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?

Besides presumably they'd be a plan in place if anyone objected. Cant thet just do that from the start and save the hassle.

Unless of course that plan was a girl who's parents they knew wouldn't give a shit and a girl whod keep quiet?

‘ penis people’ - I thought the general feeling on these boards was that it is ridiculous to identify people by their genitals? Cervix havers, people with vaginas etc so why is okay to talk about trans girls like this?

It's funny though - there's lots of change to language relating to women and girls - 'those with a cervix', 'menstruators' etc but no change at all to the language which relates to those who have a penis. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, one would think.

The poster using the term 'penis people' is using the TRA approved, 'inclusive' term (albeit unusually relating to males). Why is that not a good thing to anti women posters? Surely we're doing what we 'should' be doing?

You know that’s enough tactic used by activists. Ignore all questions and comments and focus on something that is not really relevant to the thread.

There is a word for it - sparple.

What’s wrong with you crymearv

It’s safeguarding

Applys to all children. No exceptions

That’s it

Good work food fiend 💪💪

@CrymeaRvr

‘ penis people’ - I thought the general feeling on these boards was that it is ridiculous to identify people by their genitals? Cervix havers, people with vaginas etc so why is okay to talk about trans girls like this?

Happy to call them boys if they prefer. But that's generally not popular amongst some of the trans community. I believe penis haver is an accepted description though. 👍

Now I feel sad.

I have had so many people here telling me how unreasonable it is to be opposed to “cervix haver”. I thought that since TRAs are the ones insisting on referring to people as “havers” of the relevant organs/genitalia, they would applaud me.

I think penis person is very accurate in this context. There are so many, valid gender identities and I am supportive of every single one. I also support gender fluidity.

But when it comes to sleeping arrangements and showers, we need to separate out the penis people.

@Whatwouldscullydo

Would be worth asking for the equality impact assessment too!

They are usually eaten by the dog ir something but ya might get lucky

It's that bloody Welsh terrier they own in Cardiff. It's a bastard for eating equality impact assessments. (And all the minutes of every meeting the impact assessment was decided on, discussed and fed back on, and used as a basis for decisions; the details of who was instructed to carry out the assessment, and any email trail of those communicating while commissioning, carrying out and feeding back on, it's like magic.

But the IA definitely did happen Miss. Honest. You can ask my Mum.

I believe they loan the terrier out on request to other govt bodies.

I don't think any one should be referred to by their body parts, it's dehumanising. I expect previous posters were sarcastically highlighting the hypocrisy that women are expected to put up with being referred to as 'menstruators' or 'uterus owners' in medical contexts, while men are not referred to as prostate people or ejaculators, and making the point that redefining the formerly useful words 'boy' and 'male' make it very difficult to talk about the situation in question in clear and comprehensible terms.

Anyway, now we've got that distraction out of the way, @CrymeaRvr do you have any responses to the questions about safeguarding? Do you honestly feel that this is a safe situation, without risk of harm or embarassing/ distressing situations for any of the children involved? (You've said you wouldn't be happy for your dd to share a dormitory with boys. Why is this different?)

‘ there's lots of change to language relating to women and girls - 'those with a cervix', 'menstruators’

I know and it’s irritating beyond belief and often complained about here as it should be. There’s room for respectful language all round when talking about people.

That's a very interesting piece of selective quoting.

I learnt a new word today: ‘forwaked’. It means, weary from watching and waiting for something that never seems to materialise.

Thank you, Susie Dent!

Glad we've cleared that up @CrymeaRvr We're all in agreement that people should be treated respectfully and not referred to by body parts.

So would you like to help me understand why you wouldn't be worried by this scenario? Because I am, and other posters here say they would be, though you've said you can't be bothered to read the posts explaining why or outlining risks.

What makes you feel that this is would be safe?

• Do you think that males and females sharing is safe if they're friends?
• Do you think that a trans girl is not male? (By which I mean male in the traditional meaning of the word, in order to avoid having to reduce people to body parts, which we've already agreed is not appropriate).
• Is there something else that makes this safer than any other scenario where males and females would share?
• Or do the trans child's feelings have more weight than any other possible serious outcome, for them or others?

I'm guessing your position is the last one. This is clearly the position of the LEA/school policy. But it would be useful to be sure I've understood you correctly, and I'm not missing something important. Believe me, I would love to be reassured that this is a safe arrangement.

Good luck this week foodfiend, hopefully you fighting this battle will mean that parents coming after you wont have to. I know that wont make what you are doing any easier, but hopefully is some small comfort. And even if your school does not reverse its position, I know plenty of us will be checking policies before we land up in the same position as you.

Dear lurkers, please note that Cry as the latest "righteous poster" is following the standard playbook of ignoring all questions, and selectively picking out little bits of text to twiddle about with through multiple posts. Distract, DARVO, obfuscate and if all fails, try to fill up the thread as fast as possible.

If you can't answer these questions, then you're not arguing in the best interests of any of the children involved.

1. How has this male child has changed so that for safeguarding purposes they are no longer to be treated as male?

2 What studies and statistics are there to prove that these transitioned males are in anyway safer than other males?

3 How many female students are acceptable collateral damage in the name of this 'progress'? How many girls being harmed is acceptable collateral for this supposedly progressive approach? Please give us a number? 1, 2, 10, 25, 1000?

1. 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?

1. 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?

1. 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 style of activist thought of ‘It doesn’t happen. If it did happen, it was just the once’ and not on the historical evidence that even males supposedly deemed ‘100% safe’ do commit sexual abuse? Including loving and caring ‘friends’ and teenagers.

1. 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?

1. 'On a case by case scenario, how exactly does a safeguarding lead ascertain the sexual function of a 14 year old male without asking very private information that should not have to be asked or disclosed? How is this NOT transphobic to subject this male to this treatment when a blanket policy removes any of this requirement?'

@TheElementsSong

Dear lurkers, please note that Cry as the latest "righteous poster" is following the standard playbook of ignoring all questions, and selectively picking out little bits of text to twiddle about with through multiple posts. Distract, DARVO, obfuscate and if all fails, try to fill up the thread as fast as possible.

I do wonder though Elements if they even know that they are doing it, or if this action is being copied through the interactions that they witness on other platforms.

I mean if you are fed a constant stream of 't*rfs' are evil, ignorant and just hate and don't want trans people to exist, you might actually start believing it.

You might not realise that you every interaction (across different names) has taken this tone. I cannot imagine having someone like this for a friend. They simply cannot see their own prejudice and in the case of safeguarding 14 year olds, it is very dangerous.

Because they have swallowed the mantras, swallowed the repeated few sentences but do not seem to have the ability to critically think outside this. To think about what safeguarding is actually about, how historical groups have taught us that there can be no exceptions and that a group of people are 'special' in some way. And to think about just what it means.

If people cannot engage and lay out why a change will make no difference, it is a sure sign that they personally have not thought it through (and blindly follow allegiances) or that the evidence is so weak that it will be counter productive to lay it out. Hence... the refusal to even read questions or engage.

By the way, refusing to read questions also reminds me very much of the group of people who cling to needing 'safe' spaces because to venture outside that space and look at original sources to make an informed judgement might either shake their flimsily built beliefs, or they may be seen as being just as evil as the person who wrote the article/study/paper .

And we cannot put a name to a group or a movement that does that to its followers, or we get deleted. But this level of interaction that we are seeing, is almost textbook tactics.

Blows my mind every time I see it.

@CrymeaRvr

‘ penis people’ - I thought the general feeling on these boards was that it is ridiculous to identify people by their genitals? Cervix havers, people with vaginas etc so why is okay to talk about trans girls like this?

Yes that bloody Welsh Terrier. We all know how he likes to shred everything with his strong little terrier teeth.

Sorry wrong post quoted !

No wonder some folk want #nodebate.

If my ideology was shakier than a shitting dog, I don't think I'd want it scrutinised through debate either.

If my ideology was shakier than a shitting dog, I don't think I'd want it scrutinised through debate either

What was it the trainer said in the recording?

" stop being so academic "

Man asking question gets told to stop asking any questions...

@Whatwouldscullydo What training/recording is this?

And @Artichokeleaves it's your list of risks I meant above - it's really very good. Thank you.

I've found this thread extremely helpful - thank you to everyone who's contributed, particularly Artichoke, @Helleofabore @Chersfrozenface @Akela64 @NecessaryScene @ClawedButler for helping me articulate things, @Deliriumoftheendless for bringing the black humour and also to the posters who think I'm wrong to be concerned. Because I haven't seen a single convincing explanation of why I shouldn't be. It seems to boil down to either

• 'bad things won't happen, only some kind of prude/nutcase would think they will', which seems fantastically naive/wilfully blind to the realities outlined in the Estyn report that @Cher highlighted.
• Or 'Even if there are risks to everyone involved, they aren't as important as a trans person getting what they (think they) want'. Everything else must be ignored or handwaved away.

It's helped me feel more confident that there is no compelling argument that I was somehow missing. There just isn't one.

You're very welcome Op. Hope you get some resolution with the school and reconciliation with your daughter. BW