Not all concerns contain validity in them
Clarifying what I meant when I said I'm not here for safeguarding
I’ve said a couple of times on Twitter now that I’m not in this fight “for safeguarding.” I provided context both times, and although some people understood what I was trying to get at, others quote-tweeted me with red flag emojis. So I would like to get into it a little bit further.
What I DID NOT mean is that I don’t care about preventing harm from coming to women, children, or any vulnerable person. That is NOT what I was saying. I absolutely care about those things. I absolutely care about preventing harm.
What I DID mean is that I have no desire to label myself as a person who fights on behalf of “safeguarding” (or on behalf of “women” or on behalf of “children”). The reason I say that is because defining myself in this way will always invite people who think I’m not good enough. For example, if I say I’m a feminist, there will always be people who approach me and say, “If you ______, you aren’t a real feminist.” And, honestly, that’s a fight I’m not interested in.
Before I get into this, I want to be clear that I am also NOT saying that no one can raise safeguarding concerns. I am saying there is a difference between following due process and taking your concerns to the public.
As I said on Twitter, posting a Tweet about someone, writing an article, or making a video are not seen as neutral acts by the person you are targeting. Taking a concern or an accusation public instead of addressing it with the person privately is an act of aggression. It stokes public outrage and creates the possibility of a mob.
Ideological battles tend to involve a lot of arguments about how “harm” is defined and who is being “harmed.” What is “consent”? Who is capable of consenting? Does adult content in a book “harm” a child if they are exposed to it too early? Is what a certain person says “harmful” if someone takes it to heart and acts upon it? Where are the lines drawn?
And it has become obvious to me that if I don’t draw the lines in a specific place (i.e., if I don’t meet a certain standard of moral purity), the people who do will then come after me claiming that I represent a “safeguarding concern.”
As one example, there has recently emerged the claim that if one continues to publicly associate with gender critical transsexuals, one might be a “safeguarding concern.” Because it doesn’t matter what that transsexual says — the very act of existing as an “out” transsexual is seen as “promoting” an unhealthy lifestyle, and platforming those individuals would (apparently) lead to others to be influenced by it.
What about the nuance, though? For example, having transsexuals who openly condemn the mainstream trans rights movement is — I think — important. In an environment where identity politics run the show, it is helpful to have people with a certain identity who are speaking up.
Another point I would make is that “detransition” isn’t accessible for every single person. It is difficult for someone who has lived in a role for decades and had irreversible surgery to announce to all of their friends and family that they are taking on another role. (And for people who are concerned about how it may confuse children when an adult transitions, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of thought around how children might react to someone detransitioning when they have known that person their whole life.)
If I look at this claim — that platforming, associating with, or publicly being friends with trans people is a “safeguarding concern” — and I ultimately have a fundamental disagreement with that concern, there are certain people who then will take my disagreement, conclude that I’m “not listening” to “safeguarding concerns” (when, in reality, I simply disagree with them), and then raise “red flags” about me.
And, then, if I talk about how “warning” people about me or my behaviour is a personal attack, is smearing my reputation, or is bullying, etc., those people will then say things like: “disagreement is not bullying,” “you’re trying to prevent us from voicing our concerns,” “you think you’re above criticism,” “defensiveness inhibits good safeguarding,” etc.
In other words, if someone raises “safeguarding concerns” about you, and you think those concerns are unfounded, there are no means by which you can disagree with them. They will take your disagreement as further proof that they were right. Sometimes that means they will move on to outright accusing you of being a predator.
If you refuse to engage with these people — in other words, if you choose to create boundaries for yourself from people who refuse to discuss their concerns in good faith — they will then accuse you of being part of a “sacred caste” who believes they cannot be criticized.
The reality, of course, is these “safeguarders” have already decided that they are the ones who have judged the situation correctly, and it is them who believe they cannot be wrong. They are under the impression that any and every concern that they bring up, no matter how farfetched, must be addressed, corrected, apologized for, whatever the case may be.
This is how people eventually become victims of vexatious complaints. The complainants generally believe they are “protecting” people from harm. You can see the exact same thing in the social justice movement.
When I think about how to handle harm, accusations of harm, and the potential of someone to cause harm, I think about how the justice system should work (in an ideal manner). Going through the established system, where both sides can present their arguments and have them looked at in an impartial manner, creates fairness. Vigilante justice ultimately harms the people who are the most vulnerable.
Presenting your argument to the public automatically puts pressure on the other side to present their own case. It creates defensiveness by design. To then use that defensiveness as “proof” that the person is guilty (or that they don’t care about “safeguarding”) is absurd. You are creating a system in which people can essentially do whatever they please by declaring they are doing it in the name of safeguarding.
And that’s what I’m not here for.
I’m here for empirical truth backed by hard facts, not subjective claims about what does or does not cause harm.
I am not against raising concerns. I am for raising them in a manner that creates fairness for everyone involved.