Binders. The world has gone mad.

MissAdventure

You obviously have little understanding of safeguarding is all I can say.

Hear, hear!
?

Surely it's not hard to comprehend that unless they are properly fitted by someone who's deemed safe to do this (not any old Tom, Dick or Harry who works at Lush!) this is a safeguarding issue. People who work with kids are supposed to have DBS checks etc and training.

www.mykidisgay.com/blog/what-is-a-binder explains how a parent can keep an eye on their child.

It seems that I am not the only one to draw a line between binders and Victorian corsetry. dirtywhiteboi67.blogspot.com/2010/10/chest-breast-binding-new-corset.html?zx=b051e5ae6961276a which was also damaging to those who wore it.

www.transgendertrend.com/breast-binders-in-uk-schools/ explains how these can be dangerous, especially for sports.

ftmtopsurgery.ca/blog/ftm-faq/health-consequences-chest-binding/

Kids rights are one thing, but keeping them safe is also important so I pity today's parents, teachers and anyone who has this job!

Most people who work with children realise OnwardandUpward that dealing with their problems when they are teenagers is a matter of negotiation and compromise. That important as safeguarding is unless you propose to lock the child up somewhere they have to continue to live in the real world. In order to safeguard succesfully the child has to trust you. That means listening and trying to help with the child's wants and needs. So that if she is proposing to go out and buy a binder she will tell you about it and discuss it. If it is Lush or some other company selling them is largely irrelevant. A teenager who wants a binder will find one, or she will use something like Duct tape which is even more dangerous. This idea that shutting down Lush or any other outlet will help is just hot air. I'd liken it to prohibition, people still drank but it was secret and more dangerous.

But Lush seem to be promoting the idea that a child doesn't need the parent to know that they are getting a binder. They don't seem to have any minimum age, either (or, if they can't ask for proof, apparent age, as teenagers can be very adept at appearing to be older than they are) so there is nothing to stop a preteen.

Under what safeguarding guidelines would anyone stand in front of a group of teenage girls and announce you were going to "safeguard" them?

Most people who work with children, and probably most people who don't would know that this shows a woeful lack of understanding of what safeguarding is about.

That is the whole point of safeguarding.
Stepping in to ensure the safety of people who are unable for a variety of reasons to be the best judge of their own safety.
Being a minor is one of the reasons, hence the laws around the treatment of minors.

Explaining what safeguarding is as well as what your role in that is, is something people working with children do all the time. In most areas, negotiation and compromise are fine but they don’t work where significant safeguarding issues arise.
Additionally, parents have ultimate responsibility in law and in society. The only exception is if a child is in the care of the state. In those circumstances parental responsibility is shared by the local authority and the parents.

Apologies if this post appears patronising but, trisher appeared to be suggesting teachers or others working with children could get involved in eg whether binding is ok.

It's a required part of safeguarding to inform the person that you will not be keeping what they tell you a secret, but will pass on information in order to ensure their safety.

Thank you trisher for showing how little you understand about safeguarding. Re-read the posts from Iam64 and MisAdventure. Learn something new.

I'm seeing a lot of theory on here that doesn't work in practise. And a lot of misconstruing what I say. It isn't entering the debate or get involved in eg whether binding is ok tto hope that a girl would confide in you if she intended to bind. You could then steer her towards proper advice. As far as I can see the only reason that any company like Lush could successfully market its products is because transgirls feel unable to discuss their situation and reading these posts I fully understand why

Much of this debate reminds me of when a discussion was happening about if it was OK to prescribe contraceptives to under 16s. Legally they couldn't have sex but actually many of them were..Those who thought you could control teenagers were solidly against it.

It's the law.
Otherwise things are in danger of spilling over into young girls being held responsible for things that are blatantly not an informed choice, and facing the consequences of those "choices".
A bit like the young girls groomed by groups of men who used them for sex.
It was dismissed by people who should have known better as them making bad choices.

You are a great fan of linking this issue to historical ones that have no bearing, aren't you?

The issue of contraception was (and still is?) bound up with the fact that it is still illegal for children to have sex under the age of 16. The fact that many of them do, and always will, is not the point. The age of consent is set in law to protect them from predatory adults. If a 13 year old tells an adult that she needs contraception, she is, effectively, saying that she is having sex, and as such, breaking the law. By not reporting the matter, the doctor, teacher or other person is colluding in breaking the law, so the situation needed to be cleared up for their protection. People like Victoria Gillick, who felt that parents had a right to know if their daughters were having sex were involved in that discussion, but parental knowledge was not at the root of it.

MissAdventure

It's the law.
Otherwise things are in danger of spilling over into young girls being held responsible for things that are blatantly not an informed choice, and facing the consequences of those "choices".
A bit like the young girls groomed by groups of men who used them for sex.
It was dismissed by people who should have known better as them making bad choices.

Great post, Miss A, and a far more relevant analogy than contraception for the under 16s

Safeguarding, trisher.

Good post MissAdventure

Bang on the button, as usual MissA

As far as I can see the only reason a company like Lush would try to give pre teens a binder is that they realise it's a way of getting kids attention. They are a business and know that if they get kids at an awkward age, those kids may be grateful and grow up to be adults who spend money there.

It's business. They aren't doing it because they care. no body should be fooled into thinking they care. They just want the trans pound. Like other business want the pink pound or the grey pound.

Unless Lush staff are vetted and trained then its inappropriate in every way for them to be having conversations about binders with young girls. The links I shared in my last post had many descriptions of the health problems and risks that no one wants to live with.

Thanks Miss Adventure, short and spot on.

the only reason that any company like Lush could successfully market its products is because transgirls feel unable to discuss their situation and reading these posts I fully understand why

This. I was thinking about my ex student tonight. Wondering if he had come out to his parents yet. Or if he went away to university, leaving his parents blissfully ignorant to his distress. He'll be 23 now. I hope he's been able to talk to them by now.

That is down to poor parenting, I would say, rather than lush selling binders.

In what way, exactly, is Lush encouraging young people to talk to their parents?

On the contrary, Lush is encouraging young people to access binders without the knowledge of their parents, encouraging deceit and the message is that they do not need to talk to parents or any adult about their feelings.

A High Street store selling nothing more than over-scented cosmetics appointing itself in loco parentis without knowing anything about these children or their families and without any expertise in psychology.

On the contrary, Lush is encouraging young people to access binders without the knowledge of their parents, encouraging deceit and the message is that they do not need to talk to parents or any adult about their feelings.

That's a very good point Callistemon

Good point Callistemon.

trisher Firstly you have no evidence of proof that the girl is purchasing a binder because she intends to transition.

Also trisher As far as I can see the only reason that any company like Lush could successfully market its products is because transgirls feel unable to discuss their situation and reading these posts I fully understand why

Seems it's you thinking they're all transgirls. I take it you mean girls who wish to transition, not transgirls who would have male biology and no need for a breast binder.

trisher As far as I can see the only reason that any company like Lush could successfully market its products is because transgirls feel unable to discuss their situation and reading these posts I fully understand why

Even worse, then; this company is cynically exploiting a gap it sees in the market providing a product which bears no relationship to its other products in order to make a profit!

Rather like barbers' shops years ago keeping the Durex under the counter. - "Something for the weekend, sir?" Which of course was fine as they were adults.

And the icecream man I mentioned earlier of course. "A little packet of something with your ice lolly, love? Don't tell Mum or Dad."