Weakening of safeguarding is an acceptable risk for a more progressive society

[ABitCrapper]

Isn't that really the issue?
Girl guiding are weakening safeguarding to be more inclusive.
The guidelines about children sharing is changed if one is trans.
Schools.
Government.
Etc.

Maybe they should all just be honest and admit that.

They have not thought about it. They are swept along by the Stonewall brainwashing.

They do not recognise the risks, so they have not considered it.

No, I don't think that is the true issue. Nothing to do with the appearance of "inclusiveness" or "progressiveness". I believe that's the plausible cover for something altogether much more sinister.

Call me delusional and paranoid if you like, I really don't care

I believe that's the plausible cover for something altogether much more sinister.

^^ I fear it's this.

Isn't that a bit "tin hat"? Do you have any evidence for is it just a hunch? Not being rude , really want to know what makes you think that.

Not more inclusive if, say, Muslim women feel unable to take part in activities

Not more inclusive if it becomes impossible to measure women's recruitment, promotion and pay against men because data is meaningless

Not more inclusive if the most vulnerable in our society (women prisoners, women in refuges) bear the heaviest cost.

Not more inclusive if elderly women no longer have dignity.

The question we should be asking ourselves is "cui bono?" Who or which group would benefit from the relaxation of safeguarding? I think we know

How does weakening safeguarding lead to a more progressive or inclusive society?

Why is it a risk?

Weakening of safeguarding is an acceptable risk for a more progressive society.

That weakening safeguarding can lead to a more progressive society is a logical fallacy. Weakening safeguarding always benefits those who have power and creating a Society where the powerful can lord over the weak unchallenged is pretty much the polar opposite of a progressive society.

I do not dispute that some may genuinely fall for this fallacy, but those who are driving this do not. They know very well what they are doing and to what end. And it pretty much amounts to a 'do what thou wilt'. Of course only those with power will be able to live by that, and the weak will pay, silenced.

Concerns being raised are dismissed, concerning cases are dismissed as one offs, I’ve read some concerning background stuff about people lobbying for the changes.

I think it increasingly looks like wilful blindness or just not giving a fuck - maybe that is tin hatted.

I'm also not sure that progression is what's happening.

Upholding stereotypes is regressive not progressive.

Sorry everyone, I'm good to ask for this thread and my account to be deleted.feel free to restart this discussion in a fresh thread.
I've just realised that this whole thing is becoming a bit of an obsession for me and I'm spending waaàayyyy too much time on here. And it's not good for my MH or my kids.
X

Define 'progressive'. Because from where I'm standing it looks like 'increased sexual freedom and power for male born people over female born people', where women and children are collateral damage.

When you challenge twits like the NSPCC over this what you get is back to the wall panic. They know. They're too scared to admit it. The general public however will call it for exactly what it is when a serious case review escapes into the press. And it will.

'Isn't that a bit "tin hat"?'

Probably! I'm an embittered old bag who's seen more than enough bad things happen in this world which could have been avoided if only we had the will. The loosening of safeguarding can have no possible benefits to the population at large or the most vulnerable among us. We need more safeguarding, not less, or at least what there currently is, implemented. Or we'll be encountering more outrages like Victoria Climbie, Baby Peter, Rotherham and wondering why we learned nothing until it was too late. Again

Abit, take care of your mental health xx. But leave this thread up, it's fine.

It would seem to be obvious that they cannot just accept that safeguarding has to be weakened to accommodate their demands, because the world and his wife will see that as a bad thing.

But I'm pretty damn sure there was someone here around the time of the NSPCC and Girl Guides debacle that was ever-so-gently suggesting that we could 'look at' safeguarding in a new way.

I suspect what is in view is going to follow the same incremental pattern that most of the transactivist playbook has gone with so far, bit by bit, slowly shifting the window of what is acceptable so that the ground shifts before most people realize.

It's one thing to learn lessons to late. It's another entirely to learn the lessons, enact them into practice/law and then tear them down at the behest of a lobby group with no underpinning impact assessments or rationale.

That weakening safeguarding can lead to a more progressive society is a logical fallacy. Weakening safeguarding always benefits those who have power and creating a Society where the powerful can lord over the weak unchallenged is pretty much the polar opposite of a progressive society.

Exactly.

Also: a libertarian society based on individual rights of self declaration is a right wing society. Nothing progressive about it at all. Extreme individualism defaults to extant power structures.

The irony that weakening safeguarding will let Ian fucking Huntley into a women's prison eh?

Whodathoughtit?

Oh, OP, I missed your post.

Don't take things badly. We're all worn down. Self care is vital and we all need a break from time to time.

I have a tendency to obsess over things and a very real history of MH issues
I'm currently never off my phone continuously refreshing MN and ignoring my kids. I'm horrendously sleep deprived and on the verge of tears a lot of the time, yet I can't seem to stay away.

Lol, sorry, as yo u were

Honestly, the only group who truly 'benefit' from this shit are sexual predators, who are overwhelmingly men. Unfettered access to women and children.

There are enough rumours, quashed cases, dubious links to PIE members and 'missing reports' that tell me government and institutions in this country are infested with such characters, so I am not surprised this is receiving so much backing, alll under the guise of progressiveness and inclusivity.

There is nothing more pitiful in society than the thwarted penis.

Penis freedom uber alles is progressive.

Safeguarding works to thwart penis and must therefore be abolished in the name of progress.

Seriously, ABit, be stern with yourself to the extent that you turn your phone off and do something life affirming. This circus will still be here should you feel strong enough to return, and there are many hands here holding back the tide of horror.

Put your needs first, please, and remember that balance between knowing you have to speak up against what is wrong, and knowing also that it is not all on you to fix it, ok?

Hey a bitcrapper

I get like that so I just decide to chill and do my gaming- another obsession lols
But it it’s important to have breaks from social media as it is designed to be obsessive. Like gaming
So am posting this then gonna take a break till tomorrow but definitely coming back as I really like the humour here and the ppl who are the dogs 😂😂💪💪
Oh and can’t be arsed to go on that thread but Nicola hare - talks shite

Hope you're OK, OP.

I am beginning to think that weakening safeguarding is the true and very deliberate aim of this current trans ideology.