School trip policies on overnight accommodation for trans children

Oh food

Its so bloody dangerous isn't it.

Sex education was supposed to keep children safe. Give them the words they need to he able to describe things if God forbid anything happened to them. And to give girls especially the opportunity to learn how to deal with periods and birth control so they cab stay In education , not be left dependant on some man. Which is what happened before and still happens in.parts of the world when wonen have no idea or no say about their bodies.

The samaritans was set up because a young teen took her own life after starting her periods and having no idea what was happening to her and was scared.

We have regressed back to these times with all the talk of people with periods amd people with periods, and self declaration trumping biological sex.and teaching u can change sex by saying a few words.

This will not end well. It only works because people like us tell the children the biological reality.

When we die and this generation have to explain to their children , they r truly fucked.

I’m so sorry @foodfiend I’d be furious too.

I'm a bit bothered that A's parents aren't stepping in and doing the right thing-telling A that because of male genetics, it's not possible for A to spend the night with any underage females at the age of 14 in any school adjacent overnight.

This is really on them and the school and I'd be peeved with them. You have been out in a really unfair situation.

no matter what I say, she can't get away from the idea that I'm making a judgement about her friend. Which is exactly why I'm so furious about this - none of this should be being decided as a referendum on some individual child. I wouldn't allow her to share a room with a lovely boy either.
I'm a mom to tween and teen girls. She will get over this eventually as long as you calmly and firmly stick to the right thing to do. Your DD is young teen and lots of changes are still on the horizon. This is just today's problem. Hold fast and use the above argument over and over. Teens really need boundaries and this is a pretty standard teen boundary!

So sorry to hear this foodfiend These children are just collateral to adult groups with their determination to force changes on schools to the detriment of girls.
Have you been able to arrange a meeting to see the Head about this? The fact that the school have handed managing this issue over to children is unforgivable and they need to step up properly. I do think the Head (who may be less captured than other staff as they hopefully are more away of legal liabilities and other complications) needs to be challenged about why safeguarding is being outsourced to children and the consequences of setting a precedent in handing over group management to students.

So sorry you're being put in this position @foodfiend, the school are seriously letting you, your DD and the rest of the students down.

I am sorry, I overstepped the mark. I do apologise.

Incidentally was all safeguarding always moral panic in the first place?

Or is it only moral panic when people say no, we're not removing it because it won't work for these reasons?

Safeguarding really cannot be dismissed as moral panic. We are not going to live in a society where everyone lets trans people do whatever they choose, everyone else enables this at their own expense, everyone hopes for the best, and when people get hurt then so as long as they're not trans people we all shrug and go oh well. It's worth it if trans people are happy.

Really, adherents of this political position have to abandon reality in many ways in order to support it. It would be lovely if we could just live in a world where safeguarding wasn't needed, but we don't. Reality goes on existing. And adulting involves facing it.

You're the one who is insisting that trans people are inherently more dangerous and sexually predatory than cis people.

Correction
MALES are inherently more dangerous and sexually predatory than FEMALES.

This is a FACT.

Wreath confusing “centering women & girls” with being “anti trans” so no surprises there then

But then you’re anti women are you not? I mean women of the biological kind.

invariably falls back on absolute worst-case scenarios that hardly ever happen

Yes! You got there. That is the basis of safeguarding. Understanding how the 'worst-case' scenarios can happen and putting in measures to minimise it happening.

Woohoo! Why don't you think that this is a good thing?

And I am still waiting for those statistics and studies, otherwise, all we have is your weak assurances based on you knowing some trans people. And many of us know some trans people, meaning that you don't have any special insight at all. Just prejudice against people who recognise safeguarding needing to be equally applied with NO special sub group exemptions.

(and when they do are usually due to something other than the existence of a trans person).

And I repeat what another poster asked. You talk about 'gibberish'. What the fuck does this mean?

I base my position on having known quite a lot of trans people throughout my adult life rather than gibbering moral panic and the endless propagation of often-spurious stories. But it is as difficult to argue with anti-trans people as it is to argue with anti-abortion people: the position is entrenched, based on bad faith (or at least misinformation that sounds good) and invariably falls back on absolute worst-case scenarios that hardly ever happen (and when they do are usually due to something other than the existence of a trans person).

/////

Wreath are you saying what happened at that school is "gibbering moral panic and the endless propagation of often-spurious stories"? Are those girls not important? Are they less important that trans people? And for the love of Mary, Joseph and the wee baby Jesus, can you, for once be specific about where this thread is anti trans? Otherwise posters will interpret your refusal to empathise and show compassion for female victims as anti women. Which I'm sure you are not.

And yes, as previous posters have reminded, safeguarding is about preventing worse case scenario. Literally just that.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I think he means that transwomen can be exempted from normal male safeguarding rules because there aren't very many of them, so most bad things that happen aren't down to them.

I guess you could say the same about, I don't know, Mazda RX-8 owners?

And more hyperbole. More ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you.

But since you are so heavily invested, please give us the statistics and studies that show that any transitioned male changes their prevalence for committing sex crimes.

We shall wait.

Because unlike you, I prefer to look at original resources to shape the safeguarding standards to apply to all ages.

(and when they do are usually due to something other than the existence of a trans person)

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I don't think anyone who uses this board is anti trans.

Most posters just want spaces which were established as women only to remain so.

Not going to answer the question then Wreath21, well what a surprise.

I've known a hell of a lot of men throughout my adult life, is it gibbering moral panic to say that they be kept out of female single sex spaces?

invariably falls back on absolute worst-case scenarios that hardly ever happen

Exactly, hardly ever happens because we have safeguarding policies in place to protect both sexes by keeping them separate in certain circumstances. And then it still happens. But you seem to think because you know some nice trans people, these policies can be removed. Not taking into account trans people are just like everyone else, good and bad in equal measures.

Reality is not animal farm: all people are equal but trans people are more equal than others.

But it is as difficult to argue with anti-trans people

That's called begging the question - you're assuming a priori that we're "anti trans" and inferring that thus we must be arguing in bad faith.

How's about you read what we're writing and respond to that?

Like we're doing to you.

Might be worth a try?

(And I suspect you'll find many opposed to abortion are doing so for perfectly straightforward reasons, but disagree with us on how to balance the competing rights of the mother versus the foetus. If you start by assuming they're arguing in bad faith, no wonder you have trouble with them too).

Since you bring it up trans friends, one of the things I remember discussing with my friends once, years and years back, is their wishes for a private room on school trips. None had wanted to be with the children of their own biological sex, but also, none had wanted their peers of the sex that they wished to live as to see their bodies, either! They did not want their friends at school to see how their bodies differed. This was especially the case for transboys (female children who identify as boys) as the threat of corrective rape is always a risk for transmen.

What about the safety of the male child? If you think this child is no risk to the girls, as you previously said, what about this child?

When performing intimate examinations on female patients, male healthcare staff ask for a chaperone for their own protection, as well as the female patient's comfort, in case of a genuine misunderstanding leading to an official complaint, or a female patient making a malicious allegation later.

I am surprised that no-one wishes to safeguard teenage children against such eventualities. If either is a risk for healthcare staff from adult patients who have deliberately sought medical treatment, surely each is a much higher risk in the tempestuous social environment of a secondary school? When a male child is expected to sleep in the same room where various girls are getting prepared for bed?

Male children who feel unable to share with other boys should be given private space of their own for changing and sleeping, as a matter of routine. Not just shunted into the girls' spaces.

You were concerned about "genital strip searches" before. I am suggesting a solution that means no-one will see (or be seen by) this child unclothed.

But safeguarding is worse case scenario. Amd applies to everyone.

You seem to think.it shouldn't apply to trans people even though ots fir their benefit too. A transboy fir instance qouod ge at risk placed in with boys.

You not only think they aren't capable of following the same safguarding rules as everyone else. Yiu also think they aren't entitled ti the same level of safeguarding amd protection as everyone else

That's transphobic

I base my position on having known quite a lot of trans people throughout my adult life rather than gibbering moral panic and the endless propagation of often-spurious stories. But it is as difficult to argue with anti-trans people as it is to argue with anti-abortion people: the position is entrenched, based on bad faith (or at least misinformation that sounds good) and invariably falls back on absolute worst-case scenarios that hardly ever happen (and when they do are usually due to something other than the existence of a trans person).