[quote loopyapp]@barleybadminton
See here's the thing. You are being deliberately facetious and petty and it really diminishes absolutely everything you're saying. That and it is as obvious as the sun is yellow that you're trying to bait posters into saying something transphobic so you and @BlueberryCheezecake can have your "gotcha moment".
So for a moment let's step away from the GG leader with some, as you've admitted "questionable social media posts" and discuss something similar.
Imagine a biological woman in a senior role that holds massive safeguarding responsibility over a massive sea of young children. Not a celebrity who does occasional charity work but also relies on thirst trapping for their marketing. Bug a straight up run of the mill 50 odd year old biological female person with a high profile role in an organisation for children.
The liklihood of her posting sexually suggestive pictures (the boob shot and domme dress were most certainly captioned suggestively even IF you could somehow argue the content was not) is slim to non. It is simply outside the realms of behaviour most women would engage in. Especially in such a senior safeguarding role.
Now. For arguments sake let's say a biological woman DID post a shot hinting at a BDSM session, another offering more than the boobs on show and another toating a gun in a manner that I'm resolute on, is threatening and irresponsible.. she would be hung, drawn, quartered and sacked for the gross misconduct it is. Undoubtedly.
However. Someone from the new sacred caste does it and you minimise it and defend it as harmless bantz.
The bath shot. I agree dozens of women, regular women do this. I ask you why? Is it because it's a moderate, well balanced and sensible kind of selfie that reflects the seriousness of the sort of station that involved the safeguarding and Care of young girls? Or is it because its just risky enough to capture a particular type of attention whilst not showing enough to be overt?
Now. That slightly riske shot, of a person publicly and proudly displaying at least one (or two if we want to discuss paraphila) sexual deviance super imposed over a picture of young girls... is, when considered with the whole situation... odd.
Lastly. If tomorrow it was decided that anyone wishing to work in a school no longer needed a DBS check or any background check at all would that then make some existing staff a safeguarding risk? No. Of course not.
However. It would open schools to the sort of people that are a risk, who because the change in law can simply declare themselves "not a risk", are now eligible to work in a child rich environment.
Now imagine if that person had previously been known to be a risk however under the new rules they weren't even asked for fear of being called exclusionary. They must actually be given priority access to any jobs within schools above all else for fear of breaching their rights to identify as they wish.
Are all trans identified people predators ... ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY NOT. Are some opportunistic offenders going to use and abuse the GRA to gain access to vulnerable women and children? OF COURSE THEY ARE!!
By their very nature they are opportunistic offenders. They actively look for a means and a way to access what they want.
So. We have a trans identified person who openly posts willfully and intended suggestive and overtly sexual pictures online and glorifies a violent sport (yes, it's a sport)[/quote]
And you cannot, for one teeny second see the tiniest glimmer of safeguarding concern?
Course they can.
But it's dealt with by 'having a quite word'.
Job done.
'Quiet words' that well known solution to safeguarding violation.