Latest nspcc schools guidance

[Hoardasurass]

The nspcc has decided that men should be allowed to watch girls get changed for pe and swimming classes and then lied about why they have done it.
I can see formal complaints being made to the charity commission over this as it fails to protect children which the only thing that the nspcc were set up to do

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16128403/Fury-NSPCC-say-male-teachers-supervise-girls-changing-rooms.html

It doesn't say that, does it?

I've (quickly) read the nspcc, sex matters and the SM letter. It appears that the guidance used to say 'same gender' and rather than changing 'gender' to 'sex' they have removed it entirely.

'Gender' means Sex to most people, and Gender Identity to some. I agree it was a problematic use of the word and should have been changed to Sex rather than leaving it out altogether but I don't see where the nspcc are saying that men or tw can supervise girls.

Have I missed it? Please quote the section.

For absence of doubt I 100% believe men and boys should be nowhere near women in girls in toilets and changing rooms. But the TRAs are forever making up accusations like this and it makes them easy to discredit, we should not do the same.

If it's just a cock up, and they meant to either put sex instead of gender, or are assuming people will rely on their guidance in other documents, why did they say this

The NSPCC said it had made the change after a similar recommendation was removed from Department for Education (DfE) guidance that was updated this summer. But the DfE denied this last night and said no such recommendation was removed.

I realise they're not being specific, but the problem is why not? Why say we've changed it, because other people changed it, without saying what the change means?

Not to mention the fact that the DfE deny any such change anyway.

To me it looks like deflection, and all on a par with claiming people objecting to a fetishist filming porn in their office is homophobic.

Me too. It seems pretty shady to me.

Agree it all sounds pretty shady.

I know several male teachers (including my husband) and none of them would ever be alone with a lone pupil in a room with a closed door - this is to protect them from any allegations and to ensure the children are comfortable. It is what they are told to do. Given that its common to take such basic steps for a much lower risk scenario, I can't imagine any male teacher saying 'fine, I'll supervise the girls showering'! The 'Miss Titwank' TiM 'all girls together' scenario is the one that could most likely be a problem.

I absolutely agree that the NSPCC shouldn't be muddying the water like this and that if its a mistake or oversight, why wouldn't they simply say so?

They just cannot bring themselves to say sex can they thus explicitly excluding transwomen. I absolutely think they should be forced to do so.

I am one of those teachers. I am very angry today. I have e-mailed a letter of complaint.

Fucking, fucking bastards.

I’m just suspicious why they keep muddying the waters. Why clarity is eschewed in favour of vagueness and pointing at other documents and organisations. Why they inserted the wording into the presentations for primary age children (linked threads below -a few years ago) to imply that sexual abuse was only a problem if children were distressed or made uncomfortable by it.

Sunlight -

From the Daily Mail article:

But the NSPCC denied it had made the decision under pressure from trans activists and said it may consider changing the guidance again when there is more direction from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Ah...ye olde "we need more guidance after the guidance " tactic.

Do they think everyone is stupid?

It's like fucking Schrodinger's guidance. Constantly there, and yet not there.

Do they think everyone is stupid?
I've thought about this, and I'm afraid the answer is yes.

It's their response that's the give away. You'd expect an "ooops" response or a "sorry, naive intern given the job".

Instead they obfuscate and claim they're waiting for more government guidance as they're unable to say that men shouldn't be supervising girls undress!

Very glad to see JKR has commented about this. They deserve maximum publicity.

Yes, it's infuriating. I want the question to be what kind of guidance do you think you can use to make sure that men watch little girls get undressed.

I can see the attraction for schools, the NHS and care services etc in any policy that treats all staff (and service users) as interchangeable units for as many duties as possible, regardless of sex, because they all struggle with covering duties at all.

But I'd have thought bodies like the NSPCC should be taking the line that, yes, we know you are struggling and may have to improvise at times, but here is the best practice you should be aiming for wherever possible, and here are the absolute no-no's.
.

Their initial response was that they were following the new DFE guidelines when asked to point out where in that guidance it said men could watch/supervise girls getting changed they then claimed that they used multiple other sources but couldn't/wouldn't name them, so i doubt that we will get a different response to the sex matters complaint, nor my own tbh.
When the nspcc fail to respond appropriately by removing this guidance we can then complain to the charity commission and demand that the nspcc has both its statutory responsibility and charity statuses removed. Not that I expect either to happen but it should get the guidance removed

Gift token for the telegraph article on this
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/97b6bf9479074029

Once the standing orders start to tail off they may see sense - decision makers in this debacle need naming and shaming!

Thank you for this.

Interesting:

[The NSPCC] added that it was “categorically untrue” that the line had been taken out “as a result of external lobbying”.

I suspect it was actually internal lobbying. I note they did not touch on that point.

Their entire response reads like a "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" from a seven-year old bully in a playground. ("You said don't push the other kids over. I'm not. I'm pulling them. Pulling them over isn't pushing them over. You didn't say don't pull!)

Quite.

if they're so certain that they're innocent, then let's have the actual reason why the line was pulled. Who told you to, where's your workings out?

Someone posted upthread that it was likely they just couldn't bring themselves to change the word 'gender' to 'sex'. It stuck in their craw and they couldn't swallow it. Perhaps they hoped no-one would notice. All this obfuscation is an after the fact attempt to justify it.