Telegraph article about NSPCC v MN users

[Angryresister]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/03/nspcc-mumsnet-row-defending-girl-guides-transgender-policy/

Apparently it is we that are the problem

I wish the In brief-transgender issues panel used by the Telegraph was more accurate. It makes is sound as if most transgender people are transsexuals or those with dysphoria. The new Stonewall definition is so much wider and the general public don't understand this.

The NSPCC is currently endorsing guidance which:

*removes the privacy and dignity of girls
*tells children to doubt their own instincts
*places trans-identified children at increased risk of abuser infiltration
*allows self-identification of adult volunteers with reduced oversight

And it wonders why women on a parenting website have questions for it? And, because it cannot answer these questions in a satisfactory manner, sticks its fingers in its ears and shouts transphobia?

Yeah. Fuck off.

Where is the critical thought? Where is the common sense? Where is the oversight?
If the NSPCC had really pondered ANY of these questions beforehand, they would have come on Mumsnet to reassure everyone with their clever answers.
Speaks volumes when the leading children's safeguarding charity is just waving these policies through without allowing them to be scrutinized by actual parents.

Came across this on twitter this morning - in response to Caroline Lucas (Greens) tweet in which she said "I know nobody can undo David Challenor’s horrific crimes, but we must learn lessons & root out paedophiles everywhere"... someone describing herself as
Works for Circles of Support and Accountability in the South West but views expressed are my own. Worked in Probation for c.35 years. goes all cat's-arse prissy about CL's use of the word paedophilia, and describes it as a sexual orientation.

twitter.com/pcrousseau24/status/1036003948191207425

I have donated to and fundraised for NSPCC for years. Like all of us, child protection is close to my heart.

I had no idea until this the NSPCC were this wilfully ignorant of the risks to children by gender self ID.

Furthermore that NSPCC appear to be effectively advocating for suspending all the safeguarding norms that should apply to everyone, in favour of a trans activist dogma.

Like a religion, TRA dogma- led by middle aged men with penises who identify as women- preaches to ‘the saved’ (ie those who will provide questioning kids with total ‘affirmation’, which means rushing them into medical and surgical non reversible changes- puberty blockers are NOT harmless or fully reversible) or they face eternal damnation as a ’transphobe’.

‘Transphobia’ apparently means EVERYONE who questions the trans dogma. Best in mind this dogma revolves around everyone having to conform to gender stereotypes of what a man or woman is, whether they consider themselves trans or not.

Also beyond the pale for the TRAs are any advocates of the ‘watchful waiting’ approach and psychological support as first line treatment for kids, which the the NHS’ approach and which makes sense given most kids will change their mind later. Many just turn out to be lesbian or gay kids.

But in the TRA view, the absolute heretics headed for the fiery furnace are definitely anyone with a normal sense of appropriate safeguarding- about confidentiality (TRAs are even against parental knowledge), normal vetting and checking under all previous names and preserving single sex spaces for children, including on residentials with adults (see the Girl guides’ trans inclusion policy on this one).

Most people want everyone to wear whatever they want- we don’t care, though we all know that wearing clothes do not magically make anyone actually change sex. However much someone might wish it.

But why, does taking on the ‘trans-correct’ response that organisations are being encouraged to adopt, also have to involve a wholesale assault on established safeguarding norms?

That is the question I want NSPCC to answer.

Speaks volumes when the leading children's safeguarding charity is just waving these policies through without allowing them to be scrutinized by actual parents.

I don't understand what's happening. It's slow but in medicine:

trials involving patients in the UK have to have Patient Involvement from the start of the trial design through the implementation to the distribution of the results;

important systematic reviews such as those produced by the Cochrane Collaboration have a relatively readable and accessible, one page lay summary of the findings;

NICE has lay members of all of its committees to scrutinise all areas of health care - they produce lay summaries of the papers that need to be read tho' people still have access to the full papers as well;

Why doesn't the NSPCC and all similar charities have to do this? E.g., have active parent involvement in their study design, information gathering, literature reviews etc, plans for disseminating results/outcomes?

I'm underwhelmed by the Scientific/Policy Advisory Boards of far too many organisations. One way of fixing this would be ensuring that they need to include lay people who represent the people affected by their decisions.

all the safeguarding norms that should apply to everyone

EXACTLY!

The whole point of safeguarding is to be sceptical. Nobody has an unimpeachable identity. Everybody who values child protection above their own self image understands that - every man, every woman, every teacher, every sports coach, every volunteer, and yes, every transsexual.

Nobody is above or outwith stringent safeguarding protocols. And anybody who tells you that such protocols should be relaxed under any circumstances at all, should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

So, you know, NSPCC, I view you with extreme suspicion. How fucking sad is that?

What really worries me about men who self ID as female and are allowed to be in segregated areas for women is that, people who are fighting for it are so militant and refuse to accept other opinions on the matter - does this mean that any incidents that occur because of it are going to be glossed over and ignored? I feel like it will take several serious incidents before people would start a discussion about it's appropriateness! (Very tired so I hope although slightly incoherent that it makes some sense at least)

Yes, MN users are the problem. BUT, I genuinely cannot see any parent of girls reading that and thinking its fine for boys to share changing rooms and such with their daughters. An issue with stories like this is usually that 'transgirls' is used without further explanation, which makes people think of female people who identify as boys and think that yes, it is transphobic to not want some female people changing with other female people just because they think themselves to be male. When its made clear its about male people...its a different story.

The whole point of safeguarding is to be sceptical. Nobody has an unimpeachable identity. Everybody who values child protection above their own self image understands that - every man, every woman, every teacher, every sports coach, every volunteer, and yes, every transsexual. Nobody is above or outwith stringent safeguarding protocols. And anybody who tells you that such protocols should be relaxed under any circumstances at all, should be viewed with extreme suspicion.
This. It's not about feelings. People who work in secure environments are often background checked. Access is restricted to the workplace. IDs must be worn at all times. Do you think people who work in those environments should complain and take it personally that there are structures and procedures in place? Or do you think they should recognise the importance of making the arrangements universal across all individuals equally?

Ok, that's the fourth thread across MN I've seen this link posted in the last few minutes by someone with no posting history. If you want to talk about it, start a thread. Reported.

For reference, these are the relevent threads.
People can read what was written and the nature of Safeguarding and Child Protection concerns:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3350778-My-letter-to-NSPCC

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_facebook_live/a3343961-Facebook-Live-about-talking-to-kids-about-staying-safe-from-abuse-with-NSPCC

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3353658-AIBU-to-be-shocked-that-the-NSPCC-cancelled-their-Facebook-Live-session-with-Mumsnetters-because-they-didnt-like-the-questions-That-they-cant-explain-why-they-arent-putting-children-in-danger

What I find a bit disturbing is the juxtaposition of children should take puberty blockers with the idea that they csn then go through puberty and make their minds up. Surely if you take one it is completely impossible to do the other

If you're going to practice necromancy at least bring back Cleopatra or someone interesting like that.

Did that Wilson person come on here to shout at us in the manner of the drunk bloke who regularly shouts vile misogynist abuse in a city centre subway I occasionally have to walk through?

The NSPCC can go fuck itself. Links to Jimmy Savile and being utterly shit when I needed their help with a pedo grooming kids online through youtube.

I trust a bunch of mum's with concerns over safeguarding way above a load of chugger funded sociology students and creeps who get drawn to the kudos and opportunities presented by a big children's org. Do. Not. Trust. You. NSPCC.

Any reasonable parent would have concerns about an inpregnation-capable boy claiming to be lesbian and sharing overnight accommodation with girls.

I still hope people will come back to their senses when the flood of teen pregnancies caused by "lesbians" starts.

But perhaps that's naive. After all, they can just make the girls get abortions, same as they presumably do with the female prisoners who get pregnant by rape.

I slowly begin to understand why some conservative women think abortion is bad because it lets men avoid responsibility for their actions.

I didn't think the article was that bad actually.

Nice to see the phrases "born male" and "sharing dorms/showers" on the same page.

Hopefully people will finally be able to put it together

I slowly begin to understand why some conservative women think abortion is bad because it lets men avoid responsibility for their actions.

Yes, I think that women completely need body autonomy, and I'm completely pro choice, but yes, the fact that exists is exploited by men.

It's why I actually waver at the idea of a 'man tax' to pay for all the children born to men who evade paying for them.

Any reasonable parent would have concerns about an impregnation-capable boy claiming to be lesbian and sharing overnight accommodation with girls.

Not to mention
a) the fact that parents are not to be told about this or allowed to make an informed choice for their child, and
b) this is totally contrary to the safeguarding rules for any other biological male. As if gender choices remove biology.

and

c) The NSPCC have the 'pants' rule for children, which goes on about 'your body is your own', 'if you feel uncomfortable you have the right to say no' and no one gets to see your body - while also simultaneously holding the position that a teenaged girl, saying no she does not want to get undress and shower alongside a fully intact teenaged male bodied transgirl because she's uncomfortable is to be reminded that she is expected to be inclusive and kind. And the NSPCC say they can't see the whopping great glaring problem staring them in the face with this.

That is what they ran away from facing on MN. That was the question they didn't dare answer. And that was the day I stopped donating to them because that's utterly indefensible.

Well the article linked in the deleted post pretty much agreed with LikeDust, in every respect.

I am not conservative Hestia and I think abortion allows men to not take responsibility for their actions. Not that I would seek to curtail legal access to abortion, but it is surely obvious that it means a fall back option which women can be pressured or coerced into by men who don’t want to take the responsibility which a free choice for women implies (because free choice means being able to go ahead with the pregnancy too)

Abortion is totally irrelevant to this thread, so please take that conversation elsewhere

Apoohies