issues, where everyone looks back on institutional errors and says 'how did this happen'?

So how do we support and enable these organisations, NHS England, schools, workplaces, etc, etc, to roll back whilst still 'saving face' before the inevitable scandal?

I don't have the answer. I expect some people to tell me 'the organisations just have to do the right thing, regardless of saving face'.

But often people need help to roll back from the cliff they're standing on, whilst still saving face.

I don't have an answer. Which is why I've started this thread.

Oh please, not the 'its usually a family member' myth.

Abusers are more often someone known to the family, because thats how controlling predators operate. They get in to where their chosen target is; into families and organisations. Or spaces.

www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/0465071724/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_0?condition=used&tag=mumsnetforum-21&ie=UTF8&qid&sr

Quickly on the not on topic one --

Just considering the arguments being put forward for this I am approaching those very arguments, many of which are unfounded and create more risk, than perceived risk, where other things need changing and being misdirected at the GRA and and Equality act which is not changing.

.... ergo arguments, myths being put forward in regards to GRA in this very thread, so I am very much responding to the threads content. Need to eat and will be back shortly. As it really is approaching lots of assertation and assumptions being made.

memememememememememememe

and did I mention?

me

Haha

Great story Samantha

U think we all stupid here. ?

Can’t wai5 till u tell us ur great stuff

Steady on there, RedundantLumber, you very nearly spoke about someone else then. Fortunately you brought your comment back on topic by the end of your post, but it was a near miss.

Haven’t you got a cake to ice?

Samantha. Ur mum has told u to tidy ur bedroom bout 10 times already.

So go tidy it and stop being a total tool

thanks UpwardsCow, I needed a reminder to stay on track

me

If it were not against the talk guidelines I would tell you what I thought of a father who displaces a mother and brags about it on a parenting website.

Please take this to the AMA section, Sarah.. Anyone interested in your personal history may well enjoy taking part. But this thread is a discussion about the dilution of safeguarding in extremist transactivist lobby group materials - for example:

*confidential disclosures
*parental alienation
*no multi agency working

The OP is wondering how organisations could be persuaded to back away from these clear safeguarding breaches before a scandal erupts - a scandal that may very well involve trans-identifying minors, since they are the ones who are being consigned to an environment with safeguarding risks attached.

It is very rude to the OP to derail the topic of her thread to make it all about you. All about you is precisely what the AMA section is for. This would be the best place for you to relate your life experience for as long as Mumsnetters have questions to ask you.

All the best.

thebewilderness

If it were not against the talk guidelines I would tell you what I thought of a father who displaces a mother and brags about it on a parenting website.

Indeed. Natal mother ffs. The narcissistic wall of text hasn't gone unnoticed either.

Hi there SomethingHaha. glad that Lumper , Cow and Bowel have already posted in response.

Pornbear hear to thank you for your fascinating story.

Glad to hear about your 'lovely natal mum' partner, and you helping to ensure she's off social media a bit more, as otherwise she might 'be found' by people.

You said:
I don't know where to start really I was initially optimistic on seeing the title "Ending this madness but 'saving face', yey I some of my peers on Twitter are blowing it all, up it will be really mature, like parents, especially mums are & matching my day to day experienced on that front.

Then immediately saw this, "How do we avoid getting to a 'Saville' post-event moment, where everyone looks back and says 'how did this happen'?"

And then you tell us a story about male sexual violence against the 'natal mother of your children'. AKA nothing to do with trans.

But interestingly, the root of why many of us are here concerned about women.

And then you tell us in a later post about concerns around previous sexual abuse by the (new?} male partner of your 'natal children's mother'.

So, yes, I agree, as you point out, male violence and sexual abuse are of definite concerns. (I'm not sure where your identification as trans comes into this - your female partner was abused as a young person, and your children were at risk from her male partner).

So let's go back to the original premise of this thread:
Weakening the boundaries where male-bodied people can access services, spaces, and blur the definition of 'males and females' are definitely concerning.

Organisations have been unwittingly moved into spaces where their policies may do the above.

How do we support them to move back into a space where women and children are protected?

Right I'm back. I will first pick up on the simplest of Mumsnet guidelines in respect to the content of many of the replies, "We'd appreciate it if you could use the same courtesy when posting messages on Talk as you would use when speaking to someone face to face", where much reflects the sort of spin bullies use in a school playground, than a mature respectful conversation between adults that are equally parents and being truly respectful of the serious nature of the subjects and circumstances being discussed.

Weren’t you going to ‘pick up’ on your own thread, allowing this one to stay on topic?

It IS on topic in respect to all the context of your discussion, which I am very specifically responding too.

Now to pick up on an earlier point and this at the same time...

"Weakening the boundaries where male-bodied people can access services, spaces, and blur the definition of 'males and females' are definitely concerning."

I was born Intersexed, that is I was born both male and female, I transitioned to female, hence being Trans. So truly that Trans Women = Men really is not as simple as that, its equally more so given bigger advances in genetic and fetal development research. I can pull some of that published work, if it helps with context to better inform you, considering the body of your discussion is ill informed and not forensically balanced.

Cool story, bro.

Female Violent and Sexual offending is on the increase

Funny you should say that, because I’ve got concerns over increasing ‘female’ crime too.

N.B:- Intersexed, born with both female and male biology, aka both sexes.

No, this is not what defines intersexed people. We have had a number of threads on this if you’d like to read about it.

Please don’t co opt intersex people into this debate - it’s scienyifically incorrect and offensive.
Please do not call us cis. That is against talk guidelines and grossly offensive.