Grooming and abuse of vulnerable youth in trans-identifying groups.

[Whatchamacallitt]

I have seen several concerning reports about rape and abuse of trans-identifying children and young people. It seems also that there is a complete lack of safeguarding in trans-identifying youth groups with age ranges of 8 to 25 as one example and individuals like Mridul Wadhwa (a trans-identifying male who famously told rape victims to 'reframe their trauma' if they were against trans-identified males counselling them) being brought in to work with confused and vulnerable youth.

How can they get away with this? How can this fall in line with safeguarding legislation? Surely there must be some recourse to challenge dangerous safeguarding failures like this? We know from the Cass report that trans-identifying children and youth are particularly vulnerable, with high rates of prior abuse, having sex offenders as parents, and having mental health comorbidities. Surely safeguarding should be at the forefront when dealing with such a vulnerable group?

Whenever you create a sacred cast predators will be drawn to it

I agree that is part of the issue but also think there is an issue of intrinsic tendency towards paraphilia in AGP men.

I do wonder how many of them were abused themselves as a child.

Many agp men describe wearing their mother or sisters underwear/clothing from an incredibly young age which seems a very oddly sexual thing for very young children to do. I think one guy said he was 3. They often speak of their euphoria (arousal??) but they seem to see it as ‘proof’ they “were always a girl”. It’s only proof something had gone very badly wrong, very early on in their lives.

I doubt many, if any girls seek out and wear their father or brothers underwear.

This happened to a friend’s daughter. She was early in the trans contagion any my friend took her to a local LGBT support group. She later discovered that several TiMs kept an eye out for naive newcomers.

I first heard about the predators targeting the youth groups from watching Benji gnc_centric.

https://m.youtube.com/@GNCCentric/videos

She was very upfront about the fact that male people with transgender identities set up youth groups that attracted the female transgender teens who wanted support. She told the world how these men did it.

It was horrifying.

It's awful isn't it? That appears to be what happened to the trans-identifying woman who Prisha quoted. Confused young girls looking for help and finding the absolute worst men waiting for them,

Yes.

But when you look at the men just in the UK in these Pride groups who have been charged with child sex offences and sex offences in general, you cannot avoid understanding that there are loopholes that these men are exploiting.

These support groups seem to have a very wide age range. Mixing naive children (a tautology) with post puberty youths. Sometimes there seems to be no upper age limit. This is assuming the adults that facilitate these groups can be trusted. Time and time again though it's been demonstrated that they can't.

I'm think it's not unique to LBGT+ groups. I know nothing about what might go on at these groups. I admit some disquiet when the one thing they will all have in common is centred around sex. It's not like a bird watching or gardening club.

I think the prepubertal involvement is particularly an issue with groups for trans-identifying youth as children can start identifying that way very young where they don't tend to discover their sexuality until puberty.

These creeps love the idea of young people with stalled puberty. You just have to look at the Stephen Ireland Surrey Pride grooming to know this is a problem. Rainbow flags are used to hide some gross kinks.

A couple of years ago I tried to find out why one of the more dubious "Queer" projects involved groups for 8-25 year olds. What I found was that it was funded by a Grant Giving Trust that specified that funds must be used to benefit the age range 8-25.

What is did NOT say was that all activities must be organised for groups that include 8-25 year olds.

However, that would be the cheapest way to provide activities, rather than provide different activities for different age groups or duplicate activities for different age groups. It might be that financial considerations and/or lack of regard for safeguarding and/or lack of knowledge of child development have resulted in honey pots for sexual predators, ie. by accident rather than design.

The age range 8-25 seems to be a common theme across the charities that fund voluntary organisations and it appears to reflect definitions used by the National Youth Agency.

The NYA revised the age definition for "Youth Work", expanding it from 11-25 to 8-25.

Article: An Age of Uncertainty
First Published: 20th March 2024 | Author: Gemma Lockyer Turnbull

"The National Youth Agency (2023a) has, in recent times, updated their definition of the age range for youth work to 8-25-year-olds, from the previous age range of 11–25-year-olds (National Youth Agency, 2023b), stating a lowering of the age in which some children reach adolescence as reason for the change."

www.youthandpolicy.org/articles/an-age-of-uncertainty/

Some grant-giving trusts specify an even wider age range of 5-25, for very good reasons. However, this does leave open the possibility that grant recipients might use funds to provide activities with an inappropriate age-mix.

A quick search found these examples of grant-giving trusts with a wider age range for beneficiaries:

Masonic Charitable Foundation

• For Domestic Abuse and SEND applications beneficiaries must be children and young people aged 0-18, or up to the age of 25 years for beneficiaries with SEND.

https://mcf.org.uk/get-support/grants-to-charities/eligibility/

The Wellesley Trust Fund

• provided grants for positive activities for young people aged 5-25, prioritizing access to training opportunities, skill development, personal and social development, and open access youth provision.

Registration history: 13 January 1964: Standard registration 12 March 2026: Removed (Does not operate) When operating: https://www.nesd.co.uk/opportunity/the-wellesley-trust-fund/r/recSrqsU0asLprbiu

The YAPP Charitable Trust

• Children and young people aged 5 - 25

https://yappcharitabletrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/guidelines.pdf

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that there are some voluntary organisations offering groups and activities catering for a 5-25 year old age range per group or activity.

Pre-pubescent children, especially little girls, are already at risk of sexual assault from older boys. Once you expand the age range to 25 there is a serious risk of teenage and young adult paedophiles exploiting access.

One third of all recorded child sexual abuse in the UK is perpetrated by "peers", usually girls who are sexually assaulted by their older brothers, other relatives who are boys and by boys in mixed-sex "co-ed" schools.

Grooming children into trans identities is something that did not have to be considered in the past but how to ensure that it is included effectively in safeguarding? This should include cognisance of the impact of both adult role models and social contagion but I assume it would be a legal nightmare or impossibility to implement effectively in practice.

You can't advertise a job or volunteer role specifying, "No AGPs". You can't exclude children who have been "socially transitioned" any more than you can exclude children who are anorexic or are cutting themselves, ie. as very likely to be Ground Zero for social contagion.

I imagine you would be able to exclude children who were found to be distributing cigarettes, vapes, alcohol or other drugs, or who were exercising coercive control in any way other than requiring other children to behave towards them as if they were the opposite sex?

I suppose the best that you can do is focus on the actual activities and materials and ensure that they are free of "grooming" elements, as well as implementing normal safeguarding measures.

I'm not against there being provisions for trans-identifying youth, though I think they should be banned from promoting medicalisation and focus instead on wellbeing, activities and friendship building. But there must be proper safeguarding with appropriate age ranges and suitably checked adult staff and volunteers.