11 yr/old drag kid worshiped within LGBTQ community (Mod warning op)

One eyed Jack

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

Why is it odd? What if the parents are the ones that are sexually abusing the child? The child’s safety and well-being is paramount to their parents being the last to know. If a child confides in a stranger over his own parents, there’s most likely a good reason for that and I for one would agree with contacting people who will protect the child first and foremost.

Why are you asking what if it’s the parents abusing the child? That’s what the rest of them thought the question implied too. Yes, of course the child’s safety is paramount, and so too is the parents right to know about their own children’s welfare. If you’re agreeing with contacting people who will protect the child first and foremost, who better than the child’s parents? Because even if the liaison officer isn’t only interested in protecting the reputation of the organisation and decides to inform the Gardaí, it can take months for a formal complaint to be investigated, and where do you imagine the child resides in all that time? With their parents who are kept in the dark about their own child’s welfare.

The Talking Bread

One Eyed Jack, you sound like a sociopath. There is a lot of mad warped thoughts floating around your head. You are also a mass of contradictions.

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why are you asking what if it’s the parents abusing the child? That’s what the rest of them thought the question implied too. Yes, of course the child’s safety is paramount, and so too is the parents right to know about their own children’s welfare.

The whole point of CF is that it prioritises the welfare and safety of the child and it is imperative to keep the disclosure confidential and only disclose it to those in the same area, which is often in line with the best wishes of the child. There are reasons for following the reporting procedure as well you should know if you’ve worked in social work for as long as you claim.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you’re agreeing with contacting people who will protect the child first and foremost, who mbetter than the child’s parents?

Well no actually not at all. And you should know the reasons behind this also. Just like I wouldn’t make my Mam my first port of call if my house was burning down.


But what I find most interesting is the fact you’ve worked in social services for as long as you have and yet you still don’t catagorise the treatment of Desmond as abuse. From the Child Protection and Welfare Practice Handbook:

‘sexual abuse’
Sexual abuse occurs when a child is used by another person for his or her gratification or sexual arousal, or for that of others.

Let’s just say it’s not a bad thing that you no longer are working in this field.

Zorya

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why are you asking what if it’s the parents abusing the child? That’s what the rest of them thought the question implied too. Yes, of course the child’s safety is paramount, and so too is the parents right to know about their own children’s welfare. If you’re agreeing with contacting people who will protect the child first and foremost, who better than the child’s parents? Because even if the liaison officer isn’t only interested in protecting the reputation of the organisation and decides to inform the Gardaí, it can take months for a formal complaint to be investigated, and where do you imagine the child resides in all that time? With their parents who are kept in the dark about their own child’s welfare.

I'm glad you got out of social care work. I did at one time read your posts with some interest, but your equivocation on this is very worrying.

Of course these parents are abusing their child. Desmond and Lactatia. They don't have to be actually sexually molesting them to be abusing them, you know. They are pimping them out for the sexual titillation of adults. That is abuse.

Society must draw a line in the sand.

Do not allow children perfom in any public arena - bars, pride parades, stages, media sets - in any sexualised appearance. Close down venues who allow it. The right-thinking patrons of such venues must completely boycott such venues. Media must not patronise such children. People should boycott and report media who do.

There must be public critique of all ideology that enables such abuse of children, including transitioning prepubescent children with pubertal blockers from 9 years old and then cross sex hormones at 16. There must be a shut down on the internet ghettos that sell children binders, hormones, packers, for example, and promote transition videos, vlogs, and the online cult of born in the wrong body.

If people think this is not connected to trans movement, they are wrong. It is the public face of this movement, these kids are the cutesie freedom-fighting gender-fluid mascots.

It is absolutely insidious.

erica74

I was just watching a video on YouTube about Desmond and a thought popped into my head - although I don't agree with this child being in a venue like the one mentioned at 3am, he was apparently there legally, as his mother obtained a licence (if I'm remembering correctly) and he was accompanied by his parents - it shouldn't be possible for any child under 18 (21 in the US) to be in any club at 3am whether or not they're accompanied by adults. There shouldn't be a licence or a law, it should be illegal for any child under 18 (21) to be there and the parents and venue should be heavily fined and the parents investigated.
There is no reason why a child should be in a club at all ever. I don't agree with children being in pubs at all but understand some family occasions may take place in a pub, however, no child should be in a pub after 6pm (it's a pity that law isn't actually enforced but that's another story altogether).

One eyed Jack

retro:electro wrote: »

The whole point of CF is that it prioritises the welfare and safety of the child and it is imperative to keep the disclosure confidential and only disclose it to those in the same area, which is often in line with the best wishes of the child. There are reasons for following the reporting procedure as well you should know if you’ve worked in social work for as long as you claim.

I’m familiar with the reasons for following reporting procedures, I don’t agree with them, which is why I chose to no longer work in social care in a formal capacity where bureaucracy and politics are more important than child welfare.

Well no actually not at all. And you should know the reasons behind this also. Just like I wouldn’t make my Mam my first port of call if my house was burning down.

I don’t get the point of your analogy, the circumstances aren’t even in the same ball park. I don’t know your reasons, and you’ve probably detected already I don’t care a whole lot for them either.

But what I find most interesting is the fact you’ve worked in social services for as long as you have and yet you still don’t catagorise the treatment of Desmond as abuse. From the Child Protection and Welfare Practice Handbook:

‘sexual abuse’
Sexual abuse occurs when a child is used by another person for his or her gratification or sexual arousal, or for that of others.

Let’s just say it’s not a bad thing that you no longer are working in this field.

It’s really not that interesting when the reason I don’t agree that the child is being abused, is because I don’t agree that they are, it’s nothing to do with you citing ****e from a handbook. You can say it’s not a bad thing I no longer work in a formal capacity in social care, I’ll just say your opinion is worth fcukall to me as far as I’m concerned.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

obby1 wrote: »

if it was a 11 year old girl in a strip club dancing for man at 4am, there would be outrage, people would march on the club with murderous intent.
The PC brainwashing has otherwise normal people frozen, they are to afraid to speak out on this aberrant behaviour in the gay community.
Posters would rater blame the parents than the gay pedophiles in the club.
There would be war, if it was a straight club, to say otherwise is a lie, but here we are a child is to be sacrificed on the PC alter so as not to offend the gay community .

Any child in any nightclub at 4am in any scenario is going to cause at least concern and probably some form of outrage.

Again - kid in drag, no issue.
Kids dancing provocatively or in nightclubs, issue.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

You don’t agree with putting the child above the parents feelings? Wow.
I have no words. I used to have a little bit of respect for you OEJ, not always agreeing with you, but I find your view on the world worrying and dangerous.

One eyed Jack

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

You don’t agree with putting the child above the parents feelings? Wow.
I have no words. I used to have a little bit of respect for you OEJ, not always agreeing with you, but I find your view on the world worrying and dangerous.

No SDC, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying it was apparent that the organisation cared more about protecting their own reputation than child welfare, and I was expected to go along with that because that’s their policy. I wasn’t prepared to go along with that, and there were the other contributing factors I mentioned already which led to me saying it simply wasn’t worth it, that wasn’t what I signed up for.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Well thank Christ what you signed up for doesn’t exist. The child’s welfare comes before anything else. It comes before the parents “right” to be told when it may very well be the parents the child needs protecting from.
What if it’s a sibling abusing the kid? Do you think the parents will come out and shun and condemn the abuser or force the kid to shut up and say nothing?
What about a grandparent or a parents partner? If the child felt safe enough to tell their parents, they wouldn’t confide in a complete stranger. If a child comes to me for help, I will contact the relevant authorities and try help him. Not betray his trust and send him back home with his parents filled in on his secret because if he was confident in their helping, he would not be telling me

sk8erboii

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Thats not what theyre saying, more that people are possibly reluctant to condemn a vile activity prevalent in the gay community, in case their criticism is misinterpreted as homophobia.

Indeed its something the exponents of this activity seem to be capitalising on, with deflection of any criticism with such a charge. A minority hiding in plain sight within another minority who have suffered repression for years.

Some here are so "right on, they dont see anything wrong with kids in such an environment.

Adults in drag, i dont get or particularly enjoy, but its mostly harmless. Kids always love playing in opposite sex clothes, but thats not drag, and again its harmless.

This is very different.

People really need to look up what ‘political correctness’ means before using it.

Recurring theme in after hours: Conservatives using vaguely sociological terms and misusing it.

Roger Hassenforder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The only difference is that now we’re the adults, and we simply aren’t aware of the sheer amount of child abuse and child sexual abuse that goes on in Ireland. People are still told to mind their own business regularly, especially anyone who works with “families in crisis”.

...Many more people simply do mind their own business because other people’s children aren’t their problem, they have enough problems of their own to be dealing with.

....peoples ideas of what does and doesn’t constitute child abuse being based more upon their own political and ideological leanings than actually any wish to protect children from people who would wish to exploit and abuse them.

In those circumstances, I have no problem telling people to fcuk off and mind their own business when they try and project their own issues onto my child.

Is it me, or are both sides of your mouth saying different things? You seem to only regard abuse according to your own terms/definitions.

I assumed you might have stopped working in such a challenging area due to "burn out".
No im not sure wether this was entirely voluntary...

One eyed Jack

Zorya wrote: »

There must be public critique of all ideology that enables such abuse of children, including transitioning prepubescent children with pubertal blockers from 9 years old and then cross sex hormones at 16. There must be a shut down on the internet ghettos that sell children binders, hormones, packers, for example, and promote transition videos, vlogs, and the online cult of born in the wrong body.

If people think this is not connected to trans movement, they are wrong. It is the public face of this movement, these kids are the cutesie freedom-fighting gender-fluid mascots.

It is absolutely insidious.

I’m totally with you on much of the above, such as encouraging prepubescent children to transition and facilitating their thoughts that they’re born in the wrong body and so on, the hormone blockers and the online “find your glitter family” bollocks. Where I disagree with you is that this idea of children performing drag in and of itself constitutes child abuse.

I also don’t agree with you that it’s connected to the trans movement. There’s overlap with the trans movement, but I think it’s a completely different and separate thing. It has it’s own political and social motivations certainly, but the trans movement is something else entirely. It would be like me trying to claim that these sorts of ideas are only emanating from left wing ideologues. That’d be my own bias speaking seeing as I’m a conservative leaning more towards the right. The bigger picture is that it goes beyond simply social ideology - it’s big business and corporate culture is rife with embracing “diversity” (not too much, just enough to signal to the lemmings on social media that they’re a cool place to work), which is the position in which Google now finds itself - far from being the darling of the left-leaning types, it turns out they’re just as corrupt as the people they were criticising.

The whole labelling of people as paedophiles and insinuating that they are a risk to children is an easy way to discredit them, because the people inferring such things are well aware of how paedophiles and child molesters are still reviled as socially abhorrent, just look at what happened to Garda Maurice McCabe - accused of being a paedophile in an attempt to discredit him and shut him down before he did any damage to the organisations reputation. These are the people we’re supposed to be able to trust to protect children. They were corrupt from the foundation of the State, and they’re still as corrupt now.

All that actually makes any difference is which perspective you’re looking at the issue from.

Roger Hassenforder

sk8erboii wrote: »

People really need to look up what ‘political correctness’ means before using it.

Recurring theme in after hours: Conservatives using vaguely sociological terms and misusing it.

Recurring theme here as well is CathyNewmanning the shıt out of something.
People need to grasp points people are making without reaching for the outrage klaxon

JohnMc1

obby1 wrote: »

if it was a 11 year old girl in a strip club dancing for man at 4am, there would be outrage, people would march on the club with murderous intent.
The PC brainwashing has otherwise normal people frozen, they are to afraid to speak out on this aberrant behaviour in the gay community.
Posters would rater blame the parents than the gay pedophiles in the club.
There would be war, if it was a straight club, to say otherwise is a lie, but here we are a child is to be sacrificed on the PC alter so as not to offend the gay community .

The club would have been shutdown the next day once the media went into outrage mode.

One eyed Jack

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Is it me, or are both sides of your mouth saying different things? You seem to only regard abuse according to your own terms/definitions.

I assumed you might have stopped working in such a challenging area due to "burn out".
No im not sure wether this was entirely voluntary...

You’re right in the sense that yeah, I do primarily regard abuse according to my own terms/definitions. We all primarily do that though, so there’s nothing unusual in it. Of course there are guidelines and policies and all the rest of it, but these are based entirely upon perfect hypothetical scenarios. Reality and individual circumstances are infinitely more complex and rely on people making judgment calls most of the time. Often, in spite of (or sometimes even because of their training to spot ‘the signs’), people can miss things, because we simply can’t account for every possible scenario.

I’m burned out from the bureaucracy and the politics of it, but I’m still very much involved in advocating for children and children’s welfare and using my own resources to do so as opposed to using public funds to feather my own nest. I just don’t involve myself in the politics or the bureaucracy of it any longer is all.

JohnMc1

mzungu wrote: »

What exactly does that have to do with anything?

It was members of the gay community that highlighted the inappropriateness of this whole thing. They don't have to answer for whats happening here because it has nothing to do with them.

I applaud the gay men who got up and left when the kid came on. The problem isn't the normal 9-5 Gay people who just want to go about their lives like anyone else. The problem is that gay right groups have been highjacked by people with less than noble intentions.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Defaulter1831 wrote: »

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kinsey-victim-speaks-out-my-father-was-paid-to-rape-me

'Decades after her ordeal, a woman who says her father was paid by Alfred Kinsey, the "father of the sexual revolution," to rape her at the tender age of seven as part of his experiments on human sexual behavior, is speaking out.'

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-man-who-put-the-f-into-fact-1292937.html

'Even more dubious, from current perspectives, is his attitude to sex with children, laws against which he seems to have regarded as pointless and outdated. His reports included material on infants being timed to orgasm, much of which had come from the mysterious "Mr X", a man who boasted of having had sex with 600 boys and 200 girls. Kinsey was fascinated by Mr X (whose prodigious feats included the ability, at 63, to start from a flaccid state and ejaculate within 10 seconds) and saw him, not as a dangerous paedophile who deserved to be in prison, but as a courageous rebel and fellow seeker. It was only conditioning, Kinsey thought, that made children fear and feel traumatised by sexual contact with adults. Molestation, he said, could often involve affection, and the "very few cases of vaginal bleeding" that sometimes resulted "did not appear to do any appreciable damage". The harm, he concluded, was all in people's minds. Such was his sympathy for sex offenders that he stopped seeing the abusive nature of their offences.'

I do wonder about that 1997 biography though. It comes across a bit sensationalist whenever I’ve read about it and who are the sources? I’m not sure if I believe everything it claims.

retro:electro

Imagine a child disclosing abuse to Jack.

Jack: sorry but that doesn’t not fall under my category of what I define abuse (insert long winded nonsensical self fellating argument here)
Before running off to tell the parents that the child is lying and in turn the child gets a wallop

Zorya

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I also don’t agree with you that it’s connected to the trans movement.

There’s overlap with the trans movement,

think it’s a completely different and separate thing. .

This is cognitive dissonance.

In other words, one of these things is not like the others....

One eyed Jack

Zorya wrote: »

This is cognitive dissonance.

In other words, one of these things is not like the others....

What you’re doing though is like comparing rugby to soccer and equating them on the basis that they’re both sports and they’re both played with a ball. There are far more differences than there are similarities, and no cognitive dissonance involved to identify the differences between the two.

Omackeral

sk8erboii wrote: »

Recurring theme in after hours: Conservatives using vaguely sociological terms and misusing it.

Ironic.

Zorya

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What you’re doing though is like comparing rugby to soccer and equating them on the basis that they’re both sports and they’re both played with a ball. There are far more differences than there are similarities, and no cognitive dissonance involved to identify the differences between the two.

I would say there are far more similarities than differences. It would be otherwise if you compared soccer to eating gobstoppers. Both involve movement and round objects.

When things overlap, they have connection.

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack

Zorya wrote: »

I would say there are far more similarities than differences. It would be otherwise if you compared soccer to eating gobstoppers. Both involve movement and round objects.

When things overlap, they have connection.

Where the two different things appear to overlap as far as I can see is trans advocates claiming drag has anything to do with being trans, such as claiming that Marsha P. Johnson was trans, or that Conchita Wurst is trans, in spite of his own correction that he certainly is not trans -

Conchita Wurst: Some people think I’m a trans woman

People are entitled to make assumptions of course, and they’re entirely responsible for making those assumptions and associations, even when they’re simply incorrect.

sk8erboii

Omackeral wrote: »

Ironic.

Irony probably doesnt mean what you think it means

Omackeral

sk8erboii wrote: »

Irony probably doesnt mean what you think it means

Let me explain it for you. You intimate that conservatives use vaguely sociological terms and misuse them. You yourself have applied a sociological term and misused it. So yes, after your claim, that's ironic.

Not everyone you're at odds with is a conservative by the way. Being conservative has precisely f*ck all to do with this case and it's the same across a plethora of other threads you throw the word around in. You're always at it. With you it's generally just an algorithm of ''lol'' ''conservative'' and ''Soros''.

sk8erboii

Omackeral wrote: »

Let me explain it for you. You intimate that conservatives use vaguely sociological terms and misuse them. You yourself have applied a sociological term and misused it. So yes, after your claim, that's ironic.

Not everyone you're at odds with is a conservative by the way. Being conservative has precisely f*ck all to do with this case and it's the same across a plethora of other threads you throw the word around in. You're always at it. With you it's generally just an algorithm of ''lol'' ''conservative'' and ''Soros''.

Yeah thats not what irony means lol

Creepy that you keep tabs on boards users though

Franz Von Peppercorn

sk8erboii wrote: »

People really need to look up what ‘political correctness’ means before using it.

Recurring theme in after hours: Conservatives using vaguely sociological terms and misusing it.

And what do you think of the actual topic here?

Dyr

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

And what do you think of the actual topic here?

Let's not throw a word like "think" around needlessly in this context