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)

The Government (Dept of Equalities) issued guidelines to service providers, charities etc in 2015. (Prepared by Gendered Intelligence). It said things like:

Good Practice 4: Assume everyone selects the facilities appropriate to their gender. A trans person should be free to select the facilities (such as toilets or changing rooms) appropriate to the gender in which they present.

It said that transgender people didn't have to have a GRC.

This message has been amplified by EHRC, Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence and Mermaids in resource packs and training modules.

This is why the NSPCC is confident that its actions are government backed, on the right track and compatible with the Equality Act.

Brilliant letter!

YY Pam. There's nothing in the EA 2010 itself which suggests that MTFs without GRC (ie not legal members of the protected sex class female) should access female spaces.

It's the EHRC and these guidelines which have brought this about.

Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We have recently reviewed the evidence in relation to the issues you have raised and we have set out the rationale for our policy. Organisations working with children need to have strong safeguarding measures in place and this is the context in which our approach is grounded. While we will keep an eye on this issue, we will not be taking any further work forward on this at present as we do not consider there to be specific child protection concerns in relation to transgender-inclusive policies. In my previous message, I was not contrasting transgender people with straight people, but drawing a comparison about why we do not judge the whole from the actions of a few.

Best wishes,

Peter

we have set out the rationale for our policy

Which is....?

Thanks Tunataka

Is that a new response?

The response says:

"In my previous message, I was not contrasting transgender people with straight people, but drawing a comparison about why we do not judge the whole from the actions of a few."

But the whole POINT of child safeguarding procedures is to protect children from the actions of a few.

You simply can't have meaningful safeguarding procedures and rules if you waive them for some males.

Especially not if you can join the group of males for whom they are waived simply by saying you are female

There are estimated to be 80,000 males in the UK who are considered to be a danger to children.

Is the NSPCC seriously saying they don't believe a single one of these would take advantage of this massive loophole in the safeguarding fence?

That's before even thinking about the privacy and dignity of girls having to change in front of teenage boys etc. And the issues of lying to parents and putting the girls in the position of lying to parents.

But isn't it the actions of a few that point out the holes in safeguarding to begin with?

Cross-post. Exactly this.

Also, does the NSPCC consider that children are at NO risk where convicted male paedophiles are transferred to prisons with mother and baby units?

Would the NSPCC go on record as saying that there is no risk to babies in that situation?

So logically Peter shouldn't believe in any safeguarding procedures? After all most adults aren't abusive to children.

Idly wonders whether the NSPCC would have anything to say about paedophiles like KW accessing children / babies in the mother and baby unit at New Hall prison.

Probably not.

I just don't get how people get so far in organisations without critical thinking skills

Cross post with Popchyk

Such a ridiculous mess, all of this, just because of having to defend a logically indefensible position. And the result is women and children, including trans identifying children, are less safe.

"how people get so far in organisations without critical thinking skills"

Yes exactly this. The sheer stupidity of it is breathtaking.

Excellent letter OP.

I wrote ages ago to the NSPCC asking for a clear unambiguous response from them as to whether they believe girls are entitled to private spaces away from male bodied children. If not, why not and under what circumstances.

Reason being I have POA for an elderly female relative. We're reviewing her finances, including her longstanding and generous direct debit support of the NSPCC. Emphasised need for a response in easy to understand language.

Got a response (finally) recently. A non response.

We are sorry that it is taking a little longer than anticipated to gather information to answer your enquiry, but as soon as we have this available we will get back in touch with you.

Should I be mildly encouraged I didn't just get a word salad reply?....

They don’t have an answer. They hope to have a continuance of finances while they do not answer you.

Spot on Purple. Hoping the lack of instant woke reply might mean they realise their continuation of finances is in doubt here.... Will keep on at them.

I'm so disappointed in the NSPCC. I would have expected out of all organisations that the NSPCC would understand the numbers of girls who are dealing with CSA and grooming, and to understand their need for single sex spaces, boundaries and consent.

Girls voices have been silenced. This is not safeguarding, it is the opposite.

They know full fucking well that they don't have a suitable answer to our safeguarding concerns. They don't give a shit about children clearly. Only saying the right things and getting the right donations.

Did the NSPCC ever send a written response to MNHQ following the no-show web chat, like they promised they would?

I would have expected out of all organisations that the NSPCC would understand the numbers of girls who are dealing with CSA and grooming, and to understand their need for single sex spaces, boundaries and consent.

I’m surprised they’re so relaxed about young lesbians self harming by surgeon and being shamed into accepting the idea of sex with male-bodied people.

Frazzled maybe you should write back and say after careful consideration you will stop the DD until they can give you a satisfactory response