AIBU to question a pool asking my four-year-old daughter to cover up?

expecting fine - but insisting isn't.

Wearing a swim top would not in any way stop her from being a kid so your strong belief need not worry

I don’t think there is anything wrong with a 4 year old with no top on, you shouldn’t have been challenged on that.

However the choice of clothing being based on the difficulty of ‘wrestling’ a 4 year old out of other swimwear is off - a normal one piece swimsuit (for indoor swimming, no arms) is straightforward to get on and off, your 4 year old should be fully capable of that herself

YANBU.

Maybe next time just say she's a boy.

Yes I agree.

It just seems a bit off. I’ve never heard of all this faffing and wrestling in regards to a swimming costume.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a hijab for?

I think your points are fair op, a girl’s 4yr old body isn’t different to a boys one on the top half at that age, I think the staff member was unreasonable to pull you up on it.

On the other hand, like pps have said, I feel some discomfort at the idea that’s hard to put my finger on. Perhaps because by her age I was already giving little messages about our private parts being private, and for girls that is chest bum and genital area. Obviously there is nothing there now but my instinct is that it’s better for them to know from the start this is a more private area.

Oh for goodness sake! The OP didn't accuse anyone of being a peadophile! Expecting a four year old to wear a bikini top to cover her non-existent breasts is sexualising her. At four years old, sex really shouldn't matter one way or another. I'd definitely complain to Nuffield Health OP.

I don't think it's a problem to have your 4yo dd topless in the pool, mine occasionally was at that age, but to avoid funny comments I'd put her in boyish shorts next time. But your attitude to the staff member really sucked and I'm amazed you're even complaining to head office about what is basically a societal expectation.

Yanbu for the actual lack of top. Yabvu for your comment to the staff member.

I think you’re right and yet I can also see that it could cause a reaction. It’s a very grey area. If your child was a baby crawling around in a nappy no one would give a crap, but because she now looks conventionally more female she needs to cover her nipples.

My 10yo DS had very long hair until very recently. He wore his hair in a high bun, swim shorts and no rash vest for swimming lessons, and I heard a couple of parents say something about “the girl without a top on” (in context, like “Jenny is there, next to the girl without a top on”) Which just goes to show that pre-pubescent kids are totally gender-indistinguishable and it’s just mad old fashioned sexism that insists on young girls covering their top halves- so you do you I guess?

on the other hand, I wouldn’t have reacted in the way you did I don’t think….

YANBU OP. If it’s completely unremarkable for a 4yo boy to be topless then there’s zero reason except prudishness for a 4yo girl to feel obligated to wear a top. Their upper bodies at that stage of development are literally indistinguishable.

Why are you implying the woman insisted on a bikini top? It was one option. A one piece swimsuit or rash vest would not be sexualising her

Nope cannot see that under 2-8 year old swimwear

Can see these

Most people if their child is swimming outdoors will put a rash vest on them (both sexes) or even a long type swimsuit that’s more like a wetsuit but swimsuit material because of skin cancer.

swimming in a pool is obviously different (less risk of skin cancer for a start) but it’s normally just easier and cheaper to have one or two outfits.

i’m hoping you wouldn’t let her run around for extended periods in the sun with just pants/bikini bottoms on. A rash vest or sun cream is needed.

I understand that it is for protecting modesty, which includes but is not restricted to sexual modesty. In our culture we only care about sexual modesty, but other cultures have a broader view of modesty. Why are you asking?

Deja-vu. I’m sure I read this exact same post a month or 2 ago.

I feel like I’ve read this before? But anyway, how would they know she was a girl?

She was just expecting standard swimming pool clothing to be worn.

Well she was wearing ‘girls bikini bottoms’ which would be a give away

In the 1960s, it wasn't that unusual for children of both sexes just to wear (non-swimming) briefs at the beach if there had been a last-minute decision to go there.

Not just a Scottish phenomenon - a quick Google shows the same thing in sunscreen ads from the US.

Now that we know more about sun damage, I'd say that both boys and girls should certainly wear a rash vest when swimming outside.

I remember we all used to wear swimwear like this as girls in the 90s. There’s nothing to cover up it’s ridiculous. It’s so much more comfortable to swim without a top I don’t blame you for putting her just in the bottoms.

I think bikini tops look a bit daft on very small children. I'd say they were the 'fashion' rather than any kind of cover up. I think the woman was out of order with her attitude. Complain.

There was a similar post last month, I think.

Totally normal to have just the swimming bottoms at that age.

One piece is just an absolutely unneccessary wet fabric (especially when going to the toilet and having to put it back on afterwards).

And, technically, the one piece is "sexualising" small girls the same way as bikini top does - it is an extra fabric covering upper torso which boys don't have to bother with, but girls for some mysterious reasons are supposed to.