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

Annasopra · 20-05-2020 10:36pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I'm not implying that.

You gave me a lecture about safeguarding implying there was no safeguarding measures or risk assessments in organising this event despite the fact that youth workers professionally trained in safeguarding are present and they have taken other safeguarding measures. The implication is there.

ceadaoin. · 20-05-2020 10:37pm

Any suggestions as to why parents are discouraged from attending though?

Annasopra · 20-05-2020 10:40pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Any suggestions as to why parents are discouraged from attending though?

I don't know. Ask them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-05-2020 10:44pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I don't know. Ask them.

They won’t respond. Any questions I’ve ever seen asked about safeguarding issues are met with crickets and tumbleweed. Because there’s no defence.

Annasopra · 20-05-2020 10:46pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

They won’t respond. Any questions I’ve ever seen asked about safeguarding issues are met with crickets and tumbleweed. Because there’s no defence.

Ah ok. So you are implying that the professional youth workers are negligent and that no safeguarding measures or risk assessments have been carried out. Fair enough.

Still waters · 20-05-2020 10:51pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I can only suggest that if some of you are that concerned about it then report it to Social Services in the UK

Would you support this type of carry on if it was organised by the church, or maybe a Pakistani social group made up of men between the ages of 18 to 24, or is it only the lgbt brigade that can get away with inviting children to bathe semi naked with men while their parents are left to sit it out in the car park.

TBH joey, you're not painting yourself in a very good light and without knowing you personally and judging by the way you defend this kind of behaviour, but if i did know you personally knowing what I've read on here 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, i wonder what kind of mentality it takes to defend adults who want to be around semi naked children no matter what kind of precautions are set in place

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-05-2020 10:52pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah ok. So you are implying that the professional youth workers are negligent and that no safeguarding measures or risk assessments have been carried out. Fair enough.

Why would they discourage parents from being present? Why would they highlight that clothes must be worn on the bottom? That brings two questions to mind: why would that need to be highlighted and why no mention of wearing clothes on top (because there’s no mention of it just being boys)? If they don’t want to raise red flags, perhaps it might be a good idea to not make odd stipulations.

glenfieldman · 20-05-2020 11:14pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah ok. So you are implying that the professional youth workers are negligent and that no safeguarding measures or risk assessments have been carried out. Fair enough.

Your posts are very disingenuous. Scouting Ireland had professional youth workers that were probably Garda vetted, but yet over 200 members have been accused of child sexual abuse.
But because this is a LGBT event all the leaders are ok to get into a pool with minors semi dressed

Lefty Bicek · 20-05-2020 11:22pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I don't see the issue no - not when the three things I listed are there.

Parental consent needed if you’re under 16.

Changing rooms will be separated into children and adults.

Large youth work team present.

This is kinda like the paediatrician/paedophile thing to be honest where some people are pretty much finding child abuse where none exists.

While you do your thing in finding normality where none exists.

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

No responsible parent would give their consent.

On the precautionary principle alone, this worthless vulgarity should be nuked.

Mild Mannered Jim · 20-05-2020 11:26pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah ok. So you are implying that the professional youth workers are negligent and that no safeguarding measures or risk assessments have been carried out. Fair enough.

Jesus Christ man get a grip. Stop defending child grooming.

Portmanteau · 20-05-2020 11:39pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is kinda like the paediatrician/paedophile thing to be honest where some people are pretty much finding child abuse where none exists.

That's mixing up two words with meanings completely distinct from one another. This is nothing like that. Several reasons have been given as to why. Comparing that with a bunch of none too bright pitchfork wielders looking for aggro is pretty dishonest.

cgcsb · 20-05-2020 11:53pm

The yaniv person organising this is know as being a figure of contraversey. Another publicity stunt I'd imagine.

ceadaoin. · 21-05-2020 12:12am

cgcsb wrote: »

The yaniv person organising this is know as being a figure of contraversey. Another publicity stunt I'd imagine.

This isn't yaniv. Its a youth group in the UK.

jammiedodgers · 21-05-2020 12:33am

"Trans-only swimming sessions for 8-25 year olds. Twice a month from January-May.

Wear what you want to swim, so long as your bottom half is covered."

I don't know what's creepier, them sentences or someone trying to defend it.

Annasopra · 21-05-2020 8:53am

Portmanteau wrote: »

That's mixing up two words with meanings completely distinct from one another. This is nothing like that. Several reasons have been given as to why. Comparing that with a bunch of none too bright pitchfork wielders looking for aggro is pretty dishonest.

Nah, its not dishonest, a lot of the thread here is pretty much pitchfork wielding

nullzero · 21-05-2020 9:19am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nah, its not dishonest, a lot of the thread here is pretty much pitchfork wielding

I have to hand it to you, you really can double down can't you?

cgcsb · 21-05-2020 9:24am

Don't dis pitchfork wielding. If it weren't for pitchfork wielding Mussolini would have lived and gone through some bull**** trial.

seamus · 21-05-2020 9:30am

jammiedodgers wrote: »

"Trans-only swimming sessions for 8-25 year olds. Twice a month from January-May.

Wear what you want to swim, so long as your bottom half is covered."

I don't know what's creepier, them sentences or someone trying to defend it.

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

Dante7 · 21-05-2020 9:36am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think it is certainly unusual but it's bizarre to imply that it's all about child abuse when they have put 3 safeguarding measures in place by asking for parental consent, by separating out the changing rooms and by having qualified youth workers (trained in safeguarding) present.

OK Groomer.

Dante7 · 21-05-2020 9:39am

seamus wrote: »

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

What absolute bollocks. The sad thing here is that you think you are the good guy here. Dismantling safeguards for women and children for the woke cookies. If this event was organised by priests you'd be quick enough in spotting the danger.

21-05-2020 9:40am

seamus wrote: »

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

Transphobes? Jesus Christ man. You really think being opposed to this cluster **** of an activity is in any way transphobic?

Ok.

Annasopra · 21-05-2020 9:42am

Deleted User wrote: »

Transphobes? Jesus Christ man. You really think being opposed to this cluster **** of an activity is in any way transphobic?

Ok.

Swimming :pac:

joey100 · 21-05-2020 9:45am

glenfieldman wrote: »

Your posts are very disingenuous. Scouting Ireland had professional youth workers that were probably Garda vetted, but yet over 200 members have been accused of child sexual abuse.
But because this is a LGBT event all the leaders are ok to get into a pool with minors semi dressed

What you have said is wrong. Scouting Ireland didn't and don't have professional youth workers, it had volunteers and paid staff. No professional youth workers. The majority of scouting Ireland allegations are pre-garda vetting also.

21-05-2020 9:46am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nah, its not dishonest, a lot of the thread here is pretty much pitchfork wielding

Pitchfork welding? And you have the cheek to label anything dishonest?

Finding child abuse where none exists is your position here where it is quite evident that you yourself are finding transphobia where it doesn't exist.

Shielding dubious events like this with your LGBT umbrella is doing your community no favours.

Jessica Yaniv would be proud.

21-05-2020 9:49am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Swimming :pac:

Yes. Swimming.

At this particular event.

In this particular context.

With this oddly specific age range.

With no parental supervision.

But of course, it's the swimming I have an issue with...:rolleyes:

ILoveYourVibes · 21-05-2020 9:56am

A lot of models you see on the catwalk or major ad campaigns are often only 13/14.

They are also around environments they possibly should not be.

Then there is this. I'll just leave this here.

Still waters · 21-05-2020 9:58am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Swimming :pac:

Your flippant conduct doesn't mask the fact you have a certain admiration for wannabe child abusers, i hope in real life you have no close contact with children, you're attitude towards the safety of children should put a serious question mark over any involvement you have with minors in the future

joey100 · 21-05-2020 9:59am

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. Swimming.

At this particular event.

In this particular context.

With this oddly specific age range.

With no parental supervision.

But of course, it's the swimming I have an issue with...:rolleyes:

Can I ask, because maybe I'm missing something, but where on their website does it say parents aren't allowed go? It says parental consent is needed but that's needed for any activity with young people under 18 here (may be under 16 in the UK), no matter if the parent is doing the activity side by side with their child or not attending at all. Parents are usually allowed attend activities with young people if they want but wouldn't be allowed participate, so parents would be allowed to travel to the pool with the group if they wanted, and help their child get changed etc.

The age thing is probably because of their funding obligations. Young people are defined as between 8-24 (I think this age range may have even been extended rcently). Funding received would have to be open to this age range. That doesn't mean they won't be split before they get to the pool into different groups or once they get there and put into different areas and/or changing rooms, or even split over different times.

I'm making no comment on what is being organised by this group, just the practicalities.

21-05-2020 10:12am

joey100 wrote: »

Can I ask, because maybe I'm missing something, but where on their website does it say parents aren't allowed go? It says parental consent is needed but that's needed for any activity with young people under 18 here (may be under 16 in the UK), no matter if the parent is doing the activity side by side with their child or not attending at all. Parents are usually allowed attend activities with young people if they want but wouldn't be allowed participate, so parents would be allowed to travel to the pool with the group if they wanted, and help their child get changed etc.

The age thing is probably because of their funding obligations. Young people are defined as between 8-24 (I think this age range may have even been extended rcently). Funding received would have to be open to this age range. That doesn't mean they won't be split before they get to the pool into different groups or once they get there and put into different areas and/or changing rooms, or even split over different times.

I'm making no comment on what is being organised by this group, just the practicalities.

With regards the no parents allowed thing, you may be right. I may have read into something that isn't there. Usually something like this would have "parental supervision is required for children under x" and it's omission raised a few flags but I concede to your point.

Regardless of the funding required, advertising it for this specific age range without specifying whether or not it will be age appropriate groups is another red flag.

It is too close to that Jessica Yaniv event for the organisers not to have made every attempt to differentiate and therefore something I would oppose.

keano_afc · 21-05-2020 1:09pm

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.

ahnowbrowncow · 21-05-2020 1:16pm

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 · 21-05-2020 1:38pm

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 · 21-05-2020 1:42pm

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 · 21-05-2020 1:44pm

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 · 21-05-2020 1:55pm

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 · 21-05-2020 1:59pm

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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 21-05-2020 2:11pm

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 · 21-05-2020 2:12pm

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 · 21-05-2020 2:16pm

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.

21-05-2020 2:19pm

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 · 21-05-2020 2:21pm

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 · 21-05-2020 2:25pm

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 · 21-05-2020 3:55pm

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 · 21-05-2020 3:59pm

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 · 21-05-2020 4:05pm

30 years old?

I feel old now.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 21-05-2020 4:07pm

Neyite wrote: »

30 years old?

I feel old now.

Well, at least 25. Maybe not quite 30.

Blaze420 · 21-05-2020 4:15pm

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 · 21-05-2020 4:19pm

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 · 21-05-2020 4:33pm

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 · 21-05-2020 4:47pm

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

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

Comments