School trip policies on overnight accommodation for trans children

[foodfiend]

Short version:
School's policy appears to be something long the lines that trans girls can share with girls if the girls are OK with it. Dd (14) is proposing sharing a room with trans girl friend and another girl. We have said we're not happy about this. Dd says that's transphobic.

Long time lurker here - would welcome any relevant experience, especially from any secondary teachers. School trip is this spring, planned since Oct - they've now been asked to submit room share preferences - rooms of 3. Dd is friendly with a trans girl - (since before name change ~ 2 years ago). Dd says A told her that the teacher had told A that they could share with whoever they want 'as long as everyone was OK with it'. (I have now checked with the teacher, and this appears to be correct.) Dd and another girl have agreed to share with A.

DH and I both said, hang on, A is male. It is not appropriate for you to be sleeping in mixed sex bedrooms. Dd says A is not male and we are transphobic.

To be clear - the kid seems perfectly nice and I think this scenario would probably be fine. (No idea what the other girl or her parents think.) But a policy of 'yeah, sure, mixed sex sleeping arrangements are fine if everyone agrees to it' sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. And it's unclear whether I'd even know it was happening if I didn't happen to already know that A is trans.

I'm pissed off at being put in this position of having to be the one to point out that this is inappropriate and put a target on my head as 'hateful', or seeming to specifically reject A/A's identity. While Dd professes to be happy/keen on this, it's clear that it would be extremely difficult for a girl in a similar position to say that she wouldn't be happy to share - she'd be terrified of being accused of transphobia. And it seems pretty crummy for A as well to be asked to go round her friends and put them on the spot like this.

It seems like the school is relying on the kids to somehow work it out for them. And that no-one seems to have spotted the obvious risks of setting such a precedent. Will they be equally happy for a trans boy to go in with two boys next time around? Or other male and female students to choose to share mixed bedrooms?

Are any other parents and teachers able to share policies or approaches from their schools?

@Snoodsy

Sorry, Loudoun County not London County.

I'm glad you reminded posters of that story Snoodsy. I would love to know what those all for flying the BeKind flag think of what happened there and any comment on the safeguarding measures.

You're the one who is insisting that trans people are inherently more dangerous and sexually predatory than cis people.

No, you're insisting 'cis' people are inherently more dangerous and sexually predatory than 'trans' people. So 'trans' people should be exempt from rules that 'cis' people follow.

Or am I wrong - are you saying there should be general mixed-sex accommodation in schools?

I think that was suggestionplease1's line, so they at least weren't discriminating on grounds of gender/trans. But you seem to be.

@Wreath21

What I find worrying, in safeguarding terms, is the anti-trans lobby's obsession with the genitalia of children, to the point of advocating strip searches for young people who appear to be gender non-conforming. As a PP said, safeguarding does have to take into account individual circumstances - it would be regarded as disgusting and probably count as illegal discrimination to restrict a gay adult's interaction with children of the same sex/gender on the grounds that all gay people are a higher risk to children.

I've never seen a poster here advocate that. Ever. and if one did that doesn't mean their opinion is hated by all posters. Not a hive mind and all that.

Safeguarding has nothing to do with the sexuality of a supervising adult. Where on earth did you get that from? Do you have any comments on the incident at the school in Louden County? Is the safety of those girls worth throwing under the bus so a minority of children can have access to changing rooms based on how they "feel inside"? What would you opinions be on other girls who were uncomfortable with sharing with a biological male?

@Wreath21

What I find worrying, in safeguarding terms, is the anti-trans lobby's obsession with the genitalia of children, to the point of advocating strip searches for young people who appear to be gender non-conforming. As a PP said, safeguarding does have to take into account individual circumstances - it would be regarded as disgusting and probably count as illegal discrimination to restrict a gay adult's interaction with children of the same sex/gender on the grounds that all gay people are a higher risk to children.

If one were to take account of individual circumstances, then you probably would end up restricting a gay man's interactions with boys, and barring bisexual staff from everything. But that would be stupid. Not least because you wouldn't really have more than their word for which sexuality they are: "it's OK, I'm gay so there's no risk in me going into the girls' showers...".

So therefore safeguarding is universal. No exceptions, no discrimination. Males (of any sexual orientation or "identity") do not mix with females (ditto). Staff (whether male or female) never end up 1-2-1 in a closed room with a pupil.

Are you 14? I sense a distinct lack of maturity in your posts.

Opinion is shared, that should have read. V unfortunate typo

What people are saying is that trans people are no less risk than people who don't identify as trans. And thar identity doesn't trump biological sex.

As we saw in loudon county, when authorities include identity in safeguarding, it can have appalling consequences.

You I suppose if you somehow think that trans people have changed sex or have their sex incorrectly recorded then you could feel that a transgirl is being accused of being potentially more dangerous than a none trans girl

They are being accused of having the same potential for harm as other males

Which since one big concern is pregnancy, seems correct

What people are saying is that trans people are no less risk than people who don't identify as trans. And thar identity doesn't trump biological sex.

/// Nail.On.Head.

You're the one who is insisting that trans people are inherently more dangerous and sexually predatory than cis people.

And TWIST!

Please NAME AND SHAME THAT POSTER!

No child should be put in the position where they have to say no to their peer group in this way.

The fact that people are advocating for mixed sex sleeping shows they don't believe any of the girls could already be victims of sexual abuse. Abused girls just aren't on their radar.
Neither are girls from conservative families, who won't be permitted to share mixed sex sleeping accomodation.

The posters here know that.

They understand the arguments.

They just don’t like them, so they lie and project weird fantasies.

I refuse to believe that anyone can be as hard of thinking as wreath and suggestions. Advocating for a 14 year old male to share sleeping quarters with girls is so clearly a total breech of safeguarding, so totally fucked up, I simply cannot believe this is a well intentioned but misguided stance. I said what i think your motives really are, i would get a ban, so i will stop there and let others draw their own conclusions.

@suggestionsplease1

Safeguarding is nuanced, not a binary proposition, and anyone who thinks it isn't needs to think again.

@Helleofabore Safeguarding can be personal, of course it can be. That's the core business of social workers and many other professionals up and down the country - they are trying to establish risk on an individual basis, not on the basis of a sex category.

The perspective and focus is misplaced here; to view the sex of a child as a bigger potential indicator of harm over and above all the other rich information that will be available - the individuals involved and their personalities, the quality of the friendship, the feelings of the teenagers, the knowledge of the adults - these are all more valuable in determining a good approach than the sex of the students.

Of course this can be done on a case by case basis, what do people think teachers do all day - they're not interacting with their students as category types M & F, they have rich individual knowledge, as do the parents.

To focus on the sex on a trip like this is like taking a road trip whilst focusing your risk analysis on whether you are going to drive in a Ford or a Renault, whilst discounting the safety record of the driver, the state of the car, whether people wear seatbelts or not, how well you know the other passengers, if you get on well with them or not, what terrain the car is going over etc. There are richer indicators of wellbeing and safety and an enjoyable trip all round, and the OP's daughter probably knows this.

Of course, if students are going to have sex they're going to have sex, all the room configurations in the world won't prevent that.

I’ve worked in a setting where frequent, detailed HSE assessments were required. You do not manage risks on this basis. You look to eliminate obvious, foreseeable risks. You look to mitigate risks that could arise with less experienced or careful practitioners by having sensible procedures and working protocols in place. Everyone works to the risk assessment and agreed protocols. You don’t vary it for Bob because he’s steady, meticulous and has worked in the lab for 30 years, because once you undermine protocols you send a message that they are negotiable and undermine their effectiveness. When they apply to all, there are no hard feelings - everyone is subject to them for sound reasons.

The same goes for safeguarding. If you set a boundary and put protocols in place to manage risks, they apply to everyone. Without exception. Without variation in the face of special pleading or hard cases. They are non-negotiable.

@NecessaryScene

You're the one who is insisting that trans people are inherently more dangerous and sexually predatory than cis people.

No, you're insisting 'cis' people are inherently more dangerous and sexually predatory than 'trans' people. So 'trans' people should be exempt from rules that 'cis' people follow.

Or am I wrong - are you saying there should be general mixed-sex accommodation in schools?

I think that was suggestionplease1's line, so they at least weren't discriminating on grounds of gender/trans. But you seem to be.

Over to you Wreath21 be good to hear your answer to this backed up with evidence.

I agree with TheInebriati.

All this discussion about mixed sex sleeping arrangements seems to be prefaced with

• they are going to have sex anyway (Of the 14 year old's having sex, how many are being pressured into unwanted sex because they think they should be (and their parents are 'just fine' with it). How many of these 14 year olds are sexually active due to abuse)

• this person is a girl now. Which is designed to obfuscate the reality.

Which is that 'this person is a male and will remain male until they die'.

Which means any abused girl is now in a position that they have to be in a room with a male which while might be fine at school, suddenly becomes NOT fine when they get to the venue and she realises that she cannot back out without losing friendships. Because this girl has just been praised and given the ultimate lesson that the male comes first and female must be kind, nice and welcoming.

Which means any girl who for whatever reason cannot be in that mixed sex room, is excluded. Maybe even from the event because of the sleeping arrangements being so open.

And please do note here too, I have not even hinted that the male in question has ever done anything to harm the girls.

Hardly inclusive. Hardly kind.

But, some posters are right on believing they are the righteous ones.

I base my position on having known quite a lot of trans people throughout my adult life rather than gibbering moral panic and the endless propagation of often-spurious stories. But it is as difficult to argue with anti-trans people as it is to argue with anti-abortion people: the position is entrenched, based on bad faith (or at least misinformation that sounds good) and invariably falls back on absolute worst-case scenarios that hardly ever happen (and when they do are usually due to something other than the existence of a trans person).

But safeguarding is worse case scenario. Amd applies to everyone.

You seem to think.it shouldn't apply to trans people even though ots fir their benefit too. A transboy fir instance qouod ge at risk placed in with boys.

You not only think they aren't capable of following the same safguarding rules as everyone else. Yiu also think they aren't entitled ti the same level of safeguarding amd protection as everyone else

That's transphobic

@Wreath21

I base my position on having known quite a lot of trans people throughout my adult life rather than gibbering moral panic and the endless propagation of often-spurious stories. But it is as difficult to argue with anti-trans people as it is to argue with anti-abortion people: the position is entrenched, based on bad faith (or at least misinformation that sounds good) and invariably falls back on absolute worst-case scenarios that hardly ever happen (and when they do are usually due to something other than the existence of a trans person).

Cool, so have I. And I have experience of children, their friendships, and their ability to predict and manage situations, and acquisition of social skills.

What about the safety of the male child? If you think this child is no risk to the girls, as you previously said, what about this child?

When performing intimate examinations on female patients, male healthcare staff ask for a chaperone for their own protection, as well as the female patient's comfort, in case of a genuine misunderstanding leading to an official complaint, or a female patient making a malicious allegation later.

I am surprised that no-one wishes to safeguard teenage children against such eventualities. If either is a risk for healthcare staff from adult patients who have deliberately sought medical treatment, surely each is a much higher risk in the tempestuous social environment of a secondary school? When a male child is expected to sleep in the same room where various girls are getting prepared for bed?

Male children who feel unable to share with other boys should be given private space of their own for changing and sleeping, as a matter of routine. Not just shunted into the girls' spaces.

You were concerned about "genital strip searches" before. I am suggesting a solution that means no-one will see (or be seen by) this child unclothed.

Since you bring it up trans friends, one of the things I remember discussing with my friends once, years and years back, is their wishes for a private room on school trips. None had wanted to be with the children of their own biological sex, but also, none had wanted their peers of the sex that they wished to live as to see their bodies, either! They did not want their friends at school to see how their bodies differed. This was especially the case for transboys (female children who identify as boys) as the threat of corrective rape is always a risk for transmen.

But it is as difficult to argue with anti-trans people

That's called begging the question - you're assuming a priori that we're "anti trans" and inferring that thus we must be arguing in bad faith.

How's about you read what we're writing and respond to that?

Like we're doing to you.

Might be worth a try?

(And I suspect you'll find many opposed to abortion are doing so for perfectly straightforward reasons, but disagree with us on how to balance the competing rights of the mother versus the foetus. If you start by assuming they're arguing in bad faith, no wonder you have trouble with them too).

invariably falls back on absolute worst-case scenarios that hardly ever happen

Exactly, hardly ever happens because we have safeguarding policies in place to protect both sexes by keeping them separate in certain circumstances. And then it still happens. But you seem to think because you know some nice trans people, these policies can be removed. Not taking into account trans people are just like everyone else, good and bad in equal measures.

Reality is not animal farm: all people are equal but trans people are more equal than others.

Not going to answer the question then Wreath21, well what a surprise.

I've known a hell of a lot of men throughout my adult life, is it gibbering moral panic to say that they be kept out of female single sex spaces?

I don't think anyone who uses this board is anti trans.

Most posters just want spaces which were established as women only to remain so.

(and when they do are usually due to something other than the existence of a trans person)

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

@Wreath21

I base my position on having known quite a lot of trans people throughout my adult life rather than gibbering moral panic and the endless propagation of often-spurious stories. But it is as difficult to argue with anti-trans people as it is to argue with anti-abortion people: the position is entrenched, based on bad faith (or at least misinformation that sounds good) and invariably falls back on absolute worst-case scenarios that hardly ever happen (and when they do are usually due to something other than the existence of a trans person).

So…. Not based on knowing 14 year olds?

And more hyperbole. More ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you.

But since you are so heavily invested, please give us the statistics and studies that show that any transitioned male changes their prevalence for committing sex crimes.

We shall wait.

Because unlike you, I prefer to look at original resources to shape the safeguarding standards to apply to all ages.