Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Latest nspcc schools guidance

79 replies

Hoardasurass · Yesterday 07:05

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

Fury as NSPCC say male teachers can supervise girls in changing rooms

The child protection charity has removed a policy that adults supervising pupils while they change should be the same sex as the children from its latest safeguarding briefing.

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
AstonCanKissMyArse · Today 13:15

InconvenientlyMaterial · Today 13:10

I get what you are saying and it was my first thought too.

However I contrast their public response to being asked about the change (unclear, deflection, possibly untrue) with the way they responded personally, to me, when I've had to call them for advice on child protection (unequivocal, informative, I was told that if I gave identifying information to the call handler they would have to take action themselves).

Ok two different scenarios but also two very different approaches. The NSPCC that I would expect to see, based on my personal interaction with them, would have used the publicity of the response to reiterate safeguarding best practice.

They didn't do this because they can't. The charity sector is, IME, almost completely staffed by pronoun people. The person signing off the statement either believes or is too scared to look as if they don't believe.

I get what you're saying, but it wasn't a statement it was an entire document.

Published for providing guidance.

If they don't feel able to publish robust , factual and unambiguous guidance, they shouldn't bother publishing it at all. It is not fit for purpose.

riod · Today 13:18

alcovecupboards · Today 12:58

The same NSPCC who sacked someone for inappropriate conduct? Doesn't sound like it to me.

This is outrageous. But I'm really not sure why it's being blamed on trans people again when there's no actual evidence to suggest it's anything to do with them.

obviously the conversation is around the conduct
and integrity of the NSPCC as an organisation.

lcakethereforeIam · Today 13:27

There was a phrase I'd seen used usually in relationship threads that I couldn't bring to mind. It was really annoying because to my mind it summed up all the 'waiting for this', 'waiting for that', 'oh, it's so-o-o-o complicated', we've heard since the FWS victory. What's actually being said is 'I don't want to do it!'<stamps foot>. Anyway I remembered it earlier, weaponised incompetence.

Fwiw, in response to a pp, undoubtedly some of the people who claim to have trans identities are unhappy that they're discovering they've been lied to by their allies. I think their allies should crack on with repairing the damage they've done by finally being truthful and finding workable accommodations for these niche lifestyles.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page