A trans-Identified BDSM fan/gun nut is now a senior leader at Girlguiding

[Scraggythang]

Via Glinner’s sub stack. Sorry if this has already been posted!

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/wtf-are-girlguiding-thinking

@Masdintle

You're clearly ignoring the fact, patiently repeated over and over again, that posting such behaviour on unlocked social media when one is in a position of power and responsibility for young children is the unacceptable behaviour and the one that shows a lack of awareness of safeguarding. It's what people do in public that is being discussed here.

This. It's depressing watching someone determined to lower the boundaries of what's acceptable around children. But no longer surprising.

As did many of his friends as we are discovering now they they are in their 40s and starting to speak out because those people are no longer able to harm them.

should be

As did many of his friends as we are discovering now that the victims are in their 40s and starting to speak out because those people are no longer able to harm them.

It's the fundamental issue of 'I don't like no'.

Shouting queer theory does not permit an individual to do whatever they like without consequences or respect for others. Inability to take responsibility for one's behaviour or to cope with boundaries would be a social or behavioural disorder.

GG have been really quite staggeringly stupid about this, and they have seriously damaged LGBT+ people in the process. A responsible adult competent to work with children is a responsible adult competent to work with children, regardless of whether they're straight or trans or gay or black or white or vegan or anything else.

@Helleofabore

As did many of his friends as we are discovering now they they are in their 40s and starting to speak out because those people are no longer able to harm them.

should be

As did many of his friends as we are discovering now that the victims are in their 40s and starting to speak out because those people are no longer able to harm them.

Do you think someone like Germaine Greer, given her public comments on adolescent boys, should be prevented from working with children out of interest?

GG has a clear policy about guns. Taking photos of yourself with guns is a weird and disturbing thing to do, and is behaviour observed in several people prior to some very, very serious incidents in which people were murdered. It's a big safeguarding red flag. This one's about the size of the entire EU.

www.messengernewspapers.co.uk/news/14134583.rangers-from-urmston-girl-guides-take-aim-at-altrincham-target-sports-centre/

Oh don't be so silly.

Go and look up the policy and rules and for goodness sakes give your head a wobble.

Do you think someone like Germaine Greer, given her public comments on adolescent boys, should be prevented from working with children out of interest?

YES. Not because she's any danger, she was clearly being deliberately provocative, but standards are standards. Boundaries are boundaries. Greer is an extremely intelligent person and would have known perfectly that she was ruling herself out of a late in life career change to teacher.

[quote barleybadminton]GG has a clear policy about guns. Taking photos of yourself with guns is a weird and disturbing thing to do, and is behaviour observed in several people prior to some very, very serious incidents in which people were murdered. It's a big safeguarding red flag. This one's about the size of the entire EU.

www.messengernewspapers.co.uk/news/14134583.rangers-from-urmston-girl-guides-take-aim-at-altrincham-target-sports-centre/[/quote]
These are girls posing with guns at a sporting centre. They are not posing with guns in a hap hazard fashion in their lounge room to show off their latest find.

Your comparators continue to be off. You are still to come up with something compelling.

Just own that you are seeking to make accommodations for a subset of people who should be exempt from safeguarding.

If someone is honestly not able to understand the difference between a group picture of children participating at an organised sport event, and a lone adult posing at home with guns taking pictures of themselves for their own reasons, (with interesting commentry), then really there's no point in continuing the conversation. I am not surprised that person is not able to understand the concepts around safeguarding.

They are however demonstrating, very clearly, why safeguarding and positions of responsibility must be limited to those with the capacity to understand and follow rules.

Do you think someone like Germaine Greer, given her public comments on adolescent boys, should be prevented from working with children out of interest?

If she has made comments about sexual activity with under age children then she should have the exact same safeguarding applied to her.

Why should she be any different?

Because she is famous? Is that another group of people you feel should be exempt from safeguarding processes.

And like everyone in life, some things I agree with her on, and other things I do not.

But safeguarding should be solid and robust and NOT one person should be exempt.

@allmywhat

Do you think someone like Germaine Greer, given her public comments on adolescent boys, should be prevented from working with children out of interest?

YES. Not because she's any danger, she was clearly being deliberately provocative, but standards are standards. Boundaries are boundaries. Greer is an extremely intelligent person and would have known perfectly that she was ruling herself out of a late in life career change to teacher.

She worked in universities for much of her life, and helped found the pornographic magazine Suck in 1969. Should this have prevented her from teaching potentially vulnerable students or working in a school at some point?

Do you think someone like Germaine Greer, given her public comments on adolescent boys, should be prevented from working with children out of interest?

Safeguarding applies to everyone. There should be no sacred castes.

These are girls posing with guns at a sporting centre. They are not posing with guns in a hap hazard fashion in their lounge room to show off their latest find.

In fact, the front three are sitting there making sure there weapons are not pointed at anyone and they are in stable positions. The other's standing with weapons are again not shouldering the weapons and they are not looking like they are about to or have just shoulder those weapons.

And again, they are in a shooting centre so they are being responsible.

What part of this photo did you think was comparable to 'Tetley's'? Oh, I know. They had weapons in the photo with them.

I would be very interested in your comparative analysis barley.

She worked in universities for much of her life, and helped found the pornographic magazine Suck in 1969. Should this have prevented her from teaching potentially vulnerable students or working in a school at some point?

And the people attending those universities would be what, adults? Not children?

Again, do you read what you write?

Should this have prevented her from... working in a school at some point?

A school for under 18s? Yes, obviously.

It occurs to me that it's REALLY weird how the same contingent of people who want to get academics drummed out of universities for exhibiting even a hint of independent thought are the same people who want teachers in primary and secondary schools to be allowed to do sex work and publicise it on social media.

Really weird, and not a little sinister.

@allmywhat

Should this have prevented her from... working in a school at some point?

A school for under 18s? Yes, obviously.

It occurs to me that it's REALLY weird how the same contingent of people who want to get academics drummed out of universities for exhibiting even a hint of independent thought are the same people who want teachers in primary and secondary schools to be allowed to do sex work and publicise it on social media.

Really weird, and not a little sinister.

And genuinely seem to think that if it's someone regarded as a feminist, we would change all the rules!

It's such projection.

No sacred castes.

Sacred castes can lead to all sorts of abominations, like Jimmy Saville, Rotherham and it would also seem the death of little Star.(!! Very upsetting article!)
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10314469/I-fear-surrender-liberal-dogma-cost-little-Star-Hobson-life-writes-JULIE-BINDEL.html

Safeguarding must be front and centre of any organisation dealing with children and no group, no matter how marginalised or even famous, should be free from scrutiny.

Queer Theory seeks to destabilise society to reform boundaries to suit different agendas. Sadly those agendas are not necessarily (a few might have been early on) the best for women and children. You only have to look at what motivated Foucault to understand it. Maybe barley should explain how Foucault's theories of destabilising boundaries is good for Girl Guides.

Still looking forward to hearing barleys explanation why destabilising boundaries as advocated by Queer Theorists is of benefit to Girl Guides? Why on earth the destabilisation of boundaries of any sort that involved Foucault is of benefit to Girl Guides?

So, far we still have

• you are prudes.
• you are homophobes attacking non-heterosexuals .
• you are prudes and everyone is doing it.
• doncha think that the kids have already seen it on the TV, so seeing their GG leader's sexualised posts are nothing to worry about.
• it is the porn industry and nothing at all to do with a movement decades old to make kink and fetishes acceptable to be posted on social media for everyone to see and the basis of redefining women and destabilising proven science and stuff.
• you are prudes and everyone is doing, here is a study telling us that nearly half the respondents (where they a true sample of the population even or just a self opt-in sample) were voyeurs, unwanted touchers and masochists and that this is a good thing, and shows that there is no safeguarding issue.... at all.
• straight males are the abusers, go attack them (by the way bringing attention again to the sexual orientation of this individual like it actually matters in this discussion. And the implication is again that anyone disagreeing is homophobic).
• what about this feminist 'gotcha'.
• and these girls are in a picture with guns 'gotcha'.

I think I have covered all the twists.

I look forward though to the answer to that question above. Because that is actually a fundamental question underpinning this entire discussion.

I do hope @barleybadminton keeps posting.

VERY revealing. VERY clear about priorities. VERY instructive for lurkers. Makes it so much easier for people to reach that WTF moment when the arguments are so clearly laid out.

The one that gets me, and the one that I knew badminton would use straight away is everyone's doing it. Here's a study, look everyone is actually doing it!

I'm baffled by the argument that people being worried about the erasure of boundaries and the reduction in safeguarding will be reassured by how prevalent it is.

Evidence for removing safeguarding, so far:

I am a 1950s prude.🤣 ok.

2016 self reported study of 1000 Canadians, with some dodgy funding.

A 2015 photograph of a groupnof fully clothed girl guides, at a sports centre, responsibily holding guns.

A 1960s third wave feminist set up a potn mag inv1969.

Well, I for one am entirely convinced.

And genuinely seem to think that if it's someone regarded as a feminist, we would change all the rules!

The loudest TRAs don't believe that we genuinely care about children. They don't even believe we genuinely care about women; they seem baffled by the concept, honestly. They think the sole purpose of everything we do and say here is to be mean to transwomen. So of course they think our moral judgements, just like the moral judgements of TRAs, are going to be entirely dependent on whether someone is on "our side" or not.

There's a word for that kind of worldview, but I think it gets comments deleted. But the projection is always so revealing!

I'm baffled by the argument that people being worried about the erasure of boundaries and the reduction in safeguarding will be reassured by how prevalent it is.

And I am continuously baffled at how people can make that argument, 'look everybody is doing it' and not then make connections between that an lax safeguarding, including the dramatic increase in child on child sex abuse and rape in schools, let alone the reporting of just how prevalent women are reporting unwanted sex acts that they are being coerced into.

Well, I had the same initial email as above. Precisely the same.

I pushed back on their
understanding of the EA2010 and got:

We understand that you don’t agree with our approach to equality and diversity. We appreciate that we think differently and probably won’t agree on this.

We’re proud of our commitment to inclusion and accept that not everyone will agree with our vision.

We’ve already provided the information you need to understand what we do and why we do it.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts – but we won’t reply to any more emails.

So even GG uses no debate when it cannot fully explain itself!