Binders. The world has gone mad.

Firstly you have no evidence of proof that the girl is purchasing a binder because she intends to transition. The binders are not advertised as being a sexual object. Some girls who bind do so purely because they are self conscious or want to dress up.
There is no sexual exploitation.

Ridiculous, shouldn’t be allowed to sell them, the world has gone mad! Parents should be aware of what their children are doing and ensure they are not being exploited.

Two commercial outlets facilitating/encouraging a child to go behind the parents' backs to obtain what could be a harmful device certainly reads like exploitation to me. As the device has a purpose aligned with a sex characteristic I'd call that sexual exploitation.

When used on a minor, I would say it is.

Items 19-the right to be protected from violence and 34 the right to be protected from sexual exploitation.
MissAdventure but a binder isn't sexual exploitation.

What???!
The whole point of safeguarding is to protect the vulnerable, precisely because they are vulnerable, suggestible, and unable to make the right decision with any degree of insight.

If a child wanted to continue to visit with an abuser, alone, should their rights be put above the risk?

I'd just love some of you to stand in front of a group of teenage girls and announce you were going to "safeguard" them. I can imagine their reaction.
Safeguarding is fine but it should never contravene the rights of the child. Amongst which is the right to a private life. The role of the parent is to support the child in their decisions not hinder them
www.savethechildren.org.uk/content/dam/gb/reports/humanitarian/uncrc19-child-friendly.pdf

Thanks Rosie51

Unfortunately, yes.

The original concern was for developing teenage girls being safeguarded and we should all care about children's wellbeing no matter what our gender is. Absolutely OnwardandUpward. I rather fear though, that 'collateral damage' is acceptable to some in the pursuit of a different agenda.

Thanks Iam64 yes you're right. It was divisive then and so much about today's society seems to be downright divisive too unfortunately.

To the person claiming this is a women's only subject - Gransnet is not women only. It's open to the whole internet. Anyone could have joined in this discussion and we would have no idea of their gender, nor should it matter. The original concern was for developing teenage girls being safeguarded and we should all care about children's wellbeing no matter what our gender is.

Yes, the whole 'debating technique' is based on ad hominem slurs, sly digs and a refusal to answer questions.

My "policing" covered Trisher's posts at 14:26:14 and 15:07:12 too. "" . . the lack of an answer indicates agreement?" is equally reductionist to "All you have to say is "No"" Neither can be answered as simplistically as that, as you both well know. The reduction of possible reponses is done with the same purpose as the old chestnut , "Are you still beating your wife?" All you need answer to that is "No" too, to be a sitting duck for another inaccuracy.

I don't mind deviation Chewbacca All threads do it. But any thread with a hint of trans these days starts double rehashing the women only spaces theme. Not a theme without merit, of course. But we do get an awful lot of it

Thanks for policing my writing. That's a bit rich coming from you Gagajo! You were the poster who tried to police which posts were "deviating from the topic". Either a short term memory problem or do-as-I-say,-not-as-I-do imo.

GagaJo

Elegran

So all that had to be said was "No." to that as well, Gagajo.

"Should we work on the basis that the lack of an answer indicates agreement?" That is an incredibly reductive statement.

Ah! Thanks for policing my writing. As long as users post contraversial content, they need to accept refutation.

From the evidence on this thread, all we can expect to be ignored if we ask pretty much anything, as you have no answers, or to be insulted when the lack of substance behind your posts is exposed.

"Should we work on the basis that the lack of an answer indicates agreement?"

This sort of thing explains such a lot, such as the belief that 'because I say so', 'my opinion is not based on fact', '98% of transpeople do X' and all the other spurious claptrap from you two counts as either evidence or debate.

Oh, and how is my asking someone so vocal about trans issues to respond to the fact that there is a growing backlash to the stranglehold of Stonewall a DEMAND, but you unilaterally declaring that a nil return to an idiotic question indicates support for a POV that has been voiced by nobody but you is acceptable? How are you going to feed the responses into your figures? If 99% of GN posters don't bother to respond, does that indicate to you that a demographic that you have described after zero sampling all speak as one?

And for the record, no, I don't think that women are to blame. I do think that 'blame' is an interesting choice of word from you, though. It does suggest a negative attitude to transitioning.

Elegran

So all that had to be said was "No." to that as well, Gagajo.

"Should we work on the basis that the lack of an answer indicates agreement?" That is an incredibly reductive statement.

Ah! Thanks for policing my writing. As long as users post contraversial content, they need to accept refutation.

OnwardandUpward - good musing, no we don’t need labels to prove we are human and value, at least we don’t IMO.
These discussions on trans are beginning to remind me of discussions in some 70’s women’s groups. One debate that caused rows/polarised discussions was about the age at which ‘boy children’ should be excluded from women’s meetings. Tortuous, divisive and frankly unpleasant.

All people are real people!

Do we really need labels to prove we are all human and valid? Or do some people just feel better to label others? I am musing again for the record.

And no I have no more evidence for that then you have for what you said.

trisher

So how many of you gender critical feminists agree that women are to blame for boys wanting to change gender?
And are fathers to bame for girls?

???? produce the evidence that GCF have said that.
Far more likely to be those who aren’t GCF who would suggest that, like you perhaps in this post trisher.

So all that had to be said was "No." to that as well, Gagajo.

"Should we work on the basis that the lack of an answer indicates agreement?" That is an incredibly reductive statement.

What if there is no Dad on the scene, so he wants to be a lady like Mum?

1) That is an incredibly reductive statement.

2) Anyone that has ever worked with children would be able to tell you that in the average child, that isn't how it works.

Based on my many years as a teacher and now as a granny to a DGS without a dad around, the opposite happens. Children without a role model of a specific gender actively seek out or enjoy time with people of the gender of the missing parent.

In my teaching, that has meant that boys without dads have loved having male teachers. In my GS, it means him almost idolising his GF and also a male friend of mine.

All you have to say is "No" It isn't too hard. Should we work on the basis that the lack of an answer indicates agreement? I can't decide.

Since no-one has claimed either of those things, it is just stirring up confrontation to try to get posters to "agree to" them.