School trip policies on overnight accommodation for trans children

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

FFS. The whole bloody point is that safeguarding is NOT nuanced. It is binary. The rules are clear. The rules are applied to ALL EQUALLY. There is no judgement. There is no personal exception.

We DBS check ALL teachers, not all except Mr Jones because we have dinner with him and his wife regularly.

If males can sleep in with the girls then why not any males ? If not all males, then why not ?

Along with an inability to equally view other people as equally human and with equal right to consideration and care - there seems to be an inability to see the whole picture, to have an entire framework and system as opposed to 'everyone do what that person wants right now'.

No. Responsible adulting is a basic requirement here.

Safeguarding can be personal, of course it can be.

No. It is NOT a personal affront to expect safeguarding measures to be equally applied.

No sacred groups with special exemptions and that is not a personal insult.

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.

As pp’s have already posted. Why then are 14 year olds not in mixed sex rooms all the time then.

What a ridiculous take.

Kids are going to have sex anyway, why bother putting any measures in place to prevent it?

Let’s not forget that you are stating that those ‘good’ friends are being emotionally manipulated into having a male there when they are dressing as well as sleeping. So completely vulnerable and deserving of privacy.

And yes, if they wouldn’t want a ‘boy’ in their room, they shouldn’t be educated and manipulated to believe that a male miraculously becomes a female when they identify as a girl.

That is what you are advocating.

The very foundation of safeguarding is that it isn't nuanced. The rules and foundations are agreed and applied equally and consistently to all people no matter who they are.

What you're describing about SW decisions isn't safeguarding @suggestionsplease1

As far as this case by case idea, if that were a reasonable idea, it would also be reasonable for boys and girls sharing rooms in general.

We don't do that - why not?

Part of the issue is that there needs to be an institutional policy. Individual families outside of schools or other group activities do have more room to make decisions on a case by case basis. That isn't going to work here, though.

Fine words suggestionsplease1
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
What you have failed to notice is that the school have done none of this They have not even attempted to apply any "rich information" let alone risk analysis to this. What they have done is handed over the adult responsibility for safeguarding children to ... children. As the OP has pointed out, although her lovely daughter is compassionate and happy to share with this boy identifying as a girl, it sets up any girl who is not happy to do so in an impossible position. Unable to establish her personal boundaries on the basis of her religion, personal preference, previous abuse, mental health or for any other reason
We separate the sexes for all sorts of good reasons and this lazy school have completely abdicated their legal and ethical responsibilities. It's professionally dangerous and deeply unfair to all children

Hmmm.

I wonder if DBS checks should be done on a case by case basis- after all, I’m nice so I don’t need one. But Mr Oddball, the PE teacher, well, he probably should. He told a very blue joke once.

For a poster on these boards not to be able to distinguish between when the word 'sex' is used to refer to the body type rather than the act, is unusual. The paragraphs preceding that made it clear what I was referencing.
@suggestionsplease1 shall I make myself more plain? Whether two people are of the same sex, or of opposite sexes is the deciding factor in whether any sexual activity between them will result in the life-changing consequence of a pregnancy. An exceptional case of female-on-female violence - however shocking it may be in its own right - does not disprove the rule that only activity between a male and a female (consensual or otherwise) could result in pregnancy. Nor does it change the statistical fact that the overwhelming majority of sexual violence is committed by males, mostly against females.

Absolute bollocks.

The rules are clear. There is no mixed sex sleeping arrangements. Trans children have not changed sex.

There is no nuance, no cars, no obfustication. Just duty of care. All the burbling and word salad in the world does not change that this has the potential to go horribly wrong, and leave a lot of people in a lot of trouble. Which is a safeguarding fail.

And I see we're back to 'well they're going to abuse each other anyway so why worry, let them get on with it'. It's not convincing, and no insurance company in the world goes with that ridiculous policy.

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.

Sorry Hellebore that was not to you but the poster you quoted. This utter contempt for female children is angering to the point I didn't check.

This is why people wholly sucked into this political lobby should not be advising anyone on safeguarding. There is an utter incapacity to equally value other humans or to see their interests as relevant, they are mere props to meet the needs of more important people. Safeguarding and equality requires the capacity to see all people as equally important and to find solutions and accessibility for all of them.

Many teenage boys are absolutely lovely. I know lots. Nevertheless, on average one girl is raped in UK schools each day.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feminism/4277947-12yo-girl-commits-suicide-after-being-raped-by-a-boy-at-her-school

But what about the safety of the male child? If you think this child is no risk to the girls, 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 always surprised that no-one wishes to safeguard teenage male 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.

It is absolutely possible to be a good friend to a person, to be kind and supportive, to meet all the needs in fact of a trans child without requiring girls to validate them by removing their boundaries and regardless of their best interests. You are suggesting here that it is unkind for teenaged girls to not validate this male child with their bodies and that is what this is . Their physical presence, in a state of undress, in a state of vulnerability, regardless of usual boundaries, to make a male person happy.

Teaching female children that saying no to male people, having boundaries, or feeling able to say no when their privacy, their dignity and their safety, is unkind and not being a good friend is absolutely not ok. Trans children are not walking victims, they are not the responsibility of female children, the trans child has an equal duty to be a good friend to girls, and that involves respect for their boundaries and their needs too. It is not always and only about trans children. Females are not a subordinate kind of human to them.

For a poster on these boards not to be able to distinguish between when the word 'sex' is used to refer to the body type rather than the act, is unusual. The paragraphs preceding that made it clear what I was referencing.

You really ought to be aware the sex of the body is totally relevant in this instance. As I’m sure Ddraig was stating.

Don't expect the LEA to have risk assessed the toolkit they're promoting, I found out my local LEA puts this responsibility on schoolsb even though the schools might not realise.

Lots of good advice on this thread. Best of luck op. And shame on the few here who have tried to gaslight and emotionally manipulate you into putting a male child's desires above your daughter's safety, privacy and dignity.

Sorry - just saw the 'policy'. Which is not a policy. Case by case is the opposite of a policy, and entirely inappropriate in safeguarding.

Your dd may be entirely correct in this case, just like plenty of non trans-identifying males could share with the girls and be no threat whatsoever to them. But it wouldn't be allowed, because the policy is there to prohibit it, which means no one is accusing specific boys of being a threat.

Girls who are abused or assaulted are very often friends with the abuser/attacker. It's usually someone they know, like and trust. (Same for women.)

The school must have a policy on this. Ask to read it. They can't just run with, it's fine in this case because the children are friends.

Fgs you can be good friends with someone and not share a room with them to prove a point.

A male child should be in with other male children. Teachers and students should not be made to be responsible for keeping up the charade because the parents won't tell them the truth.

I'm glad the OP's daughter is trying to be a good friend to this person

Enough with the emotional manipulation here. Safeguarding is not personal and anyone who encourages any female to lower their boundaries in this way (ie sharing a room with a male under the guise of changing sex) is not a good friend.

Yes! Down with boundaries for girls!! Support humans are us - centre boys feels at all times
Ffs

I'm glad the OP's daughter is trying to be a good friend to this person, goodness knows it is needed considering the isolation and shame so many young trans people endure and is reinforced on a day-to-day basis when they are viewed with suspicion and contempt.