School trip policies on overnight accommodation for trans children

I mean, a poster who might sock puppet to make OP think that more people believe they are a 'bad guy' would not be in the spirit would it?

Particularly if no questions relating to how this policy would work in real life were being answered by a poster who had positioned themselves as declaring that not one girl has been harmed in the roll out of the same policy 'at their school' with out clarifying why that poster has that information.

And then another poster accuses OP for 'buggering off'.

So, I am sure that this is not happening Mr Blobby.

Of course, MN frowns on sock puppeting so I am sure that we are not seeing anything like that here.

The only poster that I remember talking about 'bad guy' was in fact, ships.

Ahh. Has there been a name change I wonder 🤔

Cold hard facts about safeguarding is not bleating. The only bleating I can hear is from the sheep who follow the gender religion, with no critical thought or care whatsoever to how their demands would work in real life.

And speaking of ... buggered off ....

Strange that, isn't it.

OP certainly did use that term.

The bad guy is someone that seeks to smash up safeguards at the expense of women and girls.

random speculation and disaster planning for things that aren’t going to happen = the political lobby's view of safeguarding all children when it gets in the way of the wishes of a male person who identifies as TQ+

shrug, whatever, it doesn't matter, more fool you for caring/the TQ+ person is ok = the political lobby's view after a female person has been harmed by interesting TQ+ male centric high risk experiments.

Female people have to care about this stuff for female people and children because frankly at this point, no one else does. Common sense, conscience, accountability, responsible adults, duty of care, integrity, equality, all of that seems to be written in all the policies but they have become what Pratchett used to refer to as 'write only documents'.

Her position was merely that safguarding was upheld. Not removed on the say so or unverifiable.identities of children

At least OP can feel vindicated given the support for her position on here, might make feeling like the ‘bad guy’ a little more palatable even if she has buggered off.

Why would you decide differently. What do you see as the difference between a teenage boy and a transgirl

No grc
No drugs
No.surgery as children

So you merely have a dress and a sentence to go on.

I'm honest. Do you believe me? Good then ill take.yoir bank.card and PIN then please. Will u give it to me?

Why would your protect your money more than your dd?

If it should simply be a matter of parental veto, this would mean treating some children inequitably, because they came from a household where their parents were unengaged, or neglectful or unaware of the difference between a girl, transgirl, boy and transboy. Which in turn would disproportionately affect children from households where a parent had a learning disability or poor literacy in English.

This is discrimination, and it reminds me very much of the attitude in earlier decades that some women ( upper class ones) had to be treated with respect, and that men could "take liberties" with the young women whose parents were working class and could do nothing about it.

It is the language that is being used that is particularly telling.

Like

random speculation and disaster planning for things that aren’t going to happen

Shows just how you regard safeguarding and anyone who believes that safeguarding should have no exceptions and no exemptions for any special groups.

To be clear, I read this as you believe that anyone using appropriate safeguards are indulging in random speculation and disaster planning for things that aren’t going to happen

Please clarify if this was not what you have meant.

You ask when have you demonised parents.

I have just posted most recent posts using language that is doing so.

bleating

Who is bleating on here?

You are implying that parents who disagree with you see it as the road to hell.

Others see it as the first step in the road to hell.

And that is just one.

I could point to another poster who also posted quite surprisingly similar posts with similar language and the terms that they used too.

I’m more than happy being the ‘bad guy’ to my kids when I feel it’s needed, and. I parent should be on here bleating about being made to feel like the ‘bad guy’ when they feel they’re doing the right thing for their child. Our kids flippin hate on sometimes, but that’s parenting.

‘ But, do keep on demonising parents, teachers and safeguarding leads ’

Er, what now?? Point me to any comment I’ve me made that demonises anyone? Pretty sure I’ve said that the parents have power of veto, which they’ve rightly used as they weren’t happen with the suggested plans. That schools should judge case by case. And I’m not sure I mentioned ‘safeguarding leads’ at all.
Like I said, I have a difference of opinion to some in here as I think the school going case by case is sensible. But OP isn’t happy, fair enough, so in this case her DD won’t be sharing with the trans friend. Absolutely their right to say so. Not what I would have decided in the same circs but not my decision.

I must thank Cry for taking up the TRA baton of posting vacuous nonsense and ignoring questions, in order to instruct lurkers on what this ludicrous ideology is really based on - a big fat nothing.

Arghh my phone and it's autocorrect! Trans not transfer

'Case by case' was supposed to refer to different situations, not individuals. I'm inclined to think that if a service is single sex now its most probably legal. It would have been challenged before now if it wasn't.

Case by case would open the school up to endless discrimination claims. Why is that child allowed to share a room when child B isn’t? Teachers will know certain kids and their history/background. How will teachers impose safeguarding without disclosing confidential information about a child. Safeguarding cannot be done on case by case - it has to apply to all. Otherwise personal preferences will come into play. I like that child but not that child.

Well regardless of what name the poster posts under, they seem to have admitted that they will definitely not be even reading the questions. So entrenched in their belief that nothing at all can go wrong here.

I would still like to know if they have anything to do with the 'school' they said has adopted this policy as I now cannot believe they are a teacher with any responsibility in safeguarding.

And it is very apparent that they should never have anything to do with safeguarding as they are simple not prepared to answer the difficult questions about a real life situation.

Here they are again.

Readers can see the lack of thought that is coming from the posters who are supporting 14 year old males being accommodated with 14 year old females.

I can only put it down to lack of thought about the actualities of how this would work, because I don't want to think that those posters are aware of the harms and simply ignore them for the sake of being 'kind' and being 'tolerant'.

1. How has this male child has changed so that for safeguarding purposes they are no longer to be treated as male?

2 What studies and statistics are there to prove that these transitioned males are in anyway safer than other males?

3 How many female students are acceptable collateral damage in the name of this 'progress'? How many girls being harmed is acceptable collateral for this supposedly progressive approach? Please give us a number? 1, 2, 10, 25, 1000?

1. What does a 14 year old girl do in a situation where they get to the room and discover that they are actually NOT ok with the arrangement anymore, but because a group of teachers and parents have decided that it is 'kind' and 'nice' that they have agreed to share a space with a male, that 14 year old girl feels they cannot change their mind?

1. Where does a 14 year old girl go if the worst scenario does happen (and we hope that it doesn't ever happen) and they feel that they have to 'live' with their decision and stay in the same room as their abuser. Because, they agreed to this arrangement?

1. How does ships know that no girl has yet been harmed? How many girls live in a world where their abuse takes a while, sometimes years, to process? Or is ships relying on the new style of activist thought of ‘It doesn’t happen. If it did happen, it was just the once’ and not on the historical evidence that even males supposedly deemed ‘100% safe’ do commit sexual abuse? Including loving and caring ‘friends’ and teenagers.

1. Who exactly benefits from lowering the boundaries that protect all females, but particularly children? Who? The women and children involved? Or the person who wishes access to the spaces that the safeguards are there to protect? Or the people who wish to see those boundaries eroded for other reasons that are harmful for those with lowered boundaries?

What benefit is there to those two female students to believe that in every single instance, that male is now exactly the same as them? What benefit is there to those two female students to believe that the sex of the person never matters?

1. 'On a case by case scenario, how exactly does a safeguarding lead ascertain the sexual function of a 14 year old male without asking very private information that should not have to be asked or disclosed? How is this NOT transphobic to subject this male to this treatment when a blanket policy removes any of this requirement?'