To wonder, where will a Trans pupil sleep on my DS's Europe trip?

[VioletVaccine]

In DS's form, there is a M2F trans pupil, aged 14. For the purpose of this, I'll call her Jenny, who used to be Jack.
Jack now identifies as Jenny, and is accepted as the gender she identifies as.
I don't know (it's none of my business) whether she takes hormones or not, but she dresses, lives, and wants to be considered as a female.
The vast majority of people have been accepting and understanding of the difficulties faced.
Jenny uses the disabled or staff bathrooms, and has a separate area to change after (girls) PE.
However, when the school year travel to Europe this year, I want to make a polite enquiry as to the sleeping arrangements.
This is a 6 day trip, 6 days 5 nights.
Boys are generally in one area of the hotel during school overnight excursions, and girls in the other, with respective form tutors overseeing the pupils when lights go out.
Jenny, according to DS, will be sleeping with her female best friends.
However, despite how she feels, she still has a Penis.
Should she really be in a dorm with three other girls?
Whatever Jenny identifies as her gender, her sexuality is not necessarily geared towards the opposite sex. Maybe she could be a M2F lesbian, who is attracted to girls?

Would you want your 14 year old daughter to share a room with an anatomically correct male for a week? I wouldn't.

And similarly, should someone who believes they are female, be forced to share a dorm with 3 teenage boys she isn't friends with?

Im hoping for some thoughts on how you'd handle this, and also, how to actually broach it with DS's school without being labelled a transphobic woman, a bigot, or any of the other terms that are so commonly used when you question the logistics of a situation like this?

Thank you.

What's the alternative?

Placing responsibility on the 'other pupils' to express their discomfort and feelings of insecurity, and assume that they 'feel safe' if they don't say anything?

It's what we do in other contexts. Placing girls with other girls in dormitory or similar situations is no guarantee that they are safe.

HermioneWeasley You missed
3) we separate by sex not gender for reasons of privacy and dignity and
4) jenny is male so shouldn't be sharing with girls.

So, if the other girls and their parents do not feel their privacy and dignity will be affected, surely there’s no problem?

Could you explain how you get to shouldn’t in point 4? On the grounds of safety? (which has been dealt with by points 1 & 2). Privacy and dignity? (only applicable if the other children involved, i.e. those sharing with Jenny, feel their privacy is affected – and there is no reason to think that).

People used to say the same about e.g. mixed race marriages. They are ‘wrong’, they ‘shouldn’t’ happen etc. Your ‘shouldn’t’ can be my ‘should’ – there is no reason why your personal beliefs are binding on other people.

I think maryz gets to the heart of the problem with this discussion.
But if we segregate, why? To stop sexual experimentation? To prevent abuse? To prevent pregnancy? To provide privacy? When we work out why we segregate, then we can work out how.

And for those who are (understandably) concerned about predators claiming to be female in order to gain access to potential victims – it really doesn’t sound as if it is the case here, surely?

The ‘all teens will experiment sexually given the chance’ – no, not all. Not me and my friends at that age. Friends since have told me various horror stories about what they got up to. Plenty do, plenty don’t.

Of course adolescent biological girls have the right to change, shower etc without having a biological male present. It sounds as if that right is being protected in this case - there is no reason to believe that these particular girls and their parents have not given informed consent to the arrangement, and if they are comfortable what right does anyone else have to tell them that they shouldn't feel comfortable with it?

Would I let DD share? Yes, if she was comfortable with it. And finding out if she was comfortable would not be a one-off, tick box question, but a number of conversations over a period of time. I suspect we would have had a number of related conversations over a few years if one of her friends was MtF, so I would have a pretty good idea of her thoughts and feelings before this specific question came up. I would refuse consent if I was concerned, without the slightest hesitation (surely being a parent involves ignoring random people criticising your parenting ).

A girl who fancies a girl doesn't have a penis. How perfectly dismissive of girls.

I mean, friends I have met as an adult have told me horror stories, not that my friends at the time told me horror stories later...

In fact, at 14 I shared a tent with another girl and 3 boys on a school trip. We slept. We had just walked 20 miles over moorland with full kit, with another 15 miles to go the next day - but even if we hadn't, I don't think they would have thrown themselves on us, or us at them, or any other combination of sexual experimentation you can think of. They were just boys from school, taking part in the same out-of-school activity.

TERF is used against women, it implies prejudice too. Now my feminism can include trans women but that doesn't mean they're women, it can also include men.

Ok, so we redefine man and woman to include people with opposite sex bodies but same gender feels.
Then we make new categories - vop and pop.
Do people who want man and woman to include men with vaginas and women with penises accept that vop are disproportionately at risk of sexual and physical violence from pop? And that vop need protection from the law and need their safety protected on the basis that they are vulnerable due to being vop?

And if so, what exactly is the point of redefining woman and man if you accept that vop and pop are different groups with different needs?

And if not, why not?

And for those who are (understandably) concerned about predators claiming to be female in order to gain access to potential victims – it really doesn’t sound as if it is the case here, surely?

And I'm sure in the vast majority of cases, people who carry liquid onto a plane aren't going to blow it up.
But we stop everyone doing it in order to guard against the risk.

No matter how well trained someone is, they cannot know the motive and thoughts of another person. While it is unlikely, it's not impossible that Jenny is actually a 'fake' who is trying to gain access to female safe spaces. No one except Jenny knows that.

In any event, The law is going to be changed so that we cannot use "our judgement" - a person who identifies as a woman will be given legal access to female safe spaces irrespective of their motive. That effectively removes all safe spaces for females.

And for those who are (understandably) concerned about predators claiming to be female in order to gain access to potential victims – it really doesn’t sound as if it is the case here, surely?

Currently, to get access to woman's spaces, a tw must gain a gender recognition certificate which takes commitment and time, as well as some engagement with professionals. (Obviously that doesn't apply to children but the point is relevant)
Under new self definition rules that are being proposed, there will be no need to make any commitment or expend any effort, not Engage with any professional.
For example, Tara Hudson was allowed to move to a woman's prison without a grc. Tara may have been a committed tw but they didn't have any formal evidence of this. Davina ayrton will have as much right to enter a woman's prison as Tara Hudson, despite no surgery and having raped a child with their penis.
Self identification will absolutely open doors to abusive, mentally unwell and dangerous men to access spaces which have always been for vulnerable women. People who would not be given a grc if they had to commit for a long time to the tw identity and undergo psychological evaluation. And there will be no recourse in the law to protect these women.

I'm sure Jenny means no harm and truly feels they are a trans girl. But self identifying as the opposite gender is simply not sufficient to allow people to access spaces previously kept for the opposite sex only.

Just for the record when people start comparing sexuality and/or women or colour with people who are genetically male i think the world has gone mad and I discount their opinion in a heartbeat.

Posie it makes me think they haven't thought particularly long or hard about the issue.

What's the difference between a heterosexual man "identifying" as a lesbian and a lesbian after all?

On this thread trans has also been compared to disability, as well as race and sexuality.

Sorry, not compared to, held up as a similar thing.

That's the point though, isn't it? The law categorises trans as similar to other minority groups.

Trans is a protected characteristic - like sexuality, disability, race and religion.
The proposed changes to legislation will alter the definition of trans, which will extend the protection to more people.

All three comparisons being incredibly insulting to black women, disabled women & lesbians - as well as implying that only straight, white, able-bodied women don't consider transwomen to be female.

Which is utter nonsense.

Pretty, sorry I wasn't clear in what I meant - I know they're minority groups and similar in that respect. I mean that:

"Well would you separate sleeping arrangements on the basis of race?"

"What about lesbians sharing? It's the same thing".

"What about someone with disabilities? Would you want to know where they are sleeping, or raise an objection to them sharing with the other girls?"

It completely misses the point, and minimises the point.

Ah, I see what you're saying now.

However.....I think I can understand where that 'comparison' is coming from.

A few decades ago, in some parts of the world, blacks were segregated from whites. When slavery and apartide were abolished and blacks were given the same rights as whites, there was a huge outcry from portions of society. Parents kept their DCs off school rather than permit them to share facilities; what we now describe as racism was practiced by a significant number of people who argued vehemently that giving blacks equality was wrong and didn't take into account the differences between blacks and whites.

Over time, that attitude has become socially less acceptable.
The same applies to disability - in some parts of the world, disabled people are still viewed as different and avoided.

I can understand (but do not agree) how the trans-debate is seen as the same.

Feminists are arguing that biological males and females are different, whereas the trans-activists are arguing that having or not having a penis is no more relevant than skin colour.

But the question remains - if we segregate by sex, then shouldn't we, erm, segregate by sex.

I don't think it's by any means certain that we do segregate by sex.

The Local Authorities which have issued guidance to schools indicate that it is 'gender' that has always been the segregating factor.
Brighton and Hove Council even refer to 'gender assigned at birth'.

Whether that is the case and I've always wrongly assumed it was segregation by sex, or whether history is being re-written to accommodate the vocal trans-activists, I'm not sure.

MaryZ, I wonder if that would be the best thing to do tbh to really make the point.

Just say no more segregation based on sex, everyone shares all facilities and sleeping arrangements from now on.

I would give it a month, max, before parents were up in arms.
At the moment many don't see a problem because it is not directly affecting them or their children.
So let's make it affect everyone - see how that goes.

I mean, let's set everything back 50 years or so, and pigeon hole children into specific gender roles

That is the trans-activists agenda and they've not made any secret of it.

The recent "Miss Trans-UK" winner was stripped of their title because they were seen wearing men's boxers.
Apparently, wearing women's underwear is a requirement of being 'a woman'.

I'm trying to keep up! There's some really, really interesting and important questions being asked, and IMO Segregation by Sex Vs Self Identification should be debated in parliament, because times seem to be changing quicker than guidelines and laws can.

Maryz I agree 100%. Only when we know exactly why
sex segregated areas exist, will we actually know where pupils who don't neatly fit into 'boy' and 'girl' categories should be placed.

I have a question completely unrelated to the thread, but it is a genuine question.

The very vocal trans-activists, were they 'alpha male' types prior to identifying as women?

It just seems (to me) that they are determined to be alpha and as men they weren't, so have co-opted a group that they think they can be alpha within (hence why they are so venomous about people within that group pushing back against them).

It is a completely genuine question, as something that has stood out to me recently and is not meant in a goady way at all.

Do you wear makeup? Do you want to wear a skirt or trousers to school? Do you enjoy playing football? Do you prefer science or home economics? Would you rather have Pride and Prejudice or Lord of the Flies on the English syllabus? Are you better at maths than English? What is your favourite colour? Is your best friend a boy or a girl?

I wear make up and skirts, but I play football (in a skirt!) with my DS. Lord of the Flies was definitely more my thing too. I excelled at Science and English, but my maths and home economics skills were crap. My favourite colour is red, and my best friend is male.

That would make me 70% boy then. And if that figure isn't accurate, it's because I'm crap at maths (see above )

bunny Its an interesting one, isn't it?

Im not sure theres a straightforward answer, tbh.

Someone like Anna Lee, for instance, who has been willing to place themselves at the forefront of trans-activism, and yet presents as vulnerable and unaware of the contentious nature of their actions. I'm not sure that Anna is seeking an "alpha" role.

Whereas, some of the twitterati activists certainly conduct themselves in a way that I have never seen from "women" in the past even here on MN AIBU but which is reminiscent of abusive conduct by men.