Offensive stickering

[crayonsharpeners]

Saw this posted on Ovarit. Can anyone confirm if this is a real sticker sold by KJK and SFW? Awful messaging if so. Hoping it's some TRA hoax.

NSPCC who tells children it is only sexual abuse if they don’t like it?

🙄
Yep. Noone is good enough at safeguarding children apart from randoms on MN/TwiX and grassroots volunteer orgs. Everyone else is a groomer.

Honestly, get a grip.

NSPCC are another organisation that has been groomed. But yeah. Let’s just ignore the pernicious influence of LBGTQ+….

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-childline-was-captured-by-trans-ideology/

If women are 'breeders' then so are men, damn it!

I think its you who needs to get a grip tbf

I quoted a dictionary definition, Cassie. i'm very sorry you were groomed. But the word is not just reserved for one particular description

There are different types of grooming. It means training people to believe something. Often in a layered, systematic way.

So Of course you can groom a child in a school.

People are also groomed for jobs or to take over a family business. Another very common definition.

A generation of children are being groomed that it is bigoted to identify men as men.

To me, it can only be gaslighting if it is done deliberately, whilst knowing you are manipulating the person in question.

I seriously don't think there are numerous teachers, police, or NHS professionals who are deliberately doing this. Although, of course some are.

Far too many people who have responsibility and power have been trained to genuinely believe something that is not true.

and they are passing that training on.

Just look at the number of people that have been groomed to erroneously believe that men who identify as women are entitled to use female single sex spaces…

Yes, the NSPCC.

And just to square that circle, or whatever it's called, the head of the NSPCC was best friends with the woman who ran the girl guides. Both organisations think that girls should be in the same tents as boys because of an ideology.

The NSPCC also didn't see much wrong with one of their employees wearing a gimp suit, pissing in it, filming it at work, and uploading it to a fetish site. Who also happened to be the guy who hired Munro Bergdorf, of 'please don't centre women's biology in the women's march' fame, and kids can contact me off grid whenever they like.

He was hired as an NSPCC ambassador btw.

I find it offensive, it reads as an attack on gay/lesbian/trans/queer people (suggesting they are all responsible for oppressing women). Ironically in my experience I've found most oppression comes from cishet men and right wing politicians.

(FYI I will not be returning to this thread.)

There seem to be an awful lot of plop and runners about these days. Always a woeful comment so little wonder they won't hang around I suppose.

Oh OK. So when people say teachers are grooming children, they could just mean "the practice of preparing or training someone for the particular purpose or activity" of being an adult.

Come on. You know that's not what's going on when people talk about groomers. It's being used specifically as a pejorative relating to child abuse. Which minimises what grooming actually is.

No, they are sperm donors. Just as nasty but not quite as nasty as 'breeders' i.e. a womb on legs for hire.

If it's saying that women are being crushed by the LGBTQ movement at large then I guess it could be insensitive.
But if it's trying to say that women are being oppressed by the men in dresses are women brigade, then I guess that's a relevant message that lots of supporters of that organisation would agree with.

@CassieMaddox You have repeatedly told us that you are a GC feminist and I am prepared to accept that at face value. Where I struggle with you is your equivocation at every GQ feminist boundary. Where are your lines in the sand?

The flag should be a trans flag as that is correct

Thanks for reminder to get more stickers.

Wish she did an 'untowards about pedophiles' or whatever the police said to her on a sticker.

Men don't pass was a good one - bright pink and impossible to miss if put above a toilet in a 'womens' bathroom where i guess your eyes are if you're pulling up your dress to wee standing up.

Womens spaces where required for safety and dignity - sports, prisons, hospitals, domestic violence services, changing rooms etc
Calling trans people trans people not acquired sex. TWANW.
No to cis and "cis privilege" is not a thing- luckily that's gone away a bit
Accurate crime reporting.

8/9 years ago it was a lot worse - reporting of "a woman on the run disguised as a man" when Lisa/Craig Hauxwell made off for rape. Articles about cis privilege everywhere. Fucking Lily Madigan as woman's officer and "trans women are women, no debate". Plus the Theresa May government proposal for full self ID meaning any old man could wander into a woman's space claiming he was a woman. Being unable to talk about any of this at work because I was worried about being sacked. When I did talk about it I lost friends and got called a transphobe.

The debate has changed as thanks to GC campaigners a lot of the threats have been removed.

I have red lines the other way too. Homophobia is inexcusable. Gay rights are recently won and there are still many people who think homosexuality is wrong/deviant/perverted/a sin. I don't like that GC concerns are being used as a front for basic homophobia. These stickers are an example. There is a long standing homophobic stereotype that gay men are child abusers. Rainbow stickers with "groomer" on are overtly playing to that and are homophobic. I'm not supporting any homophobic organisations or campaigns.

Rolling back on women's rights - I'm concerned about pressure to end or minimise education on domestic violence, safe sex, womens pleasure, misogyny under the guise of "safeguarding" due to "capture". I'm not supporting any campaigns to restrict relationship education in school to "biological fact" because in my opinion its harmful to women.

Full trans exclusion - saying gender dysphoria isn't real, that no men should be in any space for women ever, that people should be allowed to refer to trans people by their birth sex, name and pronouns. That's really unnecessarily rude, disrespectful and distressing for people. I can't support that as I believe all people have the right to live in dignity and safety, even when they choose to do things I disagree with. As long as their choice is not materially impacting on women, it's not my business to tell them how to live.

”Womens spaces where required for safety and dignity - sports, prisons, hospitals, domestic violence services, changing rooms etc”

”that no men should be in any space for women ever... That's really unnecessarily rude, disrespectful and distressing for people.”

So you don’t actually believe in women’s spaces then?

"That's really unnecessarily rude, disrespectful and distressing for people.”
It all boils down to this, doesn't it? Women, don't defend your rights because you might distress 'people'.
And there was me thinking we were people.

Using correct sexed pronouns is not rude imo, it is rude to tell someone else how they must speak about you. It is the thin end of the wedge, once we start agreeing to alter our perception of reality, where would we end? Compelled speech is a form of coercion and control, it is telling women that they are not allowed to acknowledge reality.

I think it's gone too far for there to be space in women's spaces for transsexuals. There used to be. Then along came the furious disruptors who colonised, who invaded, who destroyed, all in their name. Now we have a situation where we accommodate them all, or we accommodate none.

I vote for none. I realise this leaves some people with nowhere, but you know what? I'd rather 0.1% of the population have nowhere than 51% of the population have nowhere. The activists spoiled it for everybody.

I answered the question in good faith

No. That's not my point at all.
I'm not going to bother debating my opinion with people who boil it down to a massive oversimplification.

The logical end point of your statement is there is no such thing as a trans identity; I disagree.

And that's what trans people mean when they say "you think we shouldn't exist"

Any identity based on delusional thinking should not be affirmed by others imo. A person who believes that they are God, jesus, the devil, their own doctor, or a famous actor (when they are not) would not have that affirmed, rather they would be offered a range of treatments and pharmaceuticals, to help them to achieve a belief in reality.

The logical end point of your statement is there is no such thing as a trans identity; I disagree.

The term trans identity is meaningless. You've got cross-dressing fetishists. Or gay people who are subjected to internal or external homophobia. Or people who want to be the opposite sex for reasons of distress at their own, through sexual assault. Or of course, the high number of people who are autistic and mistakenly think they should be the opposite sex.

And this is the problem. Gender Critical people believe that affirmation in those cases is either inappropriate, or directly harmful

If that's not what you mean by trans identity, and you mean something else entirely, perhaps you could elaborate?

Because it all boils down to that. Why are some people identifying as the opposite sex? And why should we affirm it?