School trip policies on overnight accommodation for trans children

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.

Just out of interest, how would it not be "disgusting and probably count as illegal discrimination to restrict a 'cis' child's interaction with children of the opposite sex on the grounds that all 'cis' are a higher risk than 'trans' people of the same sex."?

Don't pretend like you're not advocating discrimination here. Both of us are.

I'm advocating discrimination based on sex. I can justify that.

How are you justifying discrimination between males on the basis of trans status/gender identity/however you want to look at it?

Very curious

anothersmahedmug

It is a well known extreme trans activist tactic.

I say extreme because we know there are many trans people who support robust safeguarding measures and would agree that this male should not be in accommodation with the females.

And I note here, that not all trans activists are trans people at all.

Or we could just use the sex noted on the birth certificate and have that as part of the identity checks when the child joins the school

Birth certificates need to be submitted as part of school and early years nursery applications here.

Since children are unable to have their sex changed to the fictitious sex as adults (ridiculously) can, the child's birth certificate will record the correct sex. So the school will know the child's sex, even if Johnny is now Jenny and wear a ponytail.

(And let's be honest, at 14 years old sex differentiation is going to be evident in many ways all over the body, it's hardly like we'd need to see a child's penis or vulva to know )

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.

Where has anyone advocated for this?

What I find worrying is that safeguarding is being framed as ‘anti-trans’!

And it is a classic trans activist tactic to twist this to being a focus on ‘genitals’ in this way. But since you go there:

YES! It IS about genitals. Particular genitals coming together is part of what safeguarding is there to prevent. Particularly in children.

Isn’t it strange how trans activists want discussions about genitals to be considered an invasion of privacy even when discussing this safeguarding issue for children. (A bit of Queer Theory coming to the fore there?)

Strange how trans activists want to be able to deny the material reality of what those genitals mean in a safeguarding situation.

But crack on with your attempts to paint yourself on the ‘right side of history’ in the fight for righteousness.

Wouldn’t it be grand though if we could just say ‘that person is a male, and males are subject to x safeguarding measures’, without having to mention genitals to describe which girl is the one that should be in single sex space?

I'll give you that one

misinformation spreading since very few people RTFT

Its not an assumption, its propaganda.

I think there is an assumption that we would need to strip search everyone to determine sex

Or we could just use the sex noted on the birth certificate and have that as part of the identity checks when the child joins the school

Once children are older , their gender none conforming looks do not disguise sex . So tempted to write soz at the end of that line.

( except to grandma and her friends - I often wonder if people lose the ability to sex people once they pass reproductive years ? Or is it years of conditioning ?)

Just like it doesn't matter what age a child "appears", we still categorise them based on their objective, factual age.

We don't say "oh, this 12 year old girl is very mature for her age and looks like she's 18, so there's no issue with her having a relationship with a 20 year old man". We separate all 12 year olds, the tall ones, the babyish ones, the smart ones, the naive ones, the streetwise ones (etc) from all the other age categories, where age is an appropriate category (eg sports, exams, youth groups, clubs and societies, etc).

Same applies with sex.

No one on this thread has said this.

Indeed, you'll note we restrict all adults interactions of children of either sex, as this is far easier and less intrusive, and covers the same risk area.

to the point of advocating strip searches for young people who appear to be gender non-conforming

No one on this thread has suggested this.

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

No one on this thread has said this.

‘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'

Starts with being a grown up and realising that even sometimes the best intentions lead to situations that children should not have to deal with.

It also starts with knowing that a 14 year old has little concept, or I hope so, of what can go wrong and the long term ramifications to their mental health and physical health if something does go wrong.

Now, imagine the damage by knowing that they were in a situation that harmed because a) they chose it and b) the parents and teachers were focused on being kind to one child while neglecting the care of others.

And yet, we have adults here who have more childish outlooks than 14 year olds because they should be the ones who know better.

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.

@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'

I'd say getting pregnant when they're not physically or mentally mature enough to deal with the ramifications of that counts as an "impairment of their health and development", so sex segregated sleeping accommodation does count as a safeguarding measure.

The reason that women and girls are usually sexually assaulted by men and boys that they know well is because it's men and boys they know well that are the ones with almost all the opportunity.

Because of safeguarding.

This is why, when single-sex spaces become mixed-sex spaces, women and girls get sexually assaulted a lot more, because more men and boys have the opportunity to prey on women/girls in a state of vulnerability, like being undressed, or being asleep.

Why are we giving males more opportunity, when we know that there are so many males who will capitalise on that?

And it's not just rape and pregnancy - that's the extreme (though not actually rare) end of the spectrum: it's the other things along the sexual continuum, from minor sexual comments or just being subjected to the male gaze while getting changed or in your pyjama vest - that in itself is what we need to be doing our best to safeguard girls from.

It's like all the adults left the building. It's a hard no and it doesn't matter if that makes you the bad guy. What are we paying these teachers for?

My 15 year old told me last week that they really didn’t like some of the decisions they made last year.

And they have the emotional maturity to look back and admit it.

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.

Deeply worrying how some people only want the girls to #bekind and not the boys.

I am quite astounded that there are posters on this thread who believe that the 14 year old is to be praised because they are ‘nice’ and ‘thoughtful’. And so much so than the parent wanting to make sure their child has privacy, dignity and safety and is vilified for wrong think.

If you fully believe your 14 year old is fully capable of carefully considering every scenario that can go wrong in that situation and making the wisest decision then your 14 year old must defy all science which is clear that children may understand many issues, but hopefully will not have the experience to consider all the issues. That is why they are children and not adults.

That is why adults take responsibility for safeguarding.

And those parents saying ‘they will have sex anyway’. And no, I am not saying this is the OPs situation all, but other posters have mentioned it.

What if they feel pressure to have sex and allowing them to share a room means they feel they a) cannot say no to sharing the room if they change their mind and b) cannot then say no to sex.

What happens if the sex turns into something non-consensual? Your 14 year old child is in a situation where they cannot leave! They also feel like they have ‘chosen’ to share that room, what part does that play.

Just astounding putting the responsibility on the 14 year olds like that. Even 16 year olds need to have some where to go if they need to and choose to.

Personally, I cannot say what I think of that type of thinking. I think I would be deleted.

It’s also not about this one child.

It’s about a policy that has to work for everybody.

You can’t make an exception for a nice kid or a kid who the others have known forever or a sad, lonely kid or a kid who’s parents will make the biggest stink or the child of some big cheese in the local community or any other reason. You keep rooms single sex full stop.

The child in question isn’t being barred from going on the residential, they’re not being forced into an unsafe situation- the option of a single room for them is there. It’s NOT a human rights issue to sleep in a bedroom with girls.

And no one has been able to explain how a 14 year old (who is, what? Socially transitioned only? No surgery due to age. No alterations to their physical body) is any different from the other boys. Who all will have the same male anatomy. The same anatomy as this child. Or any other transgirl.

Surely, given that the majority of transphobic assaults come from men, shouldn’t schools (as part of inclusivity education) be teaching boys it’s ok to accept males who present as females? If we want a generation of men who don’t fear and persecute trans people shouldn’t that start with the boys?