AIBU to question a pool asking my four-year-old daughter to cover up?

[ChampagneLassie]

I took my two daughters, aged two and four, swimming at Nuffield Health. My four-year-old was wearing swimming bottoms but no top.
A staff member told me she needed to wear something “more appropriate” — apparently a bikini top or one-piece. I asked why, as a four-year-old boy would presumably be allowed to swim topless.
I said I felt this was sexualising a pre-pubescent child. The staff member replied, “I’m a mother. I’m not sexualising children.”
When I asked about the actual policy, she could only say that children had to wear “appropriate clothing”. I’m planning to contact Nuffield for clarification, but I’m interested in other parents’ views.
AIBU to question this? Would you expect a four-year-old girl to have to cover her chest?
I used AI to help make this post more readable.

I have no idea what pedos are into. Male nipples aren't generally considered to be private parts but nipples on females are. If we are teaching girls which parts are private shouldn't we include all of the private parts?

I put my boys (5 and 3) in rash vests and swimming shorts for indoor and outdoor swimming. I find the boys are less slippery and easier to hold/support when needed with the rash vests on! I agree that the rash vest isn't the easiest garment to take off - it requires both hands and child co-operation, but does take about 5 seconds in total.

I have never seen a girl without a top at our local pool when the boys are having their lessons, it's mostly one pieces here, occasionally a bikini/tanking. Not saying you're right or wrong OP, just stating what the norm is here.

I don't think you should have been shamed by the staff member at your pool for your decision. And kudos to you for taking both of your kids swimming solo, I've never been brave enough!!

Are you sure? My 6yo dd chooses to wear dinosaur, spiderman etc T shirts and frequently gets mistaken for a boy in spite of long hair. My ds has short hair and wears predominantly boyish clothes (dd's hand me down) but has pink wellies so still gets mistaken for a girl.

Boys and girls look the same at that age without gendered clothing.

If Op chose to dress her dd in a frilly girls' knickers type swimming bottoms, with no top, then that'll be how the staff member guessed. If the dd was wearing boys' shorts, no one would have batted an eyelid

The NSPCC pants campaign talks about:

Swimming – a great time to say that what's covered by swimwear is private.

The campaign has been really positive in supporting kids to understand whats private and whats not and how to set boundaries. Its for children as young as 3/4. Whether you like it or not there are many people out there targeting kids. I have worked in safeguarding/ prison health for a long time and maybe I am over the top but I have always made sure my kids have worn appropriate swim wear - my DD has never gone topless, as a child or young person. Its not sexualising kids its unfortunate reality.

My little ones all wear swimsuits - so their torso, legs, shoulders, arms etc are all covered.

I don't think you're being unreasonable to not cover her top (she doesn't have breasts!) but personally I cover up my kids in a full swimsuit, even boys, so if the bottoms were small maybe it just seemed like they were wearing very little?

Why? Certainly not because dh thought the man would find dh's chest sexy. So why did he do it? Dh simply said afterwards "I couldn't speak to a stranger with no top on!"

Exact same experience with dh. In the height of the heatwaves we've had in recent years, he must always don a t-shirt to answer the door. I understand without asking why he does it.

@PinkWaffleMaker No, that is not the definition of 'private parts'! And I have addressed your other comment very shortly after my first.

I've also read this before.

YABU because at 4, you should be teaching your daughter about private parts. It doesn't matter that she doesn't yet have breasts, she should know that anyone (apart from parents and trusted caregivers) asking to see/access her chest or genitals is inappropriate.

Of course kids should be able to be kids, but the world is full of fucking perverts and wrong uns. Prepare your daughter.

Based on what? Pretty much everyone thinks my DD is a boy (short hair and neutral clothing). I don't bother to correct people who I'll likely never meet again.

I have two friends with sons - one boy has long hair and wears typical boyish clothing. It is 50/50 whether someone will refer to him as a boy or a girl. The second boy has short hair but lots of hand me downs from his sister (including a pink swimming onesie). 100% girl comments.

The point is, you teach your children to not let anyone other than trusted caregivers touch them without their consent, full stop. Even a hand hold can be intrusive from the wrong person. Hence, it is irrelevant if either a small boy or small girl has their nipples uncovered.

I agree with you OP. It is seriously weird to suggest a topless four year old is ‘inappropriately dressed’. What does this mean, in reality? Who is offended or even would bat an eyelid? I find the sexualisation of kids (and how it is normalised on this thread) truly concerning.

True, rather than starting a thread here though wouldn"t the best thing have been to have just asked for a chat with the manager and get them to outline the reason for the policy, then maybe discuss it online?

Because she doesn't need one?

What other reason would a preschool child with no breasts need to cover her nipples...if not for a sexualised reason???

I personally don't think that's realistic or reflective of real life. I'm always clear with my DD she doesn't have to hug/kiss/whatever anyone she doesn't want to, but what i said in my previous post is part of a wider conversation around our 'private parts'/using the correct names/etc.

We don't have to agree, but I'm pleased my 4 year old uses the correct anatomical names and knows not to show anyone her chest, vulva or bottom/anus. And I'm confident she'd tell me if someone asked to see them or touched them. Normalising nakedness in public isn't good safeguarding imo, no matter how much we all wish our kids could run around/swim/whatever free and naked.

I have two friends with sons - one boy has long hair and wears typical boyish clothing. It is 50/50 whether someone will refer to him as a boy or a girl. The second boy has short hair but lots of hand me downs from his sister (including a pink swimming onesie). 100% girl comments

I knew more than one person would come along with examples to prove me wrong, that's the nature of mumsnet. I'm no spring chicken nowadays and I've worked in schools, special schools and playgroups. I've seen girls with short hair, or no hair, wearing boys clothes. I've seen boys with long hair wearing girls clothes (more recently). I'm absolutely confident that, given more than a passing glance, it's not very difficult at all to tell the difference between a boy and a girl.

Nuffield says nothing about children's swimming outfits. I read their very long Ts&Cs and general instructions on a PDF from their website

If this particular pool has its own rules, they need to be clearly publicised when enrolling. But I suspect it doesn't and it was just this one employee making it up.

No-one bats an eyelid at 2 and 3 year olds wandering around just wearing nappies, whether they are boys or girls. There is no difference at age 4.

Pre-school children are taught the pants rule, not the vest rule.

Why do you keep posting this same question?

Parents of pre-school children can also teach them the chest rule, if they so wish.

Like I said to another poster, we don't have to agree, but I personally think it's unhelpful not to tell girls their chest area is also private, even before puberty.

I'm not sure why you need to wrestle with a four year old to get her into a swimming costume. Just put it on her like you would any other item of clothing. By four surely she can mostly dress herself, or at least cooperate as you help her?

It's definitely not the norm in my experience to take young girls swimming topless but I don't see any issue with it either.

Why on earth would you not put her in a swimming costume like everyone else? its not that hard.

Because she doesn't have a winkie, and a boy without a winkie is a girl.

You are not unreasonable. I think it was knee jerk reaction from a staff member and her 'policy' is absolutely made up. I would have questioned what part of her anatomy in her top half needs to be covered up exactly? It's just ingrained social construct about what little girls vs boys should wear. You should complain to Nuffield.