Charity rejects disabled child for mother's GC views

At a camp for disabled children that prioritises gender ideology over safeguarding.

I support telling people the sex of other individuals. In a single sex environment like a ward, that would mean people of the other sex arent admitted.

I don't think not telling me the biological sex of a person always presents a safeguarding risk so I won't use the terms you suggest. Safeguarding isn't why I think people should be told the sex of others

These two statements are oxymoronic. You accept that being told the actual sex of a person is important in single sex environments, but you don’t think safeguarding is why people should be told? The reason people should be told in single sex environments is because of safeguarding! It’s to safeguard women’s privacy, safety and dignity. For what reason do you think people should be told a person’s in single sex environments if not safeguarding?

Do you actually know what the word safeguarding means?

It's more about acceptance and understanding diversity.

So you think women on a single sex ward should be told about that there’s a man on the ward so those women can learn to accept his diversity?

Because it wasnt the time or the place to raise it.

I'm with the mum. I'd be very cross if someone confused my child with incorrect pronouns. I would expect the child's name to be used every time to avoid confusion.

It also sounds to me as though the charity worker initially called the mum to confront her.

Talk about it when they come home. Thats what I encourage my kids to do.

She is not making it about her views.

She is worried about staff lying to her child and harming him by doing so.

She didn't cause this, they are the ones at fault.

You agree that adults should not lie to children about sex. So why are you turning this around to being the mother's fault?

Somewhere pushing ‘diversity and inclusion’, perhaps like a camp for disabled children which has a rather lax approach to safeguarding and likes to lie to children about sex.

She could have answered the question about sex/gender and left pronouns because it is superfluous given what she has stated already..

Yes. I see it in many posts on here. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a disproportionate number of parents on here who have trans identifying children. I can absolutely see why they do just by the way they speak about men and boys.

genuine LOL

hopefully the poster is being deliberately goady. If they’re serious…well, crikey

You cant have it both ways.

The form was a place to express your preferred pronouns sex classification. Mone are she/her female based which may or may not be my actual sex because I am a woman use the term female I also use the term for adult human female but I believe saying that I am a woman adult human female when I may actually be an adult human male is enough.

Either the organisation and the mother expressed a socio-political views on the use and missuse of langage or neither did.

That's not an illogical leap. That actually happened to a woman in an NHS hospital.

Where would this man be where he would be able to talk directly to the child alone about his gender identity?

You do realise that a large number of posters here have trans identifying children? Do you really think that posters on this board have homes that promote gender stereotypes?

It really isnt. I see parents all the time talking about why they'd prefer a boy or a girl as if it determines their interests and personality. When we get to this healthy place, people won't care.

Oh, so sorry to both of them! And thank you! I was able to edit the post in time.

I'm simply not defending this parent making her child's chance at respite and recreation about her views.

So what's your explanation of why charities like this have fallen victim to this ideology? And not just charities - the NHS, government departments, companies, political parties... even the entire government in Scotland.

This all happened because the people in charge weren't raised with healthy views about diversity?

No. I support telling people the sex of other individuals. In a single sex environment like a ward, that would mean people of the other sex arent admitted.

I don't think not telling me the biological sex of a person always presents a safeguarding risk so I won't use the terms you suggest. I think it does in some instances, but not others. Safeguarding isn't why I think people should be told the sex of others. It's more about acceptance and understanding diversity. It's more about the trans identifying person actually. I see it more like an identity crisis that stems from the home as I said before.

This is exactly analogous to the Forstater vet clinic case, where MF was turned away from service after a negative interaction with staff, when it was found that another (hypothetical) customer would not have been, but for the known views of MF on gender identity issues.

That was Alison Bailey.

Back to the whole 'it wasn't what she said it was they way that she said it'.

Why are you continuing to defend adults lying to children while also arguing that children should accept everything adults tell them?

Edited to add an archive link for you.

Shocking to see you dismiss the rape of a woman so casually. Still - it fits with a pattern of being dismissive of the need to safeguard children & thinking parental alienation is a good thing.

5 / 10 for effort I suppose. But on a parenting site, dismissing the need to safeguard children and women's rights to safety and privacy usually exposes the author as an extreme transactivist.

I take it you haven’t taught your child ‘stranger danger’ or ‘pants are private’ either.

Allowing the most generous interpretation of the camp’s behaviour, this is still a clear cut case of unlawful discrimination to me. Even accepting the camp’s claim that the cause of the exclusion was the mother aggressive attitude, the question to ask is whether another parent who was also aggressive on the phone but for a different reason would also have been excluded. By the camp’s own evidence the answer is no. The camp’s exclusion was clearly related to the gender-critical subject of the disagreement or aggression. That meets the “because of” test in the EA2010.

Questions on what the child would or would not have done or said at the camp were hypothetical at the time of the exclusion and far too remote to be relevant, even allowing that the child himself has a right to be free of unlawful discrimination.

There Is clear evidence that the treatment of this mother was different from a hypothetical mother who behaved the same way but for her views on gender identity.

This is exactly analogous to the Alison Bailey vet clinic case, where AB was turned away from service after a negative interaction with staff, when it was found that another (hypothetical) customer would not have been, but for the known views of AB on gender identity issues.

Edited to correct the identity of AB!

To take a wider perspective - the root problem is that a charity has made a contested socio-political ideology so important to their running of a camp for children with disabilities and their families that they are prepared to withhold their services from a disabled child because their parent not only does not subscribe to the same ideology, but believes it has no place in the context of a children's summer camp.

It wouldn't be so much of an issue if there were lots and lots of summer camps for disabled children in the area, including ones which do not require adherence to the ideology underlying the concept of a 'transgender child'.

But I'm guessing that it was Hobson's Choice - toe the line on pronouns and accept sending your child to a camp which labels gender-questioning children as 'trans', or be cancelled.

One child misses out on summer camp, another child misses out on the care and support they need to accept and love themselves, including the bodies they were born with and the sex they will belong to all their lives.