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

My letter to NSPCC

145 replies

Tunataka · 30/08/2018 09:52

Dear NSPCC Trustees and Board Members,

I have been writing to you for the last couple of years regarding the safeguarding implications of gender self identity and the abandoning of sex-class as a basis for safeguarding.

After a number of ridiculous replies from various staff members, I received a reply from Peter Wanless on behalf of you all. This can be read, below. The NSPCC chose to ignore any safeguarding risks posed by Trans Identified Males (TIMs), deeming that existing safeguarding policies and risk assessments are adequate.

There have been some recent developments which means that you must review the NSPCC position on this.

  1. Jess Bradley (JB)is a trans identified male. He is the National Union of Students LGBTQ representative and he has advised Government on numerous occassions. JB is the Director of an organisation called Action for Trans Health, which receives Government funding and has trained NHS staff. JB also gave evidence at Maria Miller's Transgender Equality Inquiry.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/action-for-trans-health-activists-want-free-sex-change-hormones-for-children-dhvv5c52v

At the same times that JB was influencing the Government and major UK institutions such as the NUS and NHS over issues relating to children and young people; he was running a tumblr account which showcased photographs of JB flashing his penis in public places and challenging his followers to do the same. Many of the photos and videos of masturbation are taken in schools, in classrooms and the toilets. There is also a lot of paedophilic, rape, incestuous and child abuse imagery. JB has now removed the tumblr account, but the content has been captured on twitter and in archives;

mobile.twitter.com/xNoMoreSilencex/status/1021093767489695745

  1. Aimee Challenor is a TIM. He is the LGBT Green Party Representative in Coventry and is standing for Deputy Leadership of the Green Party (now stepped down following media revelations). Aimee is part of Trans Action for Health, along with Jess Bradley. He is also a member of the Stonewall Transgender Advisory Committee who train teachers and inform school policy across the UK. Aimee appointed his father (David/Baloo Challenor) as his election agent since 2016, after being arrested and whilst under police investigation. Last week David Challenor was sentenced to 22 years in prison for the torture and rape of a 10 year old girl in the attic of the house where he lived with Aimee.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rising-greens-star-aimee-challenor-will-not-quit-over-rapist-father-kngjwc8l5

The registered Green Party Address in the West Midlands is the crime scene where the child abuse took place. Whilst torturing and raping the child, David Callenor would cross-dress as a girl, calling himself Lucy and wearing adult sized baby dresses and nappies. Using Stonewalls definitions, both Aimee and David Challenor are Transgender. It is important to understand that the definition of 'Trans' has changed. It used to refer to a small number of individuals who are transexual. They suffer from gender dysphoria and commonly desire 'sex change' operations. 'Transgender' is a much broader umbrella term which includes transvestites and cross-dressers (full definition can be found on the Stonewall website). This includes a very significant number of men motivated by the sexual fetishisation of women and girls (autogynephiles). Over 80% of trans identified men retain their male genitalia.

David Challenor also was a Scout Leader (remember, my initial concern was the Girl Guides Association) and ran a gymnastic club for girls. David and Aimee have worked together over the last 3 years to promote gender self-identity in national politics and in schools and to erradicate female only spaces. Aimee developed software, known as 'TERF Blocker' which effectively blocked 50,000 women from voicing concerns or taking part in discussions, on social media.

CLEARLY, current safeguarding policy and risk assessments fall VERY far short of being sufficient in protecting girls from risks posed by TIMs; given that these 3 dangerous individuals have had access to children and vulnerable young people through the Scouts, Sports Clubs and the NUS and have been influencing policy further via Stonewall, UK Schools, the NHS, local politics, national politics and Central Government.

The consultation on reforms to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 closes in October 2018. If proposals are approved then self identification will become lawful. This will effectively remove all female only spaces and provisions. It will change the definition of female to include men. It is imperative that you speak out, to prevent this from happening. This is the responsibility of the NSPCC.

I would really like you to watch the following video on the subject, made by Lisa Muggeridge. Lisa was a social worker involved with the Yorkshire child sexual exploitation scandal. She is also formerly, a cared-for child. As such, she has a unique perspective on this and some warnings, which need heeding;

Regards

XX

(Even disregarding the recent developments; The reply belows yet again, fails to address the issues i raised and appears to illustrate a lack of understanding of safeguarding. My previous emails go in to great detail. But in summary;

  1. TIMs do not pose a risk because they are 'trans', but because they are males. I am sure that the NSPCC does not see every male as a risk to girls and women. Yet, you advocate single sex accomodation for under 18s and same sex chaperones for over night trips. You issue guidance on siblings of the opposite sex not sharing bedrooms.

  2. it is not simply a matter of 'embarrassment' for girls that you force them to share accomodation and facilities with males. You are removing their ability to give informed consent around their bodies and their ability to set their own boundaries)

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
Tunataka · 30/08/2018 19:58

I risk assessment for boys sharing with girls would surely include the risk of girls being embarrassed/uncomfortable/pregnancy/sexual abuse...i want to know what the mitigation is that reduces the risk to allow boys with a 'trans identity' but still excludes other boys.

If the risk assessment DOESNT include embarrassment/discomfort...then why is the trans individual being asked to decide where THEY would feel most comfortable?

OP posts:
placemats · 30/08/2018 20:02

Post it to the Guardian, Telegraph (not a whisper on anything as far as I can see), and The Times.

Brilliant letter. I do hope the organisation honour this with a response.

WomblingWoman · 30/08/2018 20:31

OP - I'm going to PM you

Voice0fReason · 30/08/2018 20:53

Bloody excellent letter.
Piss poor statement from the NSPCC.

Tunataka · 30/08/2018 21:49

First response from NSPCC

My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
OP posts:
Tunataka · 30/08/2018 21:51

Cont...

My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
OP posts:
Tunataka · 30/08/2018 21:52

3/3

My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
OP posts:
WomblingWoman · 30/08/2018 22:08

Great letter but tbh it's hard to read and I can't see any of the response from the NSPCC.

WomblingWoman · 30/08/2018 22:11

My apologies- am on mobile and it's there but not obvious.

Struggling to read it though re: quality.

IAmLurkacus · 30/08/2018 22:20

Shock James Copeland sounds very unpleasant and misinformed. This whole exchange is newsworthy and needs to go to the press.

My response from Baroness Williams of Trafford makes it very clear that sleeping arrangements for children should be SEX segregated.

What’s your MP like on this subject? This all needs to go to them.

NSPCC just had their oxfam moment this is completely and utterly unacceptable.

WomblingWoman · 30/08/2018 22:21

Ok - have read it.

Essentially it's saying that the rights of a child that chooses to self identify are paramount.

scotsheather · 30/08/2018 22:23

Good luck getting a decent response. They sound the sort who will give short shrift to anyone describing trans women in male pronouns or going down the males are a danger by default. Let us know if and when you get any further. But yeh proper 'safeguards' don't have to take sex into account at all do they?

Tunataka · 30/08/2018 22:33

It has been to the press lurk and it was reported on at the time in the Mail on Sunday. But nothing has changed, there is nothing new or newsworthy here.

Its good for people to understand the position of the organisations involved in safeguarding though. So this seemed like a good/the only option

My MP has seen all this correspondance and is supportive/has asked questions in parliament about self ID

OP posts:
Tunataka · 30/08/2018 22:34

Yeah, sorry about the quality womble...not sure i can make it better. I wish you could upload files here

OP posts:
Tunataka · 30/08/2018 22:35

Will try and post the rest...

OP posts:
IAmLurkacus · 30/08/2018 22:36

Pleased to hear your MP is supportive, what party are they?

I am beyond disgusted at the NSPCC. They are NEVER getting another penny out of me.

Wanderabout · 30/08/2018 22:48

Thank you for posting. That is fucking shocking.

Wanderabout · 30/08/2018 22:52

I see that Peter Wanless who gave the final response to the previous correspondence is on twitter.

Tunataka · 30/08/2018 23:30

Peter Wanless is the CEO

OP posts:
Tunataka · 30/08/2018 23:48

2nd lot of emails....1/6

My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
OP posts:
Tunataka · 30/08/2018 23:50

2/6

My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
OP posts:
Tunataka · 30/08/2018 23:51

3/6

My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
OP posts:
Tunataka · 30/08/2018 23:52

4/6

My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
OP posts:
Tunataka · 30/08/2018 23:53

5/6

My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
My letter to NSPCC
OP posts:
Tunataka · 30/08/2018 23:54

6/6

My letter to NSPCC
OP posts: