NCS will put my child into a "self-identified gendered accommodation"

Chilling effect on girls.

"Never putting a young person at risk" in fact means "Never putting a young male born person with a trans identity at risk", or "never putting a young female born person at risk unless that means upsetting or saying no to a male born person with a trans identity in which case crack on with the risk or loudly insist it doesn't exist" because we all know this agenda has no fucks to give about a biological female unless they have identified themselves out of girlhood.

I would not now let any kid of mine go on overnights. No trust left. It's gone. No problem with kids identifying as trans - HUGE fucking great problems with adults supposedly trained in safeguarding identifying as managing risks.

@ChopinBoard I'm saving We shouldn't be asking teenagers to do their own safeguarding, that's the adults' job. in Mind Palace for future reference. 👍

@Unwantedgift I hope you and your family are ok.

And thank you.

There is absolutely no way at that age that I would have had the confidence to speak up against the presented norm.

We shouldn't be asking teenagers to do their own safeguarding, that's the adults' job.

By that age the girls have been fed #BeKind for years at school and online so will likely prioritise the boys. There's also the weight of conformity. What if no one else spoke up, would you?

I expect this org (like many) is full if people who haven't thought any of this through, but who have been stonewalled. This really pisses me off especially as it's publicly funded.

All that guff from Mark Gifford about never putting a young person at risk blah blah. Are they even asking girls how they feel about sharing with boys? Are their staff sufficiently skilled to see through the female socialisation that will make most girls say 'no, it's fine. Really'?

Times too.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-teenagers-sleep-girls-dorm-david-cameron-big-society-summer-camp-mb8x26725?shareToken=805956884dc2bcc0ace709ee65238726

If you open the article in a private browsing page, you'll bypass the firewall and will be able to access it.

The Article has been archived if you visit archive . ph.

Would be interesting to see if snythi
g comes of this.

Looks like this has hit the Telegraph, haven't read the article as its behind a paywall.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/02/boys-identifying-girls-put-female-dorms-summer-camp-set-david/

It's flat out male supremacism.

Boys' voices, feelings, needs, experiences matter.

Girls? No. Any feelings, experiences, needs? Sod that, educate them out of it - where 'educate' means 'train them to put their needs aside and meet the needs of male people'. Those who won't or can't, get excluded.

And at the same time you're supposed to maintain that no one knows what sex anyone is, and sex isn't binary. Ha bloody ha.

Hot off the presses - relates to schools bit may have relevant stuff: sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Sex-Matters-and-Transgender-Trend-schools-guidance.pdf

Sorry I think I was confused. Ignore that .

Having read the article it may be that girl guides and brownies still do include trans girls even in female spaces like dorms and changing rooms. I am truly muddled.

So the girls 'just need to be educated about respecting other people's identity' while your ds won't be put with boys 'in case the boys bully him'.

So another case of #bekind, girls! Ridiculous double standards.

Have you seen the new post today in AIBU
abbout Girl Guides and Brownies? It is about Katie Alcocks’s case. She says it is now clear girls are allowed same SEX accommodation. (No trans girl in the dorm)

It sounds like they are discriminating by sex. Gender reassignment does not trump the proportionate and legitimate need for safety, privacy and dignity of girls/women.

I would escalate it and ask to see the materials they used and provider they used to suggest that those with the characteristic of gender reassignment can do what the hell they like!

As others have said contact SexMatters and others.

Rather

So basically self ID (which NOT is a protected characteristic) trumps sex which is a protected characteristic. A policy which falls short of legislation

So basically self ID (which is a protected characteristic) trumps sex which is a protected characteristic. A policy which falls short of legislation

I had a look at their policies page. They have a special "trans-includion policy" spelling out that trans people will be allowed to use single sex spaces according to their assumed gender. They do not mention girls or young women's safety and comfort, or single sex provision anywhere else at all that I can see.

keep going up through the channels op. The more light on this misinterpretation of the law the better

6 I asked about risk of pregnancy. They said sexual relations is a risk anyway because there may be gay yp even in dorms segregated by sex, so it’s not considered a safeguarding issue beyond telling everyone not to do it, and pregnancy in mixed sex dorms is not a sg issue either unless there are specific red flags like a history of sexual assault.

They seem to be saying that young gay people in a mixed form could be at risk of pregnancy or did they just not answer you properly and jump to ‘sexual relations’ could be possible?

re: there point that other yo could not be told there would be a trans person in their dorm, this same principle has been discussed in relation to the Equalities Act and Annexe B in hospitals which was brought up in the HoL by Baroness Nicholson. ( A woman was raped, and the hospital told police there had been no man on the ward, but it transpired later there had been a trans woman.) perhaps you should contact her OP.

they see this being about the "comfort of the transgender person". When I asked if they shouldn't be looking to find a solution that works best for everyone, they said that unless there is a specific reason, girls just need to be educated about respecting other people's identity.

I'm afraid TQ+ people also need to be educated about respecting other people's identities and needs. Because either the same standards apply equally to everyone, or the deal is off as far as I'm concerned. We're not separating the populace into the special ones and the servant class.

It's also sliding gently but relentlessly into the idea that a T person's needs have only been properly met when someone female has been obviously put down and oppressed for them. It's not enough to meet the T person's needs; you have to prove you've spat upon females and they are scum beside the more important people.

I honestly don't see how any fool could believe this will do anything except further fuel irritation, bad feeling and an increase in people digging their heels and saying no. No more. There is no point in being 'polite' if it in fact means being a doormat without boundaries.

I promote NCS in my school and would now think twice. Does your son’s school promote it? Could it be worth involving the school?

This sounds terrible, but, the risk doesn’t sound as great (to me) when it’s a biological male in a female dorm compared to when it’s a biological female in a male dorm. PP described an incident in this exact scenario. Maybe spell it out very clearly to them, in writing, and ask for their response? Do you know a parent of a female who is attending? Could they assist? It shouldn’t have to be this way, but I feel it would have more weight coming from the angle of ‘how will you protect my daughter?’

Are there likely to be females with religious beliefs which would be conflicted by your son being present? Religion or belief also a protected characteristic (I believe they are wrongly quoting gender reassignment here though)