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

ahnowbrowncow

seamus wrote: »

I thought this was what tranphobes wanted - segregation. What's the problem?

Nice ad hominem Seamus. Would you let your 8 year old go off swimming with unknown 30 year olds?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Thats totally misrepresenting it

A Parental consent needed if you’re under 16.

B Changing rooms will be separated into children and adults.

C Large youth work team present.

Groupthinking at it's worst, defending this dangerous activity that puts young children into very vulnerable positions with semi naked adults that they don't know.

This is worse than idiots blindly defending Trump because of their allegiance to a political party.

FVP3

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Why do they need to highlight that your bottom half should be covered? Why would that need to be said? The age grouping is also odd. Children are generally boring to adults and vice versa.

This is clearly an indication that the top half does not need to be covered. Otherwise i think people would assume that upper covering is required.

FVP3

This kind of stuff is so obviously wrong I sometimes conspiratorially think that a right wing organisation has infiltrated these movements to discredit all progressive movements by making this one so extreme.

CinemaGuy45

I don't have any children but as a child I was very shy.

I feel sorry for any child left in that situation.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

seamus wrote: »

I thought this was what tranphobes wanted - segregation. What's the problem?

This really must be stated as often as possible - women wanting to maintain their sex-based rights and facilities are not transphobes. Those rights are sex-based, not gender-based and exist for good reasons.

But, anyhoo, why do you think they specified that bottoms must be worn? Why would that need to be said? And what about the top half? There’s no indication that this event is just for boys.

LessOutragePlz

Ah come on now lads we are clearly not being tolerant enough :rolleyes: .

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Ding ding ding!

Yes, all of this. Like I said earlier, I reckon the people organising this are chancing their arm and hoping to find a few children who have less than vigilant parents. They are also probably trying to take advantage of parents who are tripping over themselves to be as inclusive as possible, so much so that their safeguarding instincts are disregarded.

cgcsb

keano_afc wrote: »

Meanwhile back in Desmond's world, Claire's accessory shop (used primarily by teenage girls) have decided to use him in its marketing campaign.

Claire's deleted the tweet, but have kept the Facebook post up.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3915372-Desmond-I-Amazing-in-marketing-campaign-for-Claires

I'm always drawn to how vacant this kid looks. His parents should be ashamed.

Well I guess that's what the parents wanted, sponsorship. It is america afterall. All of the pageant moms of the USA would also do this if their product/child were marketable.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

FVP3 wrote: »

This kind of stuff is so obviously wrong I sometimes conspiratorially think that a right wing organisation has infiltrated these movements to discredit all progressive movements by making this one so extreme.

That organisation, Gendered Intelligence, has links to a Green Party MP, Aimee Challenor.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But, anyhoo, why do you think they specified that bottoms must be worn? Why would that need to be said? And what about the top half? There’s no indication that this event is just for boys.

All children of primary school age need to learn all about transgenderism and gender identity and if they believe they are transgender, parents should be encouraged to allow them swim with adult strangers in various states of undress. Breasts are only natural you prude.

Your concern is showing your inner prejudice and you really need to check your privilege.

(I just realised that my joking parody actually sounds like some posters' arguments.. Scary)

marklazarcovic

if time has thought us anything, its that groups/individual adults actively seeking to work around young children alone ,predatory things will be found to be happening. in all walks of life,all countries,pattern is the same. priests,scouts,swimming coaches,sports coaches in general,teaching..every single one of those groups has had a huge number of issues,and more will be discovered ..

its taught us to rightly question,and be suspicious of,any such group or person involved in access to our children when we are not around.

i hope this never stops,and any group or person that tries to quell the suspicion upon them should be doubled down on for even trying.

suicide_circus

its quite extraordinary that a group who suffered historically due to people's blind adherence to doctrine should repeat the same mistake. But perhaps man is doomed to this pattern.

An inescapable criticism of organised religion is its insatiable appetite for the recruitment of children too young to understand.

Give me a child and I'll shape him into anything. - B.F. Skinner

Neyite

marklazarcovic wrote: »

if time has thought us anything, its that groups/individual adults actively seeking to work around young children alone ,predatory things will be found to be happening. in all walks of life,all countries,pattern is the same. priests,scouts,swimming coaches,sports coaches in general,teaching..every single one of those groups has had a huge number of issues,and more will be discovered ..

its thought us to rightly question,and be suspicious of,any such group or person involved in access to our children when we are not around.

i hope this never stops,and any group or person that tries to quell the suspicion upon them should be doubled down on for even trying.

We are the generation that saw scandal after scandal in many organisations unfold so I think blind trust is long gone. Which is a good thing. We also have a wealth of information at our fingertips that our parents never had to keep our children safe, to keep ourselves educated on the new ways predators find to try to get at our kids and the subtle ways grooming (of parents and kids) start out.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Neyite wrote: »

We are the generation that saw scandal after scandal in many organisations unfold so I think blind trust is long gone. Which is a good thing. We also have a wealth of information at our fingertips that our parents never had to keep our children safe, to keep ourselves educated on the new ways predators find to try to get at our kids and the subtle ways grooming (of parents and kids) start out.

I do think people are more attuned to grooming and its insidiousness nowadays which is great. There’s that famous Simpsons joke where Helen Lovejoy shrieks “Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!”. It’s funny but it’s also 30 years old and many of us now realise that when it comes to children, it’s much better to be safe than sorry and that we should trust our instincts.

Neyite

30 years old?



I feel old now.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Neyite wrote: »

30 years old?



I feel old now.

Well, at least 25. Maybe not quite 30.

Blaze420

marklazarcovic wrote: »

if time has thought us anything, its that groups/individual adults actively seeking to work around young children alone ,predatory things will be found to be happening. in all walks of life,all countries,pattern is the same. priests,scouts,swimming coaches,sports coaches in general,teaching..every single one of those groups has had a huge number of issues,and more will be discovered ..

its thought us to rightly question,and be suspicious of,any such group or person involved in access to our children when we are not around.

i hope this never stops,and any group or person that tries to quell the suspicion upon them should be doubled down on for even trying.

Absolutely spot on, and this topic is even more insidious because they hide behind the trans umbrella for it - therefore you are a "phobe" etc etc if you even dare question or comment on it in a negative light. (Joey seems to be a good example of this and as he has learned, that dismissive attitude doesn't work when it comes to topics involving children). The "T" community has been like this for quite a while, openly hostile and bitter towards anybody who dares tell them what they don't want to hear or question their right (or anybody elses) to buy the delusion they've sold themselves - only problem is that won't work any longer when you start dragging kids in to it.

They are digging their own grave with defending the indefensible here.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Blaze420 wrote: »

Absolutely spot on, and this topic is even more insidious because they hide behind the trans umbrella for it - therefore you are a "phobe" etc etc if you even dare question or comment on it in a negative light. (Joey seems to be a good example of this and as he has learned, that dismissive attitude doesn't work when it comes to topics involving children). The "T" community has been like this for quite a while, openly hostile and bitter towards anybody who dares tell them what they don't want to hear or question their right (or anybody elses) to buy the delusion they've sold themselves - only problem is that won't work any longer when you start dragging kids in to it.

They are digging their own grave with defending the indefensible here.

They are indeed flying too close to the sun. To be honest, I feel really sorry for transgender people who want nothing to do with that kind of aggressive activism and who just want to live their lives. Even transgender people who speak out get piled on, called self-hating and whatnot.

Blaze420

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

They are indeed flying too close to the sun. To be honest, I feel really sorry for transgender people who want nothing to do with that kind of aggressive activism and who just want to live their lives. Even transgender people who speak out get piled on, called self-hating and whatnot.

I might get flamed for this but I honestly don't feel anything for transgender people - I'm of the opinion it should have never been declassified as a mental illness. What we have now is an open pandoras box where "allys" enable these people to delude themselves, and shout at the rest of us to shut up when we dare speak a word against it. They need help, not cheerleaders telling them they are right on and the other 99.9% & the entire history of biology are wrong.

Dante7

https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1263490487325011970?s=19

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Blaze420 wrote: »

I might get flamed for this but I honestly don't feel anything for transgender people - I'm of the opinion it should have never been declassified as a mental illness. What we have now is an open pandoras box where "allys" enable these people to delude themselves, and shout at the rest of us to shut up when we dare speak a word against it. They need help, not cheerleaders telling them they are right on and the other 99.9% & the entire history of biology are wrong.

But if it’s true that it’s a mental illness, do you not feel any compassion for people with mental illnesses?

ceadaoin.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I do think people are more attuned to grooming and its insidiousness nowadays which is great. There’s that famous Simpsons joke where Helen Lovejoy shrieks “Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!”. It’s funny but it’s also 30 years old and many of us now realise that when it comes to children, it’s much better to be safe than sorry and that we should trust our instincts.

Yet there are still people who go out of their to way to paint anyone who is concerned with the welfare of children as Helen lovejoy types who are just hysterical bigots. You'd have to wonder why they are doing that. And yeah, thankfully people are more attuned to the warning signs these days and more empowered to say hang on, this isn't right. Its a better place than 30 years ago

Blaze420

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But if it’s true that it’s a mental illness, do you not feel any compassion for people with mental illnesses?

Of course I do, as long as they take reasonable steps to get it treated and don’t let it consume them or become the central point of their identity.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Personally don’t care what a person does to their own body as long as their choices have no impact on my life (as in, I will not share a bathroom with a male, irregardless of what he feels he is) but they can fuuck right off when it comes to children. They don’t get to push themselves or their fantasies or their agenda on children, and how dare they try make the rest of society feel bad about protecting children. The whole phobe I am is paedophobe and I don’t care if you identify as a snow leopard, you have no right over anyone else.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

30 years old?



I feel old now.

As old as the Simpsons programme is, if it was a person, it would just about qualify to participate in this adult/child trans swimfest.

So don't feel too old.

Dyr

In a decade or so we'll have a lot of people in the position Harriet Harman found herself in with the benefit of her plausibile deniability.

And good enough for them tbh

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Dante7 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1263490487325011970?s=19

Poor aul Graham. Even though I do agree with much of what he says, the wires have come a bit loose in his head. I think he has allowed himself to be driven a bit daft by the significant opprobrium he has encountered.

On the day of Father Ted’s 25th anniversary, I saw tweets saying things liken “Well done to Arthur Mathews, the sole creator of Father Ted!”. I even saw ones crediting Dermot Morgan, not Linehan. Pathetic stuff.

Penn

It really doesn't have to be an either/or scenario. They can have swimming classes for trans children. They can have swimming classes for trans adults. They just don't have to be at the same time.

They could have the classes for trans children, where they're accompanied by parents. They could have the classes for trans adults where it's restricted access so the trans adults don't have to be self-conscious about cisgender people being around. Even if the group can't afford to run more classes, they said it's going to be twice a month, so do one class for each group per month instead.

I am strongly pro-trans rights. But at best, things like this are stupid decisions made by stupid people for stupid reasons, and are completely tone-deaf to the reality of the situation, the perception it can give off, and are disregarding the standard child protection measures that should be in place for all groups involved with all children.

Regardless though, f*ck Graham Linehan. Just a general statement.

suicide_circus

Joey, can you change your user name to Woke Bro?

TheValeyard

Dante7 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1263490487325011970?s=19

Mods suddenly get nervous.


Necro's new to the job, let him do it!!