My letter to NSPCC

[Tunataka]

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

2. 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)

And finally from the CEO after discussion with the policy team/board...

9th April 2018

Dear XX

Thank you for getting in touch with us in recent weeks to raise your concerns about trans-inclusive policies and to ask what the NSPCC’s position is in relation to this issue. We recognise that there are a growing number of people in the UK who identify as transgender and thank you for bringing to our attention the need to consider how this may relate to the safeguarding of children and young people.

As you know, the NSPCC is focussed on issues relating to child protection. Your letter raised the possibility that trans-inclusive policies could lead to girls-only spaces (such as Girl Guiding) allowing in teen and/or adult males who could pose a safeguarding risk to children. We are clear that any space and activity involving children should have strong safeguarding policies in place, with a proper risk assessment to minimise the risks to all children involved. Such policies should be in place irrespective of the presence of transgender staff, volunteers or young people. We are not aware of evidence that transgender children or adults pose specific safeguarding risks to children.

In the UK, treatment using hormone (puberty) blockers is available on the NHS to children aged 12 and above, while children aged 16 and 17 can receive hormones which help them physically transition. Regardless of whether transgender children are undergoing hormonal treatment, they are protected under the Equality Act.

You also raised concerns about the potential sense of embarrassment that girls may feel in the presence of transgender children, especially when using toilets and when dealing with body changes associated with puberty. Although some children may feel uncomfortable about this, we do not consider this to be a child protection issue. It is the responsibility of individual organisations to determine how their membership is comprised, taking into account protected characteristics under the Equality Act (2010).

Our priority at the NSPCC is to ensure that, whatever their membership and recruitment policies, all organisations which come into contact with children and young people have strong safeguarding policies which prevent abuse from taking place.

Thank you once again for bringing this matter to our attention. I can assure you that we have reached these conclusions after a thorough review of the evidence and consultation with our Policy Committee of trustees.

Yours sincerely,

Peter

Peter Wanless
Chief Executive, NSPCC

Excellent letter. Very interested to see what reply you get.

Thanks Tuna

You also raised concerns about the potential sense of embarrassment that girls may feel in the presence of transgender children, especially when using toilets and when dealing with body changes associated with puberty. Although some children may feel uncomfortable about this, we do not consider this to be a child protection issue.

So basically piss off any whinging kids (girls or boys) that want to express discomfort and have control over their own boundaries and dignity. P.S kids everything you thought we were teaching you with our PANTS campaign was a lie.

Utterly shameful from the NSPCC.

Although some children may feel uncomfortable about this, we do not consider this to be a child protection issue.

That’s astounding! You really don’t give a fuck about children, do you, NSPCC? It’s all about the trans.... and the money.

I dont understand why it is important that the boy must decide where he would be comfortable sleeping/changing/showering...but it is not important for girls

If feelings aren’t a child protection issue, why are you placing so much importance on the feelings of trans people? Surely their feelings should be no more important that the other children?

Tuna - because trans trumps everything....

Tunataka great letter, thank you.

As a (now former) supporter of the NSPCC - as well as sending money for years, I'd also been invited onto feedback panels, etc - I spent a long time talking to them about this issue, prompted by them cancelling the "Dare to Debate" thing in 2016 with Sarah Ditum and Kellie Maloney. (Naturally, it was respected feminist Sarah Ditum that was seen as the problem on that occasion, not wife-strangling homophobe Kellie Maloney.)

To say that their thinking - and their ability to respond on this issue - was a shitshow is underplaying how little they'd thought this whole thing through before creating a Childline page (that has now been up for at least a few years) recommending puberty blockers to kids, telling all the kids reading that trans people should go into the loo they feel most comfortable with (and fuck everyone else's comfort) and so on.

As well as correspondence in writing, I also had extended telephone calls with a number of people in the NSPCC, over a long period of time. The basic ignorance of the people I was talking to was a real shock. They weren't even committed TRAs, they were just cutting and pasting from nonsense Mermaids et al had sent them. There was no quality control, no impact assessment, no real thought.

The NSPCC admitted to me during the course of that correspondence that they have "limited expertise within the organisation in regards to these issues" and so they "do not feel that [they] can take an organisational position at this time."

Except that admission of ignorance had not stopped them at all from taking an organisational position at that time, of putting all that trans-ideological, evidence-free, dangerous nonsense "advice" on their "transgender" Childline page. "Advice" that specifically puts girls in danger and furthermore tells them that they are wrong to consider themselves in danger and it would be bullying others if these abused girls asserted their boundaries.

I wish I could claim all the money I've given to them over the years back. It's not that I think they are doing a sub-par job, it's that I think they are actively putting children in harm's way.

I can assure you that we have reached these conclusions after a thorough review of the evidence and consultation with our Policy Committee of trustees.

This directly contradicts what they said to me in writing in 2017, at least a year after they had taken a position.

I can assure you that we have reached these conclusions after a thorough review of the evidence and consultation with our Policy Committee of trustees

Who are the trustees who became part of the policy sub-group?

What expert advice and evidence were they given and by whom?

As with any charity, Trustees decisions and the associated process must be recorded.

YouGov:
"When you and your co-trustees make decisions about your charity, you must:

act within your powers
act in good faith, and only in the interests of your charity
make sure you are sufficiently informed, taking any advice you need
take account of all relevant factors you are aware of
ignore any irrelevant factors
deal with conflicts of interest and loyalty
make decisions that are within the range of decisions that a reasonable trustee body could make in the circumstances
You should record how you made more significant decisions in case you need to review or explain them in the future. "
www.gov.uk/guidance/charity-trustee-whats-involved#making-decisions-as-a-trustee

Open and transparent is the key. I've sat on many a board where this has to underpin the Terms Of Reference.

Regardless of whether transgender children are undergoing hormonal treatment, they are protected under the Equality Act

That's not true, right? Sex is a protected characteristic. Gender identity is not

Archery

It's so depressing. They may not feel they have expertise in trans issues but did they forget their expertise in understanding child development, child psychology, safeguarding, grooming and paedophilia?

We are not aware of evidence that transgender children or adults pose specific safeguarding risks to children

Nobody nobody nobody is concerned about additional risk from anyone because they are transgender NSPCC.

No one is concerned about female leaders infiltrating the scouts are they?

They are concerned that normal safeguarding practice regarding MALES is being thrown out the window.

They are concerned that any MALE can throw this safeguarding out of the window simply by saying one sentence.

That's not true, right? Sex is a protected characteristic. Gender identity is not

Gender reassignment is. Which means just saying you are thinking of becoming transgender. That's it.

To be 'gender reassigned' you have to be 'in the process of reassigning gender'. This includes wearing clothes that stereotypically 'belong' to the other gender. Anything really..a 5 year old boy insisting he is a girl is considered in the process of

I take great issie with the ethics of deeming a child under thr age of 18/16, as ypung as 6, 5, 4 to be ANYWHERE in a process of 'changing their gender'. We dont let them choose what they eat for tea at that age. Yet its ok to reinforce the lie that human beings can change sex. And a lifetime of pharmaceuticals and plastic surgery is in their best interest?!

Rather than...yes you are a boy because you have a penis. ThT cant be changed, your body is perfect as it is. Wear dresses and makeup if you like

Gender reassignment is. Which means just saying you are thinking of becoming transgender. That's it

cf Scottish Bill earlier in year which redefined both woman and female on this basis.

Fairplay for Women's article;
fairplayforwomen.com/scottish_stole_woman/

Blimey, this is...I can barely find the words.
It would appear the NSPCC are complicit in doing children harm by throwing safeguarding principles out the window.

The NSPCC.
I’m struggling to let that sink in.

I’ve saved this thread as a PDF.

What Lisa said about NSPCC here> made me look at who sponsored NSPCC in the case of the advert about child abuse in 2002. The advert is on YouTube now: and it was sponsored by Microsoft Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Follow this www.thirdsector.co.uk/national-media-briefing-headway-war-want-nspcc-barnardos-eastern-congo-initiative-bill-melinda-gates-foundation/communications/article/1180180

And this> www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10019617/School-pupils-should-be-taught-not-all-porn-is-bad-advise-experts.html (Teachers should be aware that “not all pornography is bad” when taking sex education classes, according to guidance made available to schools.)

And this> www.comicrelief.com/partners/nspcc to see what they're doing.

GayStarNews:

NSPCC cancel Mumsnet child abuse live chat after flood of transphobia

So that's why they didn't show....

www.gaystarnews.com/article/nspcc-mumsnet-child-abuse-transphobia/#gs.HhWJaNE

Dear Ms. Xx

Thanks you for your message highlighting your concerns about the safeguarding risks posed by transgender individuals. Although the issues that you highlight are concerning, we do not believe that it is right to extrapolate the actions of specific trans individuals to the wider trans community, in the same way that we do not judge the wider male and female community by the actions committed daily by a reduced number of straight men and women.

At the NSPCC we work to ensure that strong safeguarding rules are implemented by those caring for children to support children to grow and flourish in a safe and diverse environment.

Best wishes,

Peter

Peter Wanless

Chief Executive, NSPCC

" Although the issues that you highlight are concerning and elsewhere in our policies we do recommend that boys and girls do not share sleeping accommodation we are now so desperate to support the demands of trans activists that if boys / men self identifying as girls / women want to access female spaces, shower and sleep in dormitories with girls, then we will forget all our knowledge about how predators use every opportunity / loophole to access children when vulnerable and cheerfully hold the doors open for them".

I have had such respect for this charity and worked with them for a number of years. But no longer. For the NSPCC to wilfully ignore that it is self ID that is the issue and poses the threat to children is outrageous. We really are in trouble when the NSPCC cannot prioritise the safety of children.

Thank you for trying OP - such an awful response.

Did they just contrast 'trans individuals' with 'straight men and women'?

That doesn't give me much faith that they know what they are discussing.