One thread exposes how a small group raised a transphobic Twitter mob against the NSPCC

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) “cut ties” with trans activist Munroe Bergdorf on 8 June. Three days earlier, Bergdorf announced that the charity’s phone support service Childline had appointed her as its first LGBTQI+ campaigner. But a Twitter campaign led by a Times journalist resulted in Childline dropping Bergdorf. And one person explained exactly why the campaign was so effective.

Twitter mob

Times journalist Janice Turner publicly tweeted the NSPCC on 6 June, asking why Childline had hired a “porn model” as its ambassador. Turner suggested this choice would lead to “cancelled direct debits”. Although it was liked and retweeted only a few hundred times, it appeared to have its desired effect. The charity made its decision just two days after Turner’s tweet.

Bergdorf said she was “unbelievably sad” about the U-turn, and also pointed out that:

I have never shot porn in my life, secondly demonising those who do isn’t okay either.

She also pointed to Turner and transphobia as reasons for the charity’s move.

While the NSPCC hasn’t announced its reasons publicly, another trans activist explained how just a few people can have a big impact via social media.

“Laser focus”

Twitter user Helen explained that Twitter can amplify a message because “all ‘likes’ and ‘retweets’ are created equal”. The effect is to make a single tweet seem like “wave upon wave of negativity”. And when backed up by an apparently reputable source, the tweet may cause someone “like NSPCC CEO Peter Wanless” to “freak-out and scramble”:

For an individual like @NSPCC CEO @PeterWanless, they can literally receive over 1,000 notifications from one tweet!

It’s no wonder they freak-out and scramble to respond without considering WHO is behind such activity- especially when seemingly ‘endorsed’ by a Times journalist! pic.twitter.com/T27kxzR4NN

— Protect Trans Kids🏳️‍⚧️✊🏻💕 (@mimmymum) June 9, 2019

As a result, it took only a few individuals to have a big impact. Helen pinpointed the source of the claims about Bergdorf to a Twitter account called the Safe Schools Alliance. And its message was repeated by Turner:

The Safe Schools Alliance account was set up in May 2019. At the time of publishing it had just 11 tweets and a few hundred followers. Despite this, Helen explained, the group had a direct line to thousands of people through Turner:

Furthermore, Safe Schools Alliance appeared to have little interest in the NSPCC. In fact, its closest Twitter connections were with anti-trans groups such as Fair Play For Women and Women’s Place UK. In fact, Helen called Safe Schools Alliance a “subset” of the two groups, as well as a third group, Transgender Trend.

Helen estimated the trio brings together a few thousand “hard core” anti-trans activists with a wider circle ready to participate in online attacks:

However, combined with the reach of a high-profile person such as Turner, it created an attack with “laser focus“. And that could have made the target feel as though it was facing a “tsunami”:

And Helen says the result is a small “cabal of bigots” with the potential to make a major charity like the NSPCC drop one of its ambassadors.

Emboldening hate

It’s not the first time the Safe Schools Alliance has made news. In April, the group pressured two councils to withdraw a trans ‘toolkit’ from schools over alleged health concerns. With a second successful campaign again targeting trans issues, the group has a clear agenda. And it’s found an easy way of magnifying that agenda’s impact.

In the end, Bergdorf’s removal is about more than just who represents a charity. As London-based LGBTQI+ magazine QX explained, it emboldens anti-trans attitudes:

Twitter users see people like Turner taking part and assume that, because they’re prominent in media, it’s the correct view to have. They’re directly creating and encouraging hate and as a result of that, are putting people in direct physical harm.

That’s the real concern. Campaigns like the one led by Turner and the Safe Schools Alliance could end in injury or worse for trans people across the country. And knowing how they operate is one step towards making them powerless.

Featured image via YouTube – Channel 4 News

Comments 2

sophie100 says:

7 years ago

So they will lose support. Quite probably. On the other hand, I stopped supporting the NSPCC once I realised how ready they are to support popular bandwagons, and how little imagination they use in discriminating amongst the causes they promote. Nothing about this suprises me.

loreleicunt says:

7 years ago

This “one thread” was virtually illiterate. It took an unsupported supposition (that the NSPCC acted purely because of one letter on social media)

It then added to that a very basic pseudo – analysis of the followers of three feminist groups. It drew the conclusion that because the members of those groups didn’t follow either Mind or the NSPCC on twitter they didn’t care about children or mental health

To that it attached another assertion – that there is a worldwide conspiracy of 5 thousand women who hate trans people are who are manufacturing all dissent.

Now I know the Canary is known neither for its accuracy nor its journalistic ethics, but even given that, this propagandising is a real stretch. Have you actually read the thread you’re acclaiming?

Your “journalist” Glen Black, failed to identify the writer of the thread (who he referred to as “twitter user Helen”) as an employee of controversial charity Mermaids. He failed to interrogate the methodology or approach. 5

He failed to explore or even attempt to understand the criticisms of bergdorf – which centred on that individuals publicly available racist, lesbophobic and sexist public statements and their repeated encouragement for children to contact the individual privately.

He failed to examine what other factors might mean women who disagree with the new trans orthodoxy use social media differently

He failed to show any understanding of the material class analysis that clearly demonstrates women are oppressed not because of gender, but because of their biological sex. Because of that he clearly failed as a political writer to understand that denying women’s oppression on the basis of their biology (and therefore their right to organise against that oppression) is a neoliberal attack on working class women.

I have always been struck by the similarity of The Canary to the Daily Express -a rag that well known for its wholesale regurgitation of twitter threads. And so in a way I am sadly unsurprised by this atrocious piece of writing. But really, you should be heartily ashamed.