Charities we have concerns about supporting

[Doyenne]

Last year the institute of fundraising have found what many of us could have told them and that's that women think more carefully about charities and give more often.

There used to be a long list of charities I would support: Oxfam, NSPCC, Shelter, Save the Children, Cancer Research, Shelter.

One by one I've removed them from my list

Save the Children was the realisation of the behaviour they had let Brendan Cox get away with.

Oxfam was aid workers sexually exploiting vulnerable women in Haiti

Amnesty International when I realised their stance on prostitution seemed to have moved 180 degrees

Cancer Research was when they removed the word women from cervical cancer info even whilst their research showed women at higher risk of not going for scans were women whose first language was not English.

NSPCC I'm watching to see if they will belately show leadership on the need for children to be allowed to assert boundaries

Shelter I was really sad to stop supporting when I realised how toxic stonewall had become to lesbians (Strong links between the two wrt trustees).

Children in need has become an absolute no with their support for mermaids and them stopping supporting sex specific refuges.

I'm trying to ensure I don't reduce my overall charitable giving but I fear that may be an unintended consequence of my greater scrutiny.

I wondered what changes/concerns other may have wrt charities

Just cancelled my monthly standing order to NSPCC, and have written explaining why. I can't work out who to send the letter to yet, but I will. No doubt the letter/email will be shredded/deleted I read that whole NSPCC facebook live thread last night.

I just have no words for a prominent children's charity that disregards child safety measures and protections, in favour of gender identity - and then cannot even defend their actions on a live webchat with mothers.

It's indefensible.

I looked up my standing order - I'd been giving a monthly donation to NSPCC since 2002 - whilst blindly assuming they were in it for the protection of children - not gender identity.

They need to think up a new acronym.

What did the NSPCC do wrong?

In a nutshell. They were due to come and do a webchat on mumsnet, and backed out when people asked them some difficult questions on child protection.

They then released a statement - but were unwilling to come onto mumsnet to defend, or even answer concerned mothers' questions, on said statement - regarding the safeguarding of children.

Whole thread here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_facebook_live/3343961-Facebook-Live-about-talking-to-kids-about-staying-safe-from-abuse-with-NSPCC

unwilling unable to defend

These are good resources for giving to non-UK causes in the most bang for buck way:

www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities

www.givingwhatwecan.org/giving-recommendations/

I give to the worming charity because it's an important cause but um... one that isn't pretty and advertiser-friendly.

As for the UK - I give to (and volunteer for) a small local charity that operates in a variety of areas and is very responsive to local need. Plus women's charities who still know who women are (eg Nia, Freedom Programme). And, obviously, GC crowdfunders.

toe Thanks for your answer. I had a look at the thread. To be honest, I can understand why they didn't want to engage. They were there to talk about staying safe from abuse. Most abuse for children has nothing to do with trans issues. I'd be annoyed if I was doing important work and had been asked to give important information about staying safe from abuse (a wide topic) only to find the discussion railroaded into a political discussion about a very narrow facet of child safety, with a group known for refusing to give an inch and who have no regard for where the law is on this issue (or in fact what happens to children who are trans). That could have no good outcome and would not afford the opportunity to give the information I had to give.

So if that's your gripe against the NSPCC, I think it's a great pity to handicap the good work they do over a political issue that doesn't bring them into disrepute or suggest they're unprofessional/uncaring. These charities have a bloody difficult line to walk and the only people who suffer when they're underfunded is children. It's not as if there is an alternative NSPCC (unless some of you are planning to start one) that children can turn to instead.

They were there to talk about staying safe from abuse.

And the current guidance they are endorsing places trans or possibly trans children outside safeguarding protocols, therefore putting them at increased risk of abuse by people who are not trans! That's the bloody point!

FFS.

You've got to understand that not everyone considers this issue worthy of dropping every other issue over, though? The campaign that the NSPCC were doing was good and important. You sacrificed the publicity it could have got (and it was a very different aspect of staying safe that is just as important). It's disingenuous to expect any organisation to come on expecting to talk about something worthwhile they're doing and suddenly end up discussing a policy that is probably nothing to do with the person spearheading that particular campaign. There were better ways to talk to the NSPCC and the work that they're doing is still important and, to my knowledge, not replicated by any other charity. But again, it's obviously worth sacrificing to the all-encompassing trans issue. Despite most children being abused in ways that have nothing to do with this issue.

It's patently obvious that many other people haven't made the links between self-ID and safeguarding. We understand it because we know that even raising it invites accusations of anything from bigotry to not caring enough about the abuse of children (which you just did, BTW)

heartsease that last post was to you.

Heartsease - NSPCC should be able to explain their stance on safeguarding easily to us in a webchat then?

Why bail out? The PANTS rule has been around for years. I taught it to mine when they were little.

But they cannot even begin to answer parent's safe-guarding concerns over the MAJOR loophole in child safety that will be caused by putting a person's gender identity above current child protection rules on sex-segregation. A policy they have just put their name to.

That is a serious failure on their part.

Heartsease if NSPCC had an answer as to why they felt there wasn't a problem they should have turned up to say so. As an audience we're pretty well informed about the work they do so we would be asking more specific questions. They do a lot of very good work but they need to be prepared to stand up and say they have concerns about self id if they do or explain why they think it would never be abused if they are confident it won't be.

Pulling out of a talk because they are going to be asked difficult questions Undermines their credibility

Where's NSPC then? (tumbleweed)

C'mon, pick a side if you have the guts.

No longer would give to Children in Need ( Mermaids ), Cancer Research ( female biology erasure ) , Amnesty ( sex trade plus Shon Faye ). I’d like advice on Plan as their latest info re anyone who menstruates made me think they’ve drunk the nutty potion as well . Just as an aside , I wrote to Amnesty with my reasons and stated I’d supported them for approx 30yrs - no reply . Rude I thought . I will now give to crowd funders for feminist causes , small local charities working in Africa , local hospice etc . I will be very careful in future ! They will notice soon I’m sure .

I have also stopped supporting Children in Need, Amnesty, etc.
I still support the local air ambulance, Great Ormond Street, Doctors of the World, the RSPB and various smaller charities, such as the Woodland Trust.

What happned to that RSPC thread? Was it deleted?

Rspb is a good one.

I don't think the TAs have got to them yet.... I'll look out for the transing of young robins and blue tits (hey! you there! stop painting over that robin's red breast )

I think I'll give to them instead.

But the Ugly Duckling is a trans icon ! What a dilemma.

Oh no

Sorry, I jest - but I'm deadly serious about a children's charity that takes this dubious position on child safety. They'll get no more donations from me.

Just cancelled my direct debits to Oxfam and NSPCC. I've still got Cancer Research there, although undecided what to do with that. Amnesty lost my money a long time ago.

Currently still supporting a few other charities, with focus on women and children. I've also used Kiva to provide loans to entrepreneurs and tend to lend to women's groups.

I think supporting local charities sounds like a sensible idea. My friend and colleague says that the best sort of donations are "uunrestricted funds" as the big grants are often only given to be used for specific projects or purposes.

Partners in Health is a great charity. www.pih.org

Consider donating to Feminist Current, the Canadian feminist website:

www.feministcurrent.com/about/donate/

silentcrow

There's a thought, actually - I have had cause to donate to both Refuge and Women's Aid recently in gratitude for their services, and I always buy something off Refuge's list at Christmas. But I haven't seen an overt statement anywhere from either of them saying that shelters are women-only. Can anyone point me to theor policies? I did see Refuge were "considering their position", but it was from a while ago. I dont want to unwittingly fund another Canadian situation

Women's Aid don't actually run any refuges - they run the federation of membership refuges which are largely independent charities all with their own policies. Refuge is a huge organisation - the "Shell Oil" of the refuge world - and their policies apply to all the services they run.

Anyone who wants to support their local refuge can contact them to ask about their trans policy and practise.