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

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well thabkfully we've got the paedophile hysteria in this thread down to "the notice could have been worded better".

Would you allow your child to go to an event that was worded as such?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well thabkfully we've got the paedophile hysteria in this thread down to "the notice could have been worded better".

That point was actually made quite a while back. And the relevant post has even been highlighted on Twitter.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would you allow your child to go to an event that was worded as such?

The truthful real world answer is it would depend on a lot of factors. How old is my child? Did they request to go? Are they struggling with trans issues at the local swimming pool? Have I checked out the group and gotten answers to all my questions? Do these answers align with my own values? Etc etc.

My main concern is that they might lack experience and be a bit naive in their child safety practices.

I would not be concerned that they are a secret paedophile group looking to grrom my child.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Child safety practices is not an area to be naive about, with all due respect

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

The truthful real world answer is it would depend on a lot of factors. How old is my child? Did they request to go? Are they struggling with trans issues at the local swimming pool? Have I checked out the group and gotten answers to all my questions? Do these answers align with my own values? Etc etc.

My main concern is that they might lack experience and be a bit naive in their child safety practices.

I would not be concerned that they are a secret paedophile group looking to grrom my child.

This wording is so dramatic. Most people aren’t paedophiles. Transgender people aren’t going to be more likely to paedophiles. Their criminality levels will mostly likely be in line with that of their biological sex. Safeguarding is put in place to protect children against the small percentage of adults who wish to harm them. It’s proactive rather than reactive, as it should be. Paedophiles (whether transgender or not, straight or homosexual, just WHATEVER) have since forever looked for ways to get close to children. Sometimes they hide in plain sight. A great example is Jerry Sandusky who set up a charity for underprivileged children for his own sick goals. Do not think that because an ad is in the public domain, that there aren’t red flags. This notice throws up red flags and people are not bigoted for questioning it.

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

Child safety practices is not an area to be naive about, with all due respect

Yup. We shouldn’t wait until something bad happens.

Dante7

Gender Woo gets the Downfall treatment.

https://twitter.com/Woman4W/status/1263610981332156416?s=19

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

This wording is so dramatic. Most people aren’t paedophiles. Transgender people aren’t going to be more likely to paedophiles. Their criminality levels will mostly likely be in line with that of their biological sex. Safeguarding is put in place to protect children against the small percentage of adults who wish to harm them. It’s proactive rather than reactive, as it should be. Paedophiles (whether transgender or not, straight or homosexual, just WHATEVER) have since forever looked for ways to get close to children. Sometimes they hide in plain sight. A great example is Jerry Sandusky who set up a charity for underprivileged children for his own sick goals. Do not think that because an ad is in the public domain, that there aren’t red flags. This notice throws up red flags and people are not bigoted for questioning it.



Yup. We shouldn’t wait until something bad happens.

I completely agree with you.

But there are definitely a lot of bigoted people on this thread. The tone was hysterical and there were numerous accusations of grooming and paedophilia.

There's also been double standards in that people assume the worst about this group in absence of info about their child safety practices but assume the best in other groups. That is pure bigotry.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

I completely agree with you.

But there are definitely a lot of bigoted people on this thread. The tone was hysterical and there were numerous accusations of grooming and paedophilia.

There's also been double standards in that people assume the worst about this group in absence of info about their child safety practices but assume the best in other groups. That is pure bigotry.

I haven’t read the whole thread as it’s long and dates back a while. But the stuff in recent days is mostly sensible. People are right to point out that something isn’t right with this ad. It’s not hysterical to question it and people are getting tired of being accused of that.

I don’t see these double standards either. Safeguarding is applied everywhere.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I haven’t read the whole thread as it’s long and dates back a while. But the stuff in recent days is mostly sensible. People are right to point out that something isn’t right with this ad. It’s not hysterical to question it and people are getting tired of being accused of that.

I don’t see these double standards either. Safeguarding is applied everywhere.

Would you like me to post a selection of hysterical posts? I think you are seeing what you want to see.

The only issue is the broad age group. The rest is lies.

The double standard comes from assuming the worst when you have a lack of info on child safety when it's a trans group while assuming the best when you have a lack of info on child safety from another group. Take a look at ceadoin's post assuming that edenderry pool allows parents in changing rooms but assuming that this trans group forbid parents from attending. If that's not a double standard then what is?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

Would you like me to post a selection of hysterical posts?

Sure, go ahead.

The age grouping isn’t the only issue. Am I choosing to see more issues? Sure, because there are more issues. I’VE pointed out more issues than the age grouping. Am I a liar? Going by your parameters, I am.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

LLMMLL wrote: »

Would you like me to post a selection of hysterical posts? I think you are seeing what you want to see.

The only issue is the broad age group. The rest is lies.

The double standard comes from assuming the worst when you have a lack of info on child safety when it's a trans group while assuming the best when you have a lack of info on child safety from another group. Take a look at ceadoin's post assuming that edenderry pool allows parents in changing rooms but assuming that this trans group forbid parents from attending. If that's not a double standard then what is?

Edenderry does allow parents in the changing room, I’ve been to that pool. There’s just no space around the pool for parents to sit

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Sure, go ahead.

The age grouping isn’t the only issue. Am I choosing to see more issues? Sure, because there are more issues. I’VE pointed out more issues than the age grouping. Am I a liar? Going by your parameters, I am.

If you state that parents are forbidden and that breasts will be on display then yes you are lying.

LLMMLL

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

Edenderry does allow parents in the changing room, I’ve been to that pool. There’s just no space around the pool for parents to sit

And for all ceadoin knows parents are able to attend this trans swim group.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

LLMMLL wrote: »

And for all ceadoin knows parents are able to attend this trans swim group.

Yeah, telling them to drop them off at a tube station probably means that’s where the pool is. Close off the tracks for an hour and fill it up with water.

LLMMLL

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

Yeah, telling them to drop them off at a tube station probably means that’s where the pool is. Close off the tracks for an hour and fill it up with water.

It says meeting point not drop off point. Why do you think ceadoin changed that word? I wouldn't fall for her tricks if I were you.

LLMMLL

Here are some of the hysterical posts along with me being called a paedophile which has been deleted by mods:

hope these obvious grooming groups under the guise of charities are being investigated. Its a ticking time bomb

i would regard any parent who would give permission for a child to go to something like this as unfit to parent and a child welfare officer should become involved

Yeah, to me it reads like chancing their arm, trying to find the kids with less vigilant parents.

Peado scumbags

there isn't a chance in hell I'd let you near kids of mine, and damned sure you'd never be left alone with them,

There is massive potential for child abuse here, in this degeneracy.

e, this worthless vulgarity should be nuked.

---

I could keep going. That's just the first few pages.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

And for all ceadoin knows parents are able to attend this trans swim group.

The Edenderry notice says no parents on the pool deck. That’s only good sense.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

Here are some of the hysterical posts along with me being called a paedophile which has been deleted by mods:

hope these obvious grooming groups under the guise of charities are being investigated. Its a ticking time bomb

i would regard any parent who would give permission for a child to go to something like this as unfit to parent and a child welfare officer should become involved

Yeah, to me it reads like chancing their arm, trying to find the kids with less vigilant parents.

Peado scumbags

there isn't a chance in hell I'd let you near kids of mine, and damned sure you'd never be left alone with them,

There is massive potential for child abuse here, in this degeneracy.

e, this worthless vulgarity should be nuked.

---

I could keep going. That's just the first few pages.

The bolded one is by me and I stand by it.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The Edenderry notice says no parents on the pool deck. That’s only good sense.

And the trans swimming group says that parental consent is required. That is also good sense.

It does NOT say parents cannot attend.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The bolded one is by me and I stand by it.

Then I take back what I said about you being reasonable.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

Then I take back what I said about you being reasonable.

Oh noes!

It’s a transgender only event.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh noes!

It’s a transgender only event.

so would you assume only female parents are allowed watch a girls GAA match?

Calhoun

glenfieldman wrote: »

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/vancouver-news/jessica-yaniv-langley-topless-swim-trans-activist-bc-1944804

Peado scumbags

This one is actually a bit of an oddity, while Jessica Yaniv proposed the topless swimming, she did so only after a more "trusted" LGBT charity did so and was refused.

The last thing the LGBT community needs is to be setting itself up for any improper stuff around young adults and children. As someone said earlier in the past few pages blind trust should not exist and we have child safety laws in place for a reason.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

so would you assume only female parents are allowed watch a girls GAA match?

While we’re asking daft questions, would those girls be reminded that kit needs to be worn?

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

While we’re asking daft questions, would those girls be reminded that kit needs to be worn?

You're right that is a silly question. Boys and girls wear the same kit with no nudity issues in GAA. Trans kids would not need any guidance on this.

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

It says meeting point not drop off point. Why do you think ceadoin changed that word? I wouldn't fall for her tricks if I were you.

Its not "tricks" ffs. I acknowledge it doesnt say drop off, that was honestly what I thought after a quick scan. Probably because to me to the rest of it just gives that impression. That the parents drop off and leave them to it. Would "parental consent" be needed if the parent would be attending?

Anyway, I'm not trying to trick anyone. People have eyes and can see for themselves but I do apologize , thats just honestly what I took away from it.

Annasopra

LLMMLL wrote: »

Here are some of the hysterical posts along with me being called a paedophile which has been deleted by mods:

hope these obvious grooming groups under the guise of charities are being investigated. Its a ticking time bomb

i would regard any parent who would give permission for a child to go to something like this as unfit to parent and a child welfare officer should become involved

Yeah, to me it reads like chancing their arm, trying to find the kids with less vigilant parents.

Peado scumbags

there isn't a chance in hell I'd let you near kids of mine, and damned sure you'd never be left alone with them,

There is massive potential for child abuse here, in this degeneracy.

e, this worthless vulgarity should be nuked.

---

I could keep going. That's just the first few pages.

Plus numerous hysterical posts calling me a Groomer and Paedophile and suggesting I actively support child abuse were deleted. It's laughable the attempts to deny this hysteria now.

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

This one is actually a bit of an oddity, while Jessica Yaniv proposed the topless swimming, she did so only after a more "trusted" LGBT charity did so and was refused.

The last thing the LGBT community needs is to be setting itself up for any improper stuff around young adults and children. As someone said earlier in the past few pages blind trust should not exist and we have child safety laws in place for a reason.

I think that ship has sailed long ago tbh.


The identity politics of these issues never delineated along LGBT vs ‘society’ lines, they went along the lines of ‘progressive’ vs ‘society’, and LGBT ‘advocacy’ is just one string in their bow (along with ‘advocacy’ for other perceived minority groups).

Child safety laws and guidelines don’t mean shìt. Having worked in the area of social care for long enough and worked with voluntary organisations long enough, the policies they have in place, to my mind at least, were more about protecting the image of the organisation, than they are about protecting children. If a person has concerns about a child’s safety, the guidelines are that they are to report their concerns to an authority within the organisation. The policies haven’t actually changed at all! People working within the organisation report their concerns to a dedicated liaison person or a mandated person within the organisation, and that person decides how to proceed.

Blind trust exists in all social spheres, and isn’t peculiar to any particular ideological movement or organisation. For example how many parents will be aware of who is educating their children? Apart from the usual parent teacher meetings, parents generally aren’t (in my experience anyway) all that interested in getting to know who is teaching their children, and what specifically their children are being taught. That’s just one example, and it’s perhaps the most common example of blind trust in others. Another common example is the blind trust that parents have in their families, friends and neighbours.

It’s piss easy to insinuate inappropriate behaviour in other adults when we don’t support their ideology (we parse everything through the lens of “that’s inappropriate!”). It’s easy to find plenty of other people who agree with you (not you personally) because they too disagree with the same ideology you do and have their suspicions and anxieties about how inappropriate it is for children, and an echo chamber easily develops where you (again, not you personally) put blind trust in other people simply on the basis that you imagine they think like you do. That creates the kind of blind trust environment where people who are of a mind to abuse children can thrive - because the adults first of all believe that they are all sharing the same mindset of wanting to protect children, and secondly if an allegation of abuse comes to light - it is precisely because of a belief founded on blind trust that they don’t want to believe that the accused would ever abuse a child. If you think that’s a crock of shìt, then I wouldn’t suggest watching Abducted In Plain Sight on Netflix. It would have you picking your eyebrows off the ceiling, so much wtf in that particular story. It’s unbelievable, precisely because other people, with the benefit of hindsight, are thinking they would never let it happen.

I don’t agree with the idea of “all bodies” pool parties. I get the intent of the organisers behind them, just like I get the intent of the idea of “drag story time”, or the whole encouraging children to experiment with “drag culture” and their “gender identity” and all the rest of it. Personally, I find the whole ideology nauseating and cringeworthy. But having said that, I do understand that for other people who don’t share my feelings regarding these ideas, they see these kinds of organisations and activities as being of great benefit to children and to society as a whole -


Surrey’s manager of parks, recreation and culture Laurie Cavan tells the Now-Leader the event was for youth ages 15 to 21 and featured accessible, gender-inclusive change rooms and washrooms. Two more “Youth All-Bodies Pool Party” events are planned in 2019, however the dates are not yet finalized.

A 15-year-old Youth for a Change member, who identifies as non-binary, volunteered at that event and told the Now-Leader it was “probably one of the most therapeutic or healing things, for me personally.”

“Ever since I joined this group, my mental health has gotten a lot better,” adds the teen, whose name is not being published due to safety and sensitivity concerns.

“I’m not feeling isolated. I can speak to people easier, I can present easier. I think it’s important because it’s very easy to feel isolated.”

...

Youth for a Change was founded by Jen Marchbank – a professor in Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies at Simon Fraser University – along with her wife Sylvie Traphan, and “10 very keen youth.”

“We had been working with a number of LGBTQ youth prior to that, but some of them had expressed a desire not just to have a place to go, but to be able to be engaged themselves in creating social change,” says Marchbank.

“Our original members, some were basically living on the streets, or in care. The idea was we would become activists, educators, advocates.”

Marchbank explains early work was educating youth on LGBTQ+ history, then they began doing workshops in high schools around homophobia and transphobia.

Later, the group began participating in educational workshops with the YMCA in which members of Youth for Change talked to other teens about the LGBTQ+ community, about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Since then, their work has been extensive: From participating in training of youth and community workers, to creative performance and art projects, to lobbying for gender neutral facilities, to monitoring school board policy, it’s run a wide gamut.

The group has also done intergenerational work, connecting youth to seniors to learn from their life experiences.


https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/surrey-group-for-lgbtq-youth-aims-to-train-the-next-generation-of-activists/


While I don’t support their ideology, I still think at the same time that portraying their efforts as some sort of an opportunistic haven for paedophiles and child abusers would be just IMO fostering already existing anxiety, paranoia and suspicion of the individuals involved because I don’t share their ideas for children or for society. I wouldn’t want to encourage them and I wouldn’t encourage others to support them, but at the same time I wouldn’t attempt to discourage someone who already shared their beliefs, by suggesting that that person or people are supporting paedophiles and child abusers or that they are inadvertently putting their children in danger or causing their children harm.

There are better ways to criticise an ideology without making it even more attractive than it already is to people who already support it and view you (again, not you personally) with suspicion, and trying to cause them or their children harm. Taking their ideas out of context and portraying their intent as something that was never intended, is just playing to the crowd to increase ones own popularity - something which is IMO, best left to high profile public figures on social media.

Lefty Bicek

LLMMLL wrote: »

Here are some of the hysterical posts along with me being called a paedophile which has been deleted by mods:

hope these obvious grooming groups under the guise of charities are being investigated. Its a ticking time bomb

i would regard any parent who would give permission for a child to go to something like this as unfit to parent and a child welfare officer should become involved

Yeah, to me it reads like chancing their arm, trying to find the kids with less vigilant parents.

Peado scumbags

there isn't a chance in hell I'd let you near kids of mine, and damned sure you'd never be left alone with them,

There is massive potential for child abuse here, in this degeneracy.

e, this worthless vulgarity should be nuked.

---

I could keep going. That's just the first few pages.

Bolded is mine, and I stand by it.

silverharp

There is certainly something iffy with parts of the Trans movement, kids are getting radicalized by the internet and sent down paths by so called professionals that they ought not be