Haworthia That is a good twitter post. It is indeed about respect for those kids and what they have been through
It really is not just about one man and the very inappropriate sexual things that he did whilst at work and placed online. It is much more about the NSPCC, which as the leading organisation for the protection of abused children, is seriously letting down children but especially sexually abused children.
The culture at the NSPCC means that they did not recognise that making sexually abused girls share intimate spaces, such as changing rooms in schools or tents on trips with the Guides, with males who are identifying themselves as female, can be deeply traumatising and incredibly harmful to these vulnerable girls.
The NSPCC culture means that they have not recognised how important it is for these vulnerable girls to develop their boundaries and to be able to recognise males as the sex they are and then assert their boundaries and safeguard themselves accordingly. The NSPCC should understand that sexually abused girls are at considerable risk of revictimisation. The development of their boundaries from broken, then to fragile, and then hopefully to more established and confident is incredibly important. It is also important to sexually abused children, to have the confidence that they are allowed to recognise someone for who they are and that adults, such as the teachers, around them will not tell them how they must recognise someone. The NSPCC has not encouraged a culture that will permit this.
The culture at the NSPCC means that they have not recognised the mixed messages that are being given to children. One message, given to children, is that you do not have to do anything that you feel uncomfortable with (you are allowed boundaries and they are yours to define). The second and conflicting message is that you should just accept and indeed work to eliminate feeling uncomfortable around males (if those males think or declare themselves as female) in your changing rooms, in order to be kind and inclusive (your boundaries are not yours to define, as it is more important to be kind).
The culture alsomeans that they did not recognise (prior to launching their Speak Out, Stay Safe programme) the incredibly awful wording of their definition of sexual abuse that they are teaching to children, which informs children that sexual abuse is defined by their response to it. The NSPCC's definition may well mean that not only will a child will be unable to recognise that she has been groomed by her abuser to believe that she 'wants' the abuse, but also when she finally works out that she is being abused then she will fear disclosing because clearly 'normal' children would be frightened or worried by the abuse, therefore her abuser is right. She will also not want to feel as though she has been too 'stupid' to realise what was happening, when clearly 'normal' children would be clever enough to realise that it is wrong and therefore be frightened. Children do not like to appear 'stupid'. Shame causes a child to be sexually abused for longer.
If the culture at the NSPCC had really been focused on sexually abused children over the last few years then they would have known that they need to represent the voice of the silent majority of sexually abused children and they would have made sure that their voices were represented and their needs were being met within the trans-inclusive policies that are being implemented.
The NSPCC should also have recognised that sexually abused girls may feel the need to reject female puberty and the additional harassment that they may be subject to during puberty. They should really have been asking the government to urgently investigate possible links between sexual abuse and rapid onset gender dysphoria, in order to ensure that these girls have the best outcome and chance at a future.
The culture in the NSPCC has also resulted in significant numbers of the brilliant women (and men) that are most concerned about safeguarding, being shut out of the conversation with them. Some of these women were themselves subjected to sexual abuse as children, so understand instinctively what needs doing, and when and where things going wrong. Many of these women, are making considerable sacrifices and and some are dealing with abuse being hurled at them, al because they care deeply about safeguarding all children; these women are the ones 'holding the line'. The NSPCC have responded by sometimes labelling them transphobes and they have mostly appeared unwilling to listen and understand their concerns.
The culture at the NSPCC, but also within much of the mainstream media and government as well, means that instead of these women being able to contact the NSPCC through the usual channels and expecting an appropriate response, they are having to resort to social media to relay their concerns. This ultimately meant that the deeply inappropriate behaviour of JM, which was easily found, was then eventually exposed on social media. Women could no longer trust that the safeguarding concerns would be listened to and acted on appropriately.
I think that, in a way, JM has also been let down by the culture at the NSPCC. His senior managers should have understood safeguarding, alongside the need to protect the NSPCC's reputation and they should have removed him from their staff months ago and explained to him that he was not an appropriate fit for a child protection charity. This actually would have been the best way for the NSPCC to protect him.
The culture at the NSPCC needs to change, in order to really put the needs of all vulnerable children first.