Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
Labradoodliedoodoo · 04/09/2018 10:30

.

Charliethefeminist · 04/09/2018 11:25

Another one here who won't donate

Sicario · 04/09/2018 11:35

The consultation documents can be found here:
consult.education.gov.uk/government-equalities-office/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/

You can submit your views here:
consult.education.gov.uk/government-equalities-office/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/consultation/intro/

As a mother of daughters, I am horrified by this whole state of affairs. As one of my (grown) kids said: "I can say I identify as a peanut, but that doesn't make me a fucking peanut".

My nephew when very young insisted he wanted to be a girl. He was a nightmare child, a school bully, and put his parents through hell. As an adult he said he didn't mean it and that he is definitely a gay man. Now living in New York and loving the lifestyle, he has Histrionic Personality Disorder, loves cross-dressing and is highly promiscuous.

We are very close and his insights about this subject send shivers down my spine.

MipMipMip · 04/09/2018 12:22

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.

So you don't support DBS checks then? Because those are being careful with everyone and assuming the worst, judging if you will, until you know otherwise.

Vickyyyy · 04/09/2018 17:34

TIMs do not pose a risk because they are 'trans', but because they are males.

Erm yes I agree with that. Its the male part, that people try to say is not true, that is the issue, not the trans part.

Though I have to say, its concerning that 50% of trans people in prison are there for sex offenses. Though I expect that thats because crossdressers are included as trans, where crossdressing has always been a fetish over represented in sex offenders.

Ereshkigal · 04/09/2018 17:54

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

Wow Shock

Prawnofthepatriarchy · 04/09/2018 18:10

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

They did indeed. I suspect that the powers that be at the NSPCC believe transgirls are sexually attracted to boys, which is why they're sure there's no risk to girls sharing sleeping accommodation with them.

ChattyLion · 04/09/2018 18:33

Please make this into a petition!

Twunk · 04/09/2018 18:47

My dad, a lovely kind man in his early 70s, has cancelled his monthly donation to the NSPCC and shall be telling them why when they call. He is horrified at their cavalier attitude towards children’s safety on this issue.

I’m a little bit proud Smile

Tunataka · 04/09/2018 18:59

Shock twunk

chatty a petition to whom for what, though?

OP posts:
Tunataka · 04/09/2018 19:00

I have replied thus;

Dear Peter and all,

Thank you for your reply. I have a few comments and questions;

  1. I am not asking asking you to extrapolate at all. The individuals that have committed the crimes against children and seek to silence women are the very same individuals who have been lobbying to eradicate female only spaces and advise Government and major UK institutions.

  2. Why are you contrasting transgender people with 'straight people'? This suggests that you do not understand transgenderism at all. What is your understanding of 'transgender'? It is not a sexual orientation. Both transgender people and non-transgender people can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.

  3. I am not suggesting that you judge all transgender people based on the actions of a few. I am asking you to explain why you consider that all usual safeguarding procedures can be removed when a male erroneously declares themself to be female? I am sure that the NSPCC do not consider all boys and men to be a risk to girls and women, yet you do indeed advocate for sex segregation of accomodation and facilities. (Sex segregation is not the only safeguarding measure that is disguarded in current transpolicies across the UK).

  4. I am not able to understand how or why you have decided that males who identify as trans can be exempt from normal safeguarding procedures with no consequence for girls. The only person who has attempted an explanation was James Copeland, who states that males can transform into females using the power of their beliefs. I have gone to great efforts to explain the logic behind my concerns. I have provided you with the evidence that underpins that. You repeatedly dismiss all of this with a generic statement that you do not believe there to be a risk.

Risk analysis is part of my job, I have been invloved in many Risk Assessment processes. For any decision made, I would be able to provide evidence to justify the decision. This would include documented qualifications and experience of the individuals that sat on the panel that made the decision and a record of the discussion; Terms of Reference for the panel/meetings and evidence that the meeting was quorate; the evidence and information which informed the decision and details of mitigations and caveats. In this particular case i would expect to see a review of an assessment of the impact on girls.

Learning from experience is a fundamental aspect of risk management and all risks are reassessed on a regular basis and immediately in the event of any incidents occuring. Jess Bradley, David and Aimee Challenor all constitute 'incidents' and i would expect to see a risk review.

Please could you provide this information, or alternative, so that i can understand the conclusion that you have reached.

Many thanks

OP posts:
LangCleg · 04/09/2018 19:03

And another great email by you!

I expect further fingers in ears and chants of la la la nothing to see here in response.

tiredandweary · 04/09/2018 19:08

Great response Tunataka

ArkeNOTen · 04/09/2018 19:12

Another great letter. Please make it a petition for the NSPCC to provide transparent documentation and risk analysis process gone through (as described in your most recent letter) to arrive at their policy so we can all see why they ‘don’t believe there to be a risk’

stillathing · 04/09/2018 19:29

Amazing reply Tunataka.

Twunk · 04/09/2018 19:35

I applaud your tenacity tunataka.

You may one day get an adequate response! Not just “what issue? There’s no issue!”

theOtherPamAyres · 04/09/2018 19:55

What are the NSPCC training/guidelines for counsellors dealing with children talking to Childline about gender identity and sexual orientation?

MrsFogi · 04/09/2018 19:59

From now on every time I cross the path of a chugger from the NSPCC (or any of the other charities that don't seem to have any worries about the self-id issue) I will be sticking one of my self-id stickers on their clip-board.

frogsoup · 04/09/2018 20:13

All I can hope is that behind the 'nothing to see here' arse-covering official responsed there are at least cogs turning behind the scenes and slowly thinking 'hmmm, hang on'. But sadly that last reply suggests that the chief exec can't even be bothered (or worse, doesn't have the intellectual firepower) to actually engage his brain and consider the question. Depressing beyond belief.

frogsoup · 04/09/2018 20:13

*responses

frogsoup · 04/09/2018 20:17

And I am in total awe of your letter-writing skillz. I can write a mean complaint letter myself, but I bow down here in admiration at a true master of the art!

Coyoacan · 04/09/2018 20:24

And I am in total awe of your letter-writing skillz

Another one here. In fact I would not like to get into an argument that I wanted to win with any of the ladies here. Once I gave up wanting to win though, I would be a lot wiser.

Theinconstantgardener · 04/09/2018 20:59

Tunataka
Cracking response.

Theinconstantgardener · 04/09/2018 21:03

The more I read on this forum the more

I am astounded at the number of organisations that this garbage has infiltrated. Hats off to all who are trying to stem the tide.

MipMipMip · 07/09/2018 10:15

Any response OP?