Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The NSPCC aren't right about this are they?

326 replies

Macareaux · 04/04/2019 17:51

Oh wise and knowledgeable women of Mumsnet I don't think the EA2010 does this at all does it? I'm not 100% certain so don't want to wade in.

The NSPCC aren't right about this are they?
OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
Melroses · 05/04/2019 20:44

Please write to your MP and/or make a complaint to the charities commission

www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/about-us/organisation-structure/ Read articles 3 & 4 of the charter - disclaimer - read it on twitter, not an expert.

AlwaysTawnyOwl · 05/04/2019 20:46

A research paper entitled "Gender reassignment: 5 years of referrals in Oxfordshire by Kate Saunders, Christopher Bas" (Oxford University) was published in 'The Psychiatrist' in 2011 - the researchers sought to evaluate the characteristics of individuals seeking gender reassignment in Oxfordshire. Over that period there were 39 male to female and 15 female to male. They found that of the 39, 2 were refused on the grounds that they were paedophiles who wanted to present as females in order to facilitate paedophilia. The current system caught them - self-id would not, in fact it would encourage paedophiles to exploit an obvious loophole in the system.

pombear · 05/04/2019 20:52

To anyone who's accidentally found themselves on this thread and wondering what the answer to the original question is.

The answer is: the NSPCC aren't right about this.

(Because of law, not because of opinion, passion, personal experience or being 'nice'. They're not right because of the law.)

And many people are concerned that NSPCC aren't aware that they're not right about this.

If you have time, read the thread. And if you disagree with many on the thread after you've read it. It won't cost you anything, apart from your time reading it. (Don't worry, you won't be branded a 'TERF' for just reading other people's opinions.)

And bear in mind there are many people outside of this board who want you not to read this thread, or many of the links in it. They want you to worry that even reading, thinking about this stuff, is 'dangerous'. They want to 'retrain you thinking'

twitter.com/Gwethulu/status/1114197705042079744

You may be told that many of the posters here are 'anti-trans'.

Yet, when you start reading posts, you may realise that the majority of posters here are pro-women and children's rights, not anti-trans rights.

And, after reading this thread, you may want to ponder why so many people want to shut this board down.

And maybe ask yourself why that is.

RepealTheGRA · 05/04/2019 20:57

Miss! miss! I think I know this one! Is it because this board educates women about their rights so that they can protect themselves and their children?

Is that why they go after this board instead of kiwifarm, ladbible, the blokes in the comments section of sky news etc etc where they say all the really nasty stuff?

ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASavings · 05/04/2019 21:09

And here it is in action:

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/pupils-missing-school-because-dont-15839558

Mixed sex toilets in a Welsh school have lead to drum roll please :

  • Girls refusing to go to school whilst on their periods out of fear of being harassed and shamed in the toilets.
  • Girls dehydrating themselves by refusing to drink during the day in order to not use the toilets.

The school have responded to parental complaints by insisting that the toilet block is not mixed sex because within the block there are cubicles. Well no shit Sherlock, no one thought it was just a row of open fucking toilets!

Children’s Commissioner Professor Sally Holland said: "The rights children have to safety, protection from harm and privacy belong to children and young people of all genders, including those that identify as transgender.

Or more accurately " including those that as long as they* identify as transgender."

  • There ya go, fixed that for you Sally
The NSPCC aren't right about this are they?
Ereshkigal · 05/04/2019 21:21

They want you to worry that even reading, thinking about this stuff, is 'dangerous'. They want to 'retrain you thinking'

That woman was far too polite to answer those people in the way they deserved. They're not clever enough to understand the point.

"Genderfree" means i don't believe in gender, kids. Therefore i don't play by your silly rules. If I want to call myself a genderfree woman, I will, because woman is a sex class, whatever nonsense you believe.

MNSDKHheroines · 05/04/2019 21:32

"Caroline's* 7-year-old son Luke was sexually abused by a 13-year-old friend of the family."

From the NSPCC homepage. But they don't think it could happen in a mixed-sex toilet or changing room?

MNSDKHheroines · 05/04/2019 21:53

What does this mean in plain English?
Upcoming conference first objective: To consider major disruptors that challenge training on child protection and how they can be constructively embraced.
twitter.com/NSPCCpro/status/1112723905989484544

Datun · 05/04/2019 22:01

And many people are concerned that NSPCC aren't aware that they're not right about this.

My concern is that they are only too aware that they are not right about this.

How could they not be. Thousands of people have told them. And shown them the evidence.

nauticant · 05/04/2019 22:04

And many people are concerned that NSPCC aren't aware that they're not right about this.

I started thinking it was just an ignorant NSPCC intern saying what they hoped was the law instead of what the law actually is. However, after being corrected beyond any doubt yesterday so that today they parroted the correct version in their tweets, they spent the day effusively thanking people who are repeating the original misrepresentation of the law.

NSPCC's "correction" has been a non-correction to defuse a difficult situation while they're actually happy enough for yesterday's misinformation to be the version that gets out into the public domain. They're a disgrace.

nauticant · 05/04/2019 22:04

Ahh, x-post.

Ereshkigal · 05/04/2019 22:07

NSPCC's "correction" has been a non-correction to defuse a difficult situation while they're actually happy enough for yesterday's misinformation to be the version that gets out into the public domain. They're a disgrace.

Which is why they were NEVER going to answer the webchat questions.

Knicknackpaddyflak · 05/04/2019 22:09

Precisely, Datun. Their response to the tweets shows: they are fully on board that people quoting law and evidence to them is transphobic and are gratefully accepting the sympathy of AWAs that they are being told these facts at all.

They are in the pay of a political lobby group, and have nailed their colours to the mast that they are a mouthpiece for that particular political ideology. This fatally compromises their right to public funding and to being any authority on safeguarding. The two positions are wholly incompatible.

They are intentionally giving false advice and stating that it is law to further their own political agenda, and relying on their status and history to avoid people questioning it. This is something that should be urgently looked into legally, while the govt disassociates themselves as fast as possible. Due Fucking Diligence. How many more times?

This needs to be in the national press, this is a scandal that the general public are entitled to know about. Public funding is not be allowed to be used as a trojan horse to try and ingrain a particular political/theological ideology by organisations supposed to be politically neutral. This has to be challenged and forced to accountability.

pombear · 05/04/2019 22:16

Yep, I agree with you Eresh, nauticant, Datun, Knick et al.

Was just setting out what had happened on that thread, in general.

Regulatory capture demonstrated in real time Sad

FermatsTheorem · 05/04/2019 22:22

The truly terrifying thing is that this is a body with statutory powers to approach the courts to have children removed from what they consider to be abusive households. How long before they start using these powers on parents who resist the immediate move to puberty blockers as soon as possible for their gender non-conforming children?

truthisarevolutionaryact · 05/04/2019 22:25

The government s unlikely to take any action. The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds) is a huge fan of mixed sex toilets so he won't care at all about threats to girls. I have seen several letters from him to members of the public who have written to him about safeguarding. He completely ignores the safeguarding issues but writes extensively about how 'inclusive' mixed sex toilets are in schools. He's evidently very keen on removing sex segregated toilets, showers and changing rooms for children Confused

nauticant · 05/04/2019 22:36

I suppose mixed sex toilets are cheaper to provide and maintain. Well, at first glance and so long as you don't factor in what follows.

LangCleg · 05/04/2019 22:56

The truly terrifying thing is that this is a body with statutory powers to approach the courts to have children removed from what they consider to be abusive households. How long before they start using these powers on parents who resist the immediate move to puberty blockers as soon as possible for their gender non-conforming children?

EXACTLY.

Please, everyone: join the dots.

Institutional capture of a charity with statutory powers is a fucking big deal.

ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASavings · 05/04/2019 23:01

So how do we make people join the dots? We've collated a lot of information here on these boards, how do we bring it all together in a way that makes people sit up and take notice? How do we break the story so that its big news, not just a here today gone tomorrow headline?

theOtherPamAyres · 05/04/2019 23:04

There are Children's Commissioners in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They have a statutory duty to promote and protect the rights of all children.

You would think that such people would already be alert to the dangers posed to children following

  • the Tavistock Report (experimental and premature treatment of children)
  • the role of charities and funders promoting 'affirmation of gender identity'
  • the growing loss of public confidence in the charity NSPCC
  • the impact of the erosion of sex-segrated spaces for children over the age of 7

Why is it such bloody hard work to get these people in quangos, non-governmental departments, ministries and Parliament to join the dots and ask questions?

Why (like the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the interpretation of the Equality Act) will they only admit that they've 'mis-spoken' when they've been caught bang to rights and find that the public won't back down?

Ereshkigal · 05/04/2019 23:16

There are Children's Commissioners in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They have a statutory duty to promote and protect the rights of all children

The Scottish Children's Commissioner admitted that they hadn't even read the Scottish trans school guidelines that were produced before endorsing them, ISTR.

ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASavings · 05/04/2019 23:31

Well the EHRC are now being chaired by David Isaac the former chair of Stonewall, so I wouldn't expect anything from them. And he's also a director of the Big Lottery Fund, who decided (shock shock) that all was above board with Mermaids and they should continue receiving 5 mil in BLF funding.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/who-we-are/our-commissioners-committees-and-governance/about-our-commissioners

ChickenonaMug · 05/04/2019 23:38

I am so upset by the whole attitude of the NSPCC, as a women who was sexually abused for many years of my childhood, I feel utterly betrayed by them. I am disgusted that they can make money from adverts about, and the public's concern for, girls who are experiencing sexual abuse and then turn around and imply that there are no concerns when these very groomed and traumatised girls are forced to share spaces with males.

Girls who have been groomed and abused will often have very poor understanding of boundaries and how to assert them, and whilst they are desperately learning to develop and assert them they should not be expected to ignore or override them in order to be kind or inclusive to males (even those who identify as girls or women).

Equally, these vulnerable girls (who will often feel unable to speak up at all) should not have to suffer the really awful effects of their trauma responses, which will often occur when they feel especially vulnerable around males. Using a mixed toilet or changing room, or a single sex toilet next to a male who identifies as female, will often be very distressing.

A child with fragile boundaries or real fears about speaking up and asserting them will be particularly vulnerable to inappropriate sexual behaviour from her peers or other males. I know this because alongside the years of sexual abuse and rape from an adult male relative, I also was subject to inappropriate sexual behaviour from two male class mates, when I was about ten, on at least two or three occasions.

The NSPCC is letting vulnerable girls, and in fact all girls, down in the most horrific of ways. Their input into this has resulted in groups, such as Girlguiding and British Gymnastics, coming up with policies that also seriously ignore the wellbeing and safeguarding of girls and also remove a safe space for these girls, in which they might have started to recover or build resilience.

Amongst other things the stance that the NSPCC has taken in this will undoubtedly, in my mind, result in abused girls who will now find it far harder to recover and intergrate into society. I can not stress enough the importance of being able to rely on single sex spaces in allowing me to negiogate a path through life, especially in my teens and twenties.

The NSPCC is completely failing sexually abused girls and as I wrote at the beginning it has often been adverts that have been about abused girls that have brought in the money for them. And their directors' salaries are not small. I feel that women and girls like me have been used by them and then our needs ignored and abandoned. The NSPCC disgust me.

Also, I have watched despairingly in the last few hours as the NSPCC have thanked people on twitter for their messages in which they have called the women raising valid concerns: bigots and transphobes.

To the NSPCC, I do not care what I am called I will continue to do what I can to ensure that the safety, wellbeing, recovery and social integration of sexually abused girls is not impacted by policies or practices that do not consider their needs and rights. Balancing the rights of vulnerable children was always going to be extremely difficult, but the NSPCC should have properly acknowledged this and then helped other organisations to understand the different conflicting needs and their impact within a legal and safeguarding framework and subsequently come up with appropriate solutions. The NSPCC could have led the way with this and done what was expected of them but instead...

truthisarevolutionaryact · 05/04/2019 23:40

Flowers ChickenonaMug

Brilliant post

pombear · 05/04/2019 23:51

Chicken that's an incredibly powerful post, and thank you for sharing.

Are you already sharing this on other platforms such as Twitter?

And are you OK for it to be shared more widely (bearing in mind that Mumsnet is already a public platform) As I'm sure there will be many cross-platform users here for whom your story is a powerful one to counter NSPCC's current take.

As above, we all know that Mumsnet is already a public platform, but just a check-in before anyone shares links to Chicken's post.

Seems slightly trite but Flowers to you Chicken.