Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

School trip policies on overnight accommodation for trans children

740 replies

foodfiend · 24/01/2022 09:18

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?

OP posts:
Whatwouldscullydo · 29/01/2022 09:34

Let's not forget the youth group. So attempted to control thoughts, gained access to young people, somehow even endorsed by the police ( we all remember that police sgt ) despite the verita report.

Funny how source matters for us, reports of incidents from the mail or Sun or local rags are not to be accepted under any circumstances. Yet taking advice from someone who's been deemed incompetent officially, and married to a MAP ( Minor attracted person) is perfectly fine

Helleofabore · 29/01/2022 09:39

These are my questions, just in case they were missed.

  • how this male child has changed so that for safeguarding purposes they are no longer to be treated as male?
  • what studies and statistics are there to prove that these transitioned males are in anyway safer than other males?

-how many female students are acceptable collateral damage in the name of this 'progress'?

  • what does a 14 year old girl do in a situation where they get to the room and discover that they are actually NOT ok with the arrangement anymore, but because a group of teachers and parents have decided that it is 'kind' and 'nice' that they have agreed to share a space with a male, that 14 year old girl feels they cannot change their mind?
  • where does a 14 year old girl go if the worst scenario does happen (and we hope that it doesn't ever happen) and they feel that they have to 'live' with their decision and stay in the same room as their abuser. Because, they agreed to this arrangement?
  • how many girls being harmed is acceptable collateral for this supposedly progressive approach? Please give us a number? 1, 2, 10, 25, 1000?
  • how does ships know that no girl has yet been harmed? How many girls live in a world where their abuse takes a while, sometimes years, to process? Or is ships relying on the new thought of ‘it doesn’t happen. If it did happen, it was just the once’ and not on historical evidence that even males supposedly deemed ‘100% safe’ do commit sexual abuse? Including loving and caring ‘friends’ and teenagers.
Isaw3ships · 29/01/2022 09:53

‘ What do you mean by that statement?’

All the speculation re boyfriends suddenly announcing that they’re trans girls to share rooms with their girlfriend and all that other whatif stuff on here. Decisions are made on a case by case.
That’s not going to change any time soon. Unless there are facilities for kids in trips to have Indio rooms.

Whatwouldscullydo · 29/01/2022 09:54

They can't be. Because u can't say one can and one can't. You'd have a complaint on your hands.

Either u follow safguarding or you dont. Of you don't you need to explain why one kid is exempt and not another

PoisoningPigeons · 29/01/2022 10:02

I'm finding Isaw's continued, blatant, selective blindness very educational.

Whatwouldscullydo · 29/01/2022 10:10

Yes I'd like to know the criteria. I mean it seriously wouldn't be the say so of children and parents who very easily could have no clue could it?

Wheres the line?

Goatsaregreat · 29/01/2022 10:14

The line is wherever those determined that girls will be undressed and vulnerable in front of boys and men say it is Scully.

Whatwouldscullydo · 29/01/2022 10:18

I just hope they realise that when something happens and it will, the agencies that trained them to do it all have already put the get out clause in their paperwork. They have absolutely no intention of taking responsibility.

And the second anyone challenges the LA with legal action they just worthdraw the tool kits.

School will 100 percent be on their own legally and financially

Isaw3ships · 29/01/2022 10:37

‘ I understand safeguarding surely there's no need to renew my DBS when it expires? I'm no risk?’

Surprised you work in a school and need to ask this. Of course DBS needs to be renewed when the expire, just as it’s good prescribe to have one for each setting even though you may have a valid one already. I have 4 current ones for various work/volunteering roles.
Worrying that someone working in a school, even on an advice basis needs to ask that.

Whatwouldscullydo · 29/01/2022 10:43

Even more worrying that you think somw people are exempt from safguarding.

Why is it acceptable to you that teenagers safguard themselves despite the fact we have laws in place like think 21 etc in order to prevent access to dangerous situations like getting drunk to those not deemed old enough or capable to keep themselves safe

Clymene · 29/01/2022 10:50

@Isaw3ships

‘ What do you mean by that statement?’

All the speculation re boyfriends suddenly announcing that they’re trans girls to share rooms with their girlfriend and all that other whatif stuff on here. Decisions are made on a case by case.
That’s not going to change any time soon. Unless there are facilities for kids in trips to have Indio rooms.

But decisions aren't made on a case by case basis in any other circumstance. The whole foundation of safeguarding is that decisions aren't made on a case by case basis. It's been explained to you numerous times why it's unworkable and potentially discriminatory. It's surely not that difficult to understand.

This child's male, they can share a room with boys. There is no legal or ethical reason they can't. They may not want to but that's how school trips work. No one wants to share

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 29/01/2022 11:06

@Isaw3ships

This thread is why schools look at it on a case by case basis. Not scaremongering with the what ifs but actually dealing with the trans child, the friends and the parents involved.
Let us consider something totally different.

There are various treatments, medications and screening techniques that pose significant danger to fetal development. As a result, females of childbearing age are asked to take pregnancy tests before healthcare staff proceed with treatment.

It sometimes comes up on mumsnet that a woman is very frustrated that she had to take a pregnancy test, because she couldn't possibly be pregnant; perhaps she's had a hysterectomy, gave birth the previous day or is 73 years old. The poster says that surely healthcare staff could use personal discretion and decide it on a case by case basis.

The problem is, this is a nation of over 60 million, half of those female, and most of whom will reach adulthood, have the capacity to become pregnant, and need medical treatment between menarche and menopause. The NHS employs thousands of HCPs. The moment you remove this blanket policy, and place it in the hands of individual employees to get it right with every patient they see over their careers, you guarantee that a woman whocouldbe pregnant won't be asked to test her urine. Getting it right on a case by case basis, when you have 30 million patients is a big task.

The easy cases will remain easy: the women who have had complete hysterectomies, gave birth the previous day or are 73 years old.

But what about the edge cases?
Like 12 year old girls who haven't even had their first period yet? However, you ovulate before you menstruate. You can get pregnant without having ever menstruated, if you get pregnant during your first cycle. Approximately 1 in 10 girls is sexually abused before her 18th birthday. So unfortunately the possibility exists that one of the 12 year old patients you'll be treating during your career is being sexually abused, and is in the early stages of pregnancy. You can't know which one.

Women experiencing regular periods, on their period right now, can't be pregnant, right? Wrong. Some women continue to experience break-through bleeding on a regular cycle during pregnancy. You cannot know which one isn't actually having a genuine period.

Your next patient is Sandy. Sandy has had three failed IVF cycles and thinks it's an insult to be asked to wee on a pregnancy stick. However, a teeny, tiny number of women will get pregnant naturally after IVF treatment. If 1 in 10,000 women get pregnant naturally after IVF treatment, that's like winning the lottery. No point hoping for it as an individual. But the people at the National Lottery meet lottery winners every week. So do healthcare staff, because thousands of people visit the hospital every week, too. The woman unknowingly pregnant with a miracle pregnancy, will walk through the doors along with 9,999 women who were right when they said they couldn't be pregnant.

Next you see Diane. Due to a clerical error, it says on her records that she's had a hysterectomy to deal with unexplained bleeding, so you don't ask her to test her urine. Actually, her records are supposed to say she's had a hysteroscopy which is when someone has a look inside a uterus to identify the cause of unexplained bleeding. Her uterus is most definitely still there!

Emma comes in. She assures you she hasn't had sex in the last year. What she doesn't know, or is unwilling to accept, is that she had her drink spiked at a house party last month and she was raped while unconscious.

Liz comes in. She's 51 and thinks she's moved out of perimenopause and into menopause. She tells you she's not had a period for seven months, and before that they were extremely irregular. This is true. But she ovulated four weeks ago and she is now in the early stages of pregnancy.

And so on.

These seemingly unlikely edge cases are why we have blanket policies. If it is done on a case by case basis, someone, somewhere will make the wrong decision, with lifechanging consequences.

CrymeaRvr · 29/01/2022 11:20

‘ Let us consider something totally different.’

Why? Why not just stick to the subject and specific case that the OP asked about in the first place?

Goatsaregreat · 29/01/2022 11:20

No Isaw3ships You don't understand safeguarding at all. Completing your DBS forms and receiving some basic training does not give you the knowledge to override those of us who are fully trained and work in safeguarding children.
Your posts are embarrassing to read. No safeguarding is carried out on the basis of case by case, this child is nice / nice family / lovely friends. That's not how it works.

Helleofabore · 29/01/2022 11:24

Let us consider something totally different.

There are various treatments, medications and screening techniques that pose significant danger to fetal development. As a result, females of childbearing age are asked to take pregnancy tests before healthcare staff proceed with treatment.

It sometimes comes up on mumsnet that a woman is very frustrated that she had to take a pregnancy test, because she couldn't possibly be pregnant; perhaps she's had a hysterectomy, gave birth the previous day or is 73 years old. The poster says that surely healthcare staff could use personal discretion and decide it on a case by case basis.

The problem is, this is a nation of over 60 million, half of those female, and most of whom will reach adulthood, have the capacity to become pregnant, and need medical treatment between menarche and menopause. The NHS employs thousands of HCPs. The moment you remove this blanket policy, and place it in the hands of individual employees to get it right with every patient they see over their careers, you guarantee that a woman whocouldbe pregnant won't be asked to test her urine. Getting it right on a case by case basis, when you have 30 million patients is a big task.

The easy cases will remain easy: the women who have had complete hysterectomies, gave birth the previous day or are 73 years old.

But what about the edge cases?
Like 12 year old girls who haven't even had their first period yet? However, you ovulate before you menstruate. You can get pregnant without having ever menstruated, if you get pregnant during your first cycle. Approximately 1 in 10 girls is sexually abused before her 18th birthday. So unfortunately the possibility exists that one of the 12 year old patients you'll be treating during your career is being sexually abused, and is in the early stages of pregnancy. You can't know which one.

Women experiencing regular periods, on their period right now, can't be pregnant, right? Wrong. Some women continue to experience break-through bleeding on a regular cycle during pregnancy. You cannot know which one isn't actually having a genuine period.

Your next patient is Sandy. Sandy has had three failed IVF cycles and thinks it's an insult to be asked to wee on a pregnancy stick. However, a teeny, tiny number of women will get pregnant naturally after IVF treatment. If 1 in 10,000 women get pregnant naturally after IVF treatment, that's like winning the lottery. No point hoping for it as an individual. But the people at the National Lottery meet lottery winners every week. So do healthcare staff, because thousands of people visit the hospital every week, too. The woman unknowingly pregnant with a miracle pregnancy, will walk through the doors along with 9,999 women who were right when they said they couldn't be pregnant.

Next you see Diane. Due to a clerical error, it says on her records that she's had a hysterectomy to deal with unexplained bleeding, so you don't ask her to test her urine. Actually, her records are supposed to say she's had a hysteroscopy which is when someone has a look inside a uterus to identify the cause of unexplained bleeding. Her uterus is most definitely still there!

Emma comes in. She assures you she hasn't had sex in the last year. What she doesn't know, or is unwilling to accept, is that she had her drink spiked at a house party last month and she was raped while unconscious.

Liz comes in. She's 51 and thinks she's moved out of perimenopause and into menopause. She tells you she's not had a period for seven months, and before that they were extremely irregular. This is true. But she ovulated four weeks ago and she is now in the early stages of pregnancy.

And so on.

These seemingly unlikely edge cases are why we have blanket policies. If it is done on a case by case basis, someone, somewhere will make the wrong decision, with lifechanging consequences.

Brilliant post there potholes!!!

MrBlobbyLivesNextDoor · 29/01/2022 11:29

@Isaw3ships

‘ What do you mean by that statement?’

All the speculation re boyfriends suddenly announcing that they’re trans girls to share rooms with their girlfriend and all that other whatif stuff on here. Decisions are made on a case by case.
That’s not going to change any time soon. Unless there are facilities for kids in trips to have Indio rooms.

What about the transgirl having sex with 'their' girlfriend. Or don't you think that happens even though so many transwomen claim to be lesbians. They don't need to be pretending to be trans to be a threat to girls. Acceptance without exception. If they say they are trans they are. It doesn't matter. Because the level of risk to girls is still exactly the same. Which is no males should be sharing with the girls, regardless of their identity.
PurgatoryOfPotholes · 29/01/2022 11:29

@CrymeaRvr

‘ Let us consider something totally different.’

Why? Why not just stick to the subject and specific case that the OP asked about in the first place?

Because when we explain safeguarding and blanket policies in the context of the OP's actual problem, some posters find it difficult to think past their mortal dread of being transphobic. I am hoping that it will be more fruitful to explain the inevitable outcomes of a "case by case" approach in a context that that does not trigger that emotional kneejerk response.
PurgatoryOfPotholes · 29/01/2022 11:32

@CrymeaRvr

‘ Let us consider something totally different.’

Why? Why not just stick to the subject and specific case that the OP asked about in the first place?

Because when we explain safeguarding and blanket policies in the context of the OP's actual problem, some posters find it difficult to think past their mortal dread of being transphobic. I am hoping that it will be more fruitful to explain the inevitable serious outcomes of a "case by case" approach in a context that that does not trigger that emotional kneejerk response.
PurgatoryOfPotholes · 29/01/2022 11:35

@Isaw3ships

‘ What do you mean by that statement?’

All the speculation re boyfriends suddenly announcing that they’re trans girls to share rooms with their girlfriend and all that other whatif stuff on here. Decisions are made on a case by case.
That’s not going to change any time soon. Unless there are facilities for kids in trips to have Indio rooms.

Why are you assuming that being attracted to girls and being a "transgirl" are mutually exclusive Male children can have gender dysphoria and be infatuated with their female best friend.
Waitwhat23 · 29/01/2022 11:41

@purgatoryofpotholes brilliant post. It's genuinely baffling how many people seem happy to handwave away safeguarding - case by case is so problematic it's ridiculous!

Deliriumoftheendless · 29/01/2022 11:43

Does case by case if parents are ok apply to the rest of the boys?

Why do you assume a transgirl isn’t in a relationship with a girl? It’s perfectly plausible for what you call a boyfriend claiming to be trans to be a child who fully believes they are trans, no pretence.

Is the sperm of a transgirl less potent? Can they not get their girlfriend’s pregnant? There’s plenty of transwomen who have fathered children.

titchy · 29/01/2022 11:47

@CrymeaRvr

‘ Let us consider something totally different.’

Why? Why not just stick to the subject and specific case that the OP asked about in the first place?

Why? Because some posters seem to think safeguarding should be applied on a case by case basis. Others are kindly outlining why the whole basis of safeguarding is that it is NOT applied on a case by case basis and are good enough to give real life examples.

If you already understand that principle then you can just scroll past those posts. For those that don't understand the posts are there to aid understanding.

Deliriumoftheendless · 29/01/2022 11:51

And it’s all so inconsistent with the idea that schools should not put children’s trans status to parents- “hi parents, can your child- who you believe to be a boy- share a bedroom with these girls, for reasons we can’t discuss with you?”

Whatwouldscullydo · 29/01/2022 11:56

We also apparent understanding the safguarding fir the trans child ( well not really because they are placing them.im.positions where they can eytyer get pregnant or get someone.preganant) but can't see it fir the other kids.

Helleofabore · 29/01/2022 11:57

I am experiencing a whole lot of deja vu on this thread. I are seeing the same points patiently raised by posters and ignored by posters supporting these changes to safeguarding.

Those who are reading along will have seen this pattern. They have to asking themselves why these questions and points simply are ignored by posters who are very keen to minimise the risks against female students in this scenario.

However, I am really not sure that those activist posters understand that by ignoring the points and questions they are amplifying them. That is the issue with this 'no debate' or 'it is hateful to question it in the first place, I won't dignify it with an answer' tactic. It draws attention to the inherent weaknesses in the argument.

It draws attention to the fantasy land that these posters believe exists where safeguarding measures can have a sub-group of males excluded from the protections of females.

So, I will continue to ask my questions on every page until I get an answer. Particularly from posters who seem to have positioned themselves as safeguarding experts, yet avoid an substantial answers other than... 'our school has this policy, and nothing happened', or 'it needs to be done on a case by case basis'.

Because in all the threads that I ask these questions on, NOT ONE poster has ever proffered anything but mantra driven drivel.

Here is another question : who exactly benefits from lowering the boundaries that protect all females, but particularly children? Who? The women and children involved? Or the person who wishes access to the spaces that the safeguards are there to protect? Or the people who wish to see those boundaries eroded for other reasons that are harmful for those with lowered boundaries?

What benefit is there to those two female students to believe that in every single instance, that male is now exactly the same as them? What benefit is there to those two female students to believe that the sex of the person never matters?

And for all those posters continuing to push their support that a male student should be able to sleep in the same room as females, are you comfortable that you could look into those girl's eyes when they tell you something happened that caused them harm or made them uncomfortable knowing that YOU were complicit in allowing this.