Charity rejects disabled child for mother's GC views

"Now she fucked over her kid all because she just couldn't hold back from ranting about her opinions."

The word "seriously" is a rant? What did the camp think it was going to accomplish by contacting her? What was the point? If submitting pronouns is voluntary then what difference would it make what was written there? The point wasn't her behavior after the fact the point was that she didn't comply with the right think to begin with. The camp should have just ignored what the parent wrote but they escalated it by calling her to criticize her views. Doesn't matter if another kid who is part of the cult is attending the camp the courts have made it clear you cannot compell people to say/believe what they dont believe, period. Even if she had left it blank her child has a right to not call a boy who thinks he a girl a girl and the camp can't do anything about it. What do they think they're going to do in the future when this situation inevitably happens? Calling a boy a boy isn't harassment because the truth is not hate speech.

Yes but remember that there are a lot of transgendered people who are estranged from their families because they dont share their beliefs about gender. So it isn't like everybody who identifies as trans was raised by a parent who was all for the ideology by any means. But I bet the commonality will be that these parents all hold pretty rigid gender views despite their belief that they do not.

Which do you mean?

Children can sex humans from an early age, even their peers. Very occasionally they get it wrong and can get confused. If a child has made a mistake, that mistake should corrected. In that instance, it’s appropriate for a child to be “told” what sex someone is and what pronouns to use.

But you’re condoning the opposite: when a child is correct in identifying the sex of the human they’re describing, and using the correct sex pronouns, you’re saying children should be “told” that is wrong, and “told” not to do it. This is gaslighting children, abusive and a monumental safeguarding failure. Why do you support this?

It seems likely that it was, going by this paragraph in the article:

In a written summary of the call uncovered by the mother using a subject access request, which allows an individual to see all personal information an organisation holds about them, Ms McCluskie [a clinical director at the charity] recalled “explaining the importance of pronouns at our camps to ensure inclusivity and respect for all children”.

This charity believes that pronouns are important. They are gender zealots.

The camp supposedly segregates children on the basis of what they call 'gender'.

So the question re pronouns is clearly highly pertinent and affects their safeguarding decisions.

Well said. It's breathtaking the willingness of people who claim to be parents to throw children under the bus. Allowing random adult gender zealots to gaslight children, to pretend that sex change is possible and to create a climate of fear and intimidation via compelled speech (nonsense pronouns) in order to bully children out of understanding reality.

A complete safeguarding fail supported by some parents. No wonder we see such extreme levels of child abuse in society when those parents who do safeguard their children are so harshly criticised.

Well we do have pronouns that are appropriate for us and those may need clarifying at times. Especially today, in the ways we communicate, it may not always be clear whether someone is male or female. Such as right now online.

If someone was referring to me and said "he said", it would be fine for me to say that those aren't my pronouns because I am a woman.

I recognise what you are saying - rigid gender stereotypes are found in a number of social groups, not just the trans movement.

I suppose what makes the the trans reliance on gender stereotypes stand out so much is that they and their supporters claim to be the brave progressive ones, and gender critical women, who just want children to be children and men and women to be whatever kind of men and women they choose to be, are bigoted old dinosaurs who are going to die out soon!

Well given that the adults are actively lying she was right to do this! If they were not telling children lies she wouldn't have to tell her child not to trust them.

Even if you are right and the mum is a massive gender roles conformist, why does that mean that the adults at this camp can lie to children? And that the mum shouldn't raise this?

If the form was not a place to express socio-political views why did the organisation decide to collect a viewpoint via their form?

Why did the staff member engage in a process designed for additional data collection?

Why did staff who held a different socio-political view reject the application on the basia of their viewpoint and the mother viewpoint not being in agreement?

With trans ideologists, they consider any questioning to be 'aggressive'. Even polite questioning or polite disagreement is considered 'aggressive'. Anything less than 100% submission is 'aggressive', and 'literal genocide'. So I'd take their side with 6 thousand truck loads of salt.

No I don't think children should insist someone is say a boy, based on their limited experience of the world, even after being corrected and then be allowed to express all the reasons they think the other child isn't a girl and still call them "he".

I get why and how the waters have been muddied here, but I think that's for adults to handle on an actual political level. Voting, protests, etc.

No, we don't all 'have pronouns'.

People refer to other people using pronouns. The language is used by others. These words don't 'belong' to the person they're being used about.

How strange that they forget to record the real reason for blocking the child and decide to record an unlawful one instead? 🤔

Of course it is. They've asked parents for their children's pronouns. They're obviously gender zealots.

What do you think they'd have done if she left it blank?

That's not what a child should be doing regardless of the state of affairs.

Is this what you believe? That all children, regardless of the state of affairs, regardless of disability or no disability, should not describe the reality of the sex of the people around them, or the adults caring for them, but should do what they’re told instead? Regardless of the risks involved?

It doesn’t surprise me you don’t see the safeguarding issue.

The same obviously applies if the child is female. But seeing as you don't seem to be able to understand my post unless I spell this out to you:

Will a boy who says he's a girl be sleeping in a girls' dormitory and will a girl who says she's a boy be sleeping in a boys' dormitory?

I used the example of a boy who identifies as a girl because that was the example used by the PP who I was replying to:

We're talking about (eg) a boy with long hair saying that he is in fact a girl.

Does that help you to understand?

The solution is that (as you said earlier) adults tell the truth about sex and we encourage diversity within the sex classes.

You are arguing that the concern is that a gender non-conforming child will be mis-sexed at the camp by this child and this will cause some harm. This could happen, but it based on no evidence.

What has been confirmed is that there is a 'trans child' at the camp and the concern is that the adults at the camp will require that the child mis-sex the 'trans child'.

The first is unlikely and based on zero evidence. The second is what definitely was the situation.

Perhaps because I have rather a lot to do with religious people, I am privy to a lot of people who completely reject trans ideology and still hold very rigid views on masculinity and femininity. I think that is why I am sensitive to that line of thinking in completely secular people, because I hear the echoes from our past values which were more openly centred around religion.

All the woman did was write "seriously" on the application. The charity then contacted her to criticize her beliefs. They'd clearly already made the decision that, unless she relented, her child was going to be kicked out of the camp. The law has already made it perfectly clear that you cannot compell people to "share pronouns" or do anything else that forces people to bow to the alter of tans ideology. The camp should have just let it lie but no, these self righteous cultists are still insisting on forcing their ideology on a world that has repeatedly said enough. So now, like time and time again, they'll learn their lessons through the court system.

The staff member failed to record the "was agressive" as reason for the rejection eg "called mother she was agressive on the phone decided child should not attend"

No that's not what happened. She made it clear that she would be telling her child to go with what they thought rather than what they were being told when it came to assigning pronouns to others. That's not what a child should be doing regardless of the state of affairs.

There was no need for her to do anything other than ask questions about logistics. She chose to step on a soap box inappropriately and her child was dismissed as a result.

The idea that boys 'should' be like this and girls 'should' be like that is precisely the kind of gender stereotyping that gender critical people are critical of.

How does the charity define a 'transgender child' if not a boy who isn't doing boyness right, or a girl who isn't doing girlness right? Therefore they must be the wrong sex/in the wrong body.

The whole concept of 'a transgender child' is based on gender stereotypes, and putting that inappropriate, contested adult label on a child is detrimental.

The mere fact that the charity in question uses the term 'transgender child' - and rejects any child who might not go along with it - makes a statement, and reveals an unhelpful attitude to gender-questioning children.

I feel sorry for the child who was rejected because of his mother's opinions, but I also feel sorry for the 'transgender child' who, instead of being given the support they need to accept and love themselves as they are, will instead have an adult-defined disconnect with biological reality reinforced.

Made up what ifs are made up what ifs.

The beliefs were clearly documented by the staff member.
So either
a) the staff member made a decision which was not per policy or
b) the policy was followed.
As the organisation is not offering an apology or discussing retraining of staff (b) would be held to be true.

And the camp staff had no lawfull reason to collect and process other personal data belonging to an applicant nor their family.

If the staff were collecting and processing data and then failing to disclose their action and making decisons on the unlawfully collected/processed data the Charity have fundemental flaws in their Hire Policy and ageneral Ethos and Ethics problem.