Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

School trip policies on overnight accommodation for trans children

740 replies

foodfiend · 24/01/2022 09:18

Short version:
School's policy appears to be something long the lines that trans girls can share with girls if the girls are OK with it. Dd (14) is proposing sharing a room with trans girl friend and another girl. We have said we're not happy about this. Dd says that's transphobic.

Long time lurker here - would welcome any relevant experience, especially from any secondary teachers. School trip is this spring, planned since Oct - they've now been asked to submit room share preferences - rooms of 3. Dd is friendly with a trans girl - (since before name change ~ 2 years ago). Dd says A told her that the teacher had told A that they could share with whoever they want 'as long as everyone was OK with it'. (I have now checked with the teacher, and this appears to be correct.) Dd and another girl have agreed to share with A.

DH and I both said, hang on, A is male. It is not appropriate for you to be sleeping in mixed sex bedrooms. Dd says A is not male and we are transphobic.

To be clear - the kid seems perfectly nice and I think this scenario would probably be fine. (No idea what the other girl or her parents think.) But a policy of 'yeah, sure, mixed sex sleeping arrangements are fine if everyone agrees to it' sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. And it's unclear whether I'd even know it was happening if I didn't happen to already know that A is trans.

I'm pissed off at being put in this position of having to be the one to point out that this is inappropriate and put a target on my head as 'hateful', or seeming to specifically reject A/A's identity. While Dd professes to be happy/keen on this, it's clear that it would be extremely difficult for a girl in a similar position to say that she wouldn't be happy to share - she'd be terrified of being accused of transphobia. And it seems pretty crummy for A as well to be asked to go round her friends and put them on the spot like this.

It seems like the school is relying on the kids to somehow work it out for them. And that no-one seems to have spotted the obvious risks of setting such a precedent. Will they be equally happy for a trans boy to go in with two boys next time around? Or other male and female students to choose to share mixed bedrooms?

Are any other parents and teachers able to share policies or approaches from their schools?

OP posts:
Helleofabore · 25/01/2022 12:22

I agree with TheInebriati.

All this discussion about mixed sex sleeping arrangements seems to be prefaced with

  • they are going to have sex anyway (Of the 14 year old's having sex, how many are being pressured into unwanted sex because they think they should be (and their parents are 'just fine' with it). How many of these 14 year olds are sexually active due to abuse)
  • this person is a girl now. Which is designed to obfuscate the reality.

Which is that 'this person is a male and will remain male until they die'.

Which means any abused girl is now in a position that they have to be in a room with a male which while might be fine at school, suddenly becomes NOT fine when they get to the venue and she realises that she cannot back out without losing friendships. Because this girl has just been praised and given the ultimate lesson that the male comes first and female must be kind, nice and welcoming.

Which means any girl who for whatever reason cannot be in that mixed sex room, is excluded. Maybe even from the event because of the sleeping arrangements being so open.

And please do note here too, I have not even hinted that the male in question has ever done anything to harm the girls.

Hardly inclusive. Hardly kind.

But, some posters are right on believing they are the righteous ones.

VestofAbsurdity · 25/01/2022 12:20

@NecessaryScene

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

No, you're insisting 'cis' people are inherently more dangerous and sexually predatory than 'trans' people. So 'trans' people should be exempt from rules that 'cis' people follow.

Or am I wrong - are you saying there should be general mixed-sex accommodation in schools?

I think that was suggestionplease1's line, so they at least weren't discriminating on grounds of gender/trans. But you seem to be.

Over to you Wreath21 be good to hear your answer to this backed up with evidence.
BettyFilous · 25/01/2022 12:19

@suggestionsplease1

Safeguarding is nuanced, not a binary proposition, and anyone who thinks it isn't needs to think again.

@Helleofabore Safeguarding can be personal, of course it can be. That's the core business of social workers and many other professionals up and down the country - they are trying to establish risk on an individual basis, not on the basis of a sex category.

The perspective and focus is misplaced here; to view the sex of a child as a bigger potential indicator of harm over and above all the other rich information that will be available - the individuals involved and their personalities, the quality of the friendship, the feelings of the teenagers, the knowledge of the adults - these are all more valuable in determining a good approach than the sex of the students.

Of course this can be done on a case by case basis, what do people think teachers do all day - they're not interacting with their students as category types M & F, they have rich individual knowledge, as do the parents.

To focus on the sex on a trip like this is like taking a road trip whilst focusing your risk analysis on whether you are going to drive in a Ford or a Renault, whilst discounting the safety record of the driver, the state of the car, whether people wear seatbelts or not, how well you know the other passengers, if you get on well with them or not, what terrain the car is going over etc. There are richer indicators of wellbeing and safety and an enjoyable trip all round, and the OP's daughter probably knows this.

Of course, if students are going to have sex they're going to have sex, all the room configurations in the world won't prevent that.

I’ve worked in a setting where frequent, detailed HSE assessments were required. You do not manage risks on this basis. You look to eliminate obvious, foreseeable risks. You look to mitigate risks that could arise with less experienced or careful practitioners by having sensible procedures and working protocols in place. Everyone works to the risk assessment and agreed protocols. You don’t vary it for Bob because he’s steady, meticulous and has worked in the lab for 30 years, because once you undermine protocols you send a message that they are negotiable and undermine their effectiveness. When they apply to all, there are no hard feelings - everyone is subject to them for sound reasons.

The same goes for safeguarding. If you set a boundary and put protocols in place to manage risks, they apply to everyone. Without exception. Without variation in the face of special pleading or hard cases. They are non-negotiable.

JustcameoutGC · 25/01/2022 12:19

I refuse to believe that anyone can be as hard of thinking as wreath and suggestions. Advocating for a 14 year old male to share sleeping quarters with girls is so clearly a total breech of safeguarding, so totally fucked up, I simply cannot believe this is a well intentioned but misguided stance. I said what i think your motives really are, i would get a ban, so i will stop there and let others draw their own conclusions.

Deliriumoftheendless · 25/01/2022 12:09

The posters here know that.

They understand the arguments.

They just don’t like them, so they lie and project weird fantasies.

Thelnebriati · 25/01/2022 12:09

No child should be put in the position where they have to say no to their peer group in this way.

The fact that people are advocating for mixed sex sleeping shows they don't believe any of the girls could already be victims of sexual abuse. Abused girls just aren't on their radar.
Neither are girls from conservative families, who won't be permitted to share mixed sex sleeping accomodation.

Helleofabore · 25/01/2022 12:07

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

And TWIST!

Please NAME AND SHAME THAT POSTER!

tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz · 25/01/2022 12:05

What people are saying is that trans people are no less risk than people who don't identify as trans. And thar identity doesn't trump biological sex.

/// Nail.On.Head.

anothersmahedmug · 25/01/2022 12:04

You I suppose if you somehow think that trans people have changed sex or have their sex incorrectly recorded then you could feel that a transgirl is being accused of being potentially more dangerous than a none trans girl

They are being accused of having the same potential for harm as other males

Which since one big concern is pregnancy, seems correct

Clymene · 25/01/2022 12:04

What people are saying is that trans people are no less risk than people who don't identify as trans. And thar identity doesn't trump biological sex.

As we saw in loudon county, when authorities include identity in safeguarding, it can have appalling consequences.

tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz · 25/01/2022 12:04

Opinion is shared, that should have read. V unfortunate typo Confused

DdraigGoch · 25/01/2022 12:03

@Wreath21

What I find worrying, in safeguarding terms, is the anti-trans lobby's obsession with the genitalia of children, to the point of advocating strip searches for young people who appear to be gender non-conforming. As a PP said, safeguarding does have to take into account individual circumstances - it would be regarded as disgusting and probably count as illegal discrimination to restrict a gay adult's interaction with children of the same sex/gender on the grounds that all gay people are a higher risk to children.
If one were to take account of individual circumstances, then you probably would end up restricting a gay man's interactions with boys, and barring bisexual staff from everything. But that would be stupid. Not least because you wouldn't really have more than their word for which sexuality they are: "it's OK, I'm gay so there's no risk in me going into the girls' showers...".

So therefore safeguarding is universal. No exceptions, no discrimination. Males (of any sexual orientation or "identity") do not mix with females (ditto). Staff (whether male or female) never end up 1-2-1 in a closed room with a pupil.

Are you 14? I sense a distinct lack of maturity in your posts.

tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz · 25/01/2022 12:01

@Wreath21

What I find worrying, in safeguarding terms, is the anti-trans lobby's obsession with the genitalia of children, to the point of advocating strip searches for young people who appear to be gender non-conforming. As a PP said, safeguarding does have to take into account individual circumstances - it would be regarded as disgusting and probably count as illegal discrimination to restrict a gay adult's interaction with children of the same sex/gender on the grounds that all gay people are a higher risk to children.
I've never seen a poster here advocate that. Ever. and if one did that doesn't mean their opinion is hated by all posters. Not a hive mind and all that.

Safeguarding has nothing to do with the sexuality of a supervising adult. Where on earth did you get that from? Do you have any comments on the incident at the school in Louden County? Is the safety of those girls worth throwing under the bus so a minority of children can have access to changing rooms based on how they "feel inside"? What would you opinions be on other girls who were uncomfortable with sharing with a biological male?

NecessaryScene · 25/01/2022 11:58

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

No, you're insisting 'cis' people are inherently more dangerous and sexually predatory than 'trans' people. So 'trans' people should be exempt from rules that 'cis' people follow.

Or am I wrong - are you saying there should be general mixed-sex accommodation in schools?

I think that was suggestionplease1's line, so they at least weren't discriminating on grounds of gender/trans. But you seem to be.

tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz · 25/01/2022 11:56

@Snoodsy

Sorry, Loudoun County not London County.
I'm glad you reminded posters of that story Snoodsy. I would love to know what those all for flying the BeKind flag think of what happened there and any comment on the safeguarding measures.
Whatwouldscullydo · 25/01/2022 11:56

Erm the other boys aren't allowed to bunk up with the girls either. Fir exactly the same reason.

NecessaryScene · 25/01/2022 11:56

Some posters really seem to have a view of 14 year olds that is not based on reality. In fact, just reading some of these posts, they seem to be coming out of an aspirational parenting guide written by someone who walked past a 14 year old once.

And was never a 14-year-old themselves, apparently. Hmm

Wreath21 · 25/01/2022 11:54

@Whatwouldscullydo

I'll.aak again wreath

Why are you being so transphobic in assuming trans people are unable to adhere to safguarding practices so need them removed. Why are your expectations of their behaviour so low

You're the one who is insisting that trans people are inherently more dangerous and sexually predatory than cis people.
anothersmahedmug · 25/01/2022 11:54

Or perhaps by someone who is 14. With all the simplistic narrow minded thinking that often entails

DdraigGoch · 25/01/2022 11:54

@Sexnotgender

Just astounding putting the responsibility on the 14 year olds like that.

Exactly. It’s a total abdication of responsibility.

Believing that a FOURTEEN year old will feel able to stand up and say, actually no I don’t feel comfortable sharing when there are swathes of grown women too scared to say anything that could remotely be construed as “transphobic” for fear of losing jobs, friends etc. is risible.

More pertinently, even headteachers are apparently too cowardly to stand up for child safety.
Helleofabore · 25/01/2022 11:53

the individuals involved and their personalities, the quality of the friendship, the feelings of the teenagers

Quality of the friendships. That is a great one.

I watched the fall out of 14 year olds spending a night camping together. All very close friends that were not speaking by the next morning.

And have never regained their closeness since.

Some posters really seem to have a view of 14 year olds that is not based on reality. In fact, just reading some of these posts, they seem to be coming out of an aspirational parenting guide written by someone who walked past a 14 year old once.

tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz · 25/01/2022 11:52

There is no implication from the OP that this is a spurious, bad faith gender ID for the sake of the trip.

////

OP has stated school have built policy around it. As parent to a DD I'd be fucking livid. Do her preferences not matter or again, should she just STFU and #BeKind?

tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz · 25/01/2022 11:51

@suggestionsplease1

OK, lets take the UK government definition of safeguarding:

‘The process of protecting children from abuse or neglect, preventing impairment of their health and development, and ensuring they are growing up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care that enables children to have optimum life chances and enter adulthood successfully'

This is a process, nowhere in that description does it entail a binary decision on binary sex. That is simply reductive to operate in that way, and leaves both females and males at risk of harm from their own sex.

So if, let's say you make a blanket judgement and just put female bodies in with female bodies, and male bodies in with male bodies with no other influencing factors (and of course, as already noted several times on this thread, people are most likely to be abused by people they are close to, so you must also logically ensure that all female bodies must go into rooms with other female bodies they don't know / are not friends with - they will be safer after all that way, right?

Does that make sense? That's some of the logic being expressed on this thread. Is that what you want for your daughters on their school trips? That's what the logic dictates.

Or they could go on their trips and stay in rooms with friends they feel confident, comfortable and happy around, consolidating secure friendships and support networks that might last for decades to come. That seems fairly consistent with the safeguarding definition above, doesn't it?

There is no implication from the OP that this is a spurious, bad faith gender ID for the sake of the trip.

FFS . Are you being deliberately disingenuous? Of course safeguarding isn't just based on sex segregation. But when analysing risk of peer on peer assault it's pretty fucking obvious what steps should be taken to minimise risk.
Whatwouldscullydo · 25/01/2022 11:48

I'll.aak again wreath

Why are you being so transphobic in assuming trans people are unable to adhere to safguarding practices so need them removed. Why are your expectations of their behaviour so low

tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz · 25/01/2022 11:45
  • the individuals involved and their personalities, the quality of the friendship, the feelings of the teenagers, the knowledge of the adults - these are all more valuable in determining a good approach than the sex of the students.

/////

Please enlighten us as to how the hell you even quantify these things?