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?

Sorry Hellebore that was not to you but the poster you quoted. This utter contempt for female children is angering to the point I didn't check.

This is why people wholly sucked into this political lobby should not be advising anyone on safeguarding. There is an utter incapacity to equally value other humans or to see their interests as relevant, they are mere props to meet the needs of more important people. Safeguarding and equality requires the capacity to see all people as equally important and to find solutions and accessibility for all of them.

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.

Absolute bollocks.

The rules are clear. There is no mixed sex sleeping arrangements. Trans children have not changed sex.

There is no nuance, no cars, no obfustication. Just duty of care. All the burbling and word salad in the world does not change that this has the potential to go horribly wrong, and leave a lot of people in a lot of trouble. Which is a safeguarding fail.

And I see we're back to 'well they're going to abuse each other anyway so why worry, let them get on with it'. It's not convincing, and no insurance company in the world goes with that ridiculous policy.

For a poster on these boards not to be able to distinguish between when the word 'sex' is used to refer to the body type rather than the act, is unusual. The paragraphs preceding that made it clear what I was referencing.
@suggestionsplease1 shall I make myself more plain? Whether two people are of the same sex, or of opposite sexes is the deciding factor in whether any sexual activity between them will result in the life-changing consequence of a pregnancy. An exceptional case of female-on-female violence - however shocking it may be in its own right - does not disprove the rule that only activity between a male and a female (consensual or otherwise) could result in pregnancy. Nor does it change the statistical fact that the overwhelming majority of sexual violence is committed by males, mostly against females.

Hmmm.

I wonder if DBS checks should be done on a case by case basis- after all, I’m nice so I don’t need one. But Mr Oddball, the PE teacher, well, he probably should. He told a very blue joke once.

Fine words suggestionsplease1
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
What you have failed to notice is that the school have done none of this They have not even attempted to apply any "rich information" let alone risk analysis to this. What they have done is handed over the adult responsibility for safeguarding children to ... children. As the OP has pointed out, although her lovely daughter is compassionate and happy to share with this boy identifying as a girl, it sets up any girl who is not happy to do so in an impossible position. Unable to establish her personal boundaries on the basis of her religion, personal preference, previous abuse, mental health or for any other reason
We separate the sexes for all sorts of good reasons and this lazy school have completely abdicated their legal and ethical responsibilities. It's professionally dangerous and deeply unfair to all children

As far as this case by case idea, if that were a reasonable idea, it would also be reasonable for boys and girls sharing rooms in general.

We don't do that - why not?

Part of the issue is that there needs to be an institutional policy. Individual families outside of schools or other group activities do have more room to make decisions on a case by case basis. That isn't going to work here, though.

The very foundation of safeguarding is that it isn't nuanced. The rules and foundations are agreed and applied equally and consistently to all people no matter who they are.

What you're describing about SW decisions isn't safeguarding @suggestionsplease1

@Deliriumoftheendless

Hmmm.

I wonder if DBS checks should be done on a case by case basis- after all, I’m nice so I don’t need one. But Mr Oddball, the PE teacher, well, he probably should. He told a very blue joke once.

I agree, you seem nice and the rich data available from your post on this thread means you couldn't possibly be a predator. Reminds me of that nice Mr Saville who raised so much money for charity and helped fulfill children's wishes. He was a real pillar of the community. A friend of Prince Charles too.

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.

As pp’s have already posted. Why then are 14 year olds not in mixed sex rooms all the time then.

What a ridiculous take.

Kids are going to have sex anyway, why bother putting any measures in place to prevent it?

Let’s not forget that you are stating that those ‘good’ friends are being emotionally manipulated into having a male there when they are dressing as well as sleeping. So completely vulnerable and deserving of privacy.

And yes, if they wouldn’t want a ‘boy’ in their room, they shouldn’t be educated and manipulated to believe that a male miraculously becomes a female when they identify as a girl.

That is what you are advocating.

Safeguarding can be personal, of course it can be.

No. It is NOT a personal affront to expect safeguarding measures to be equally applied.

No sacred groups with special exemptions and that is not a personal insult.

Along with an inability to equally view other people as equally human and with equal right to consideration and care - there seems to be an inability to see the whole picture, to have an entire framework and system as opposed to 'everyone do what that person wants right now'.

No. Responsible adulting is a basic requirement here.

@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.

Sex is the biggest factor in violent and sexual crime. To pretend that it isn’t, when the vast majority of sex offences are committed by males, is gaslighting. A whole generation of girls are being taught that they shouldn’t have boundaries, that they should let the “lovely” male person into their female spaces. Leaving children responsible for deciding who is “lovely” and who isn’t is a total abdication of the proper responsibilities of adults. And that is before you get on to the fact that many teenage girls feel they need to toe the party line on this or risk losing their friends.

If males can sleep in with the girls then why not any males ? If not all males, then why not ?

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

FFS. The whole bloody point is that safeguarding is NOT nuanced. It is binary. The rules are clear. The rules are applied to ALL EQUALLY. There is no judgement. There is no personal exception.

We DBS check ALL teachers, not all except Mr Jones because we have dinner with him and his wife regularly.

You cannot decide on a case by case basis. Deciding on a case by case basis is how Karen White ended up sexually assaulting several women before he was moved back to a male prison.

Mistakes are made if you make decisions on a case by case basis. Groomers and predators will get through. We can never ever underestimate the lengths that predators will go to access their victims. The only way to keep most potential victims safe most of the time is to apply a blanket rule.

If I read in my children's primary school, the rule that I am never alone with a child is not because they think I - a middle aged mother - present a terrible risk. I don't. But the rules are there to protect all the children from all the adults. I'm not offended.

By the same token, I'm not offended if my friend doesn't want her teenage daughter to share a room with my teenage son.

I'm also not offended if he doesn't want me to go into the bathroom when he's in the bath while my daughter likes me to come and chat to her. Having different boundaries depending on whether someone is the same or opposite sex to you is absolutely normal and natural. And is key to an effective safeguarding framework.

You have to wonder about those people who seek to blur those boundaries.

OK, lets take the UK government definition of safeguarding:

‘The process of protecting children from abuse or neglect, preventing impairment of their health and development, and ensuring they are growing up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care that enables children to have optimum life chances and enter adulthood successfully'

This is a process, nowhere in that description does it entail a binary decision on binary sex. That is simply reductive to operate in that way, and leaves both females and males at risk of harm from their own sex.

So if, let's say you make a blanket judgement and just put female bodies in with female bodies, and male bodies in with male bodies with no other influencing factors (and of course, as already noted several times on this thread, people are most likely to be abused by people they are close to, so you must also logically ensure that all female bodies must go into rooms with other female bodies they don't know / are not friends with - they will be safer after all that way, right?

Does that make sense? That's some of the logic being expressed on this thread. Is that what you want for your daughters on their school trips? That's what the logic dictates.

Or they could go on their trips and stay in rooms with friends they feel confident, comfortable and happy around, consolidating secure friendships and support networks that might last for decades to come. That seems fairly consistent with the safeguarding definition above, doesn't it?

There is no implication from the OP that this is a spurious, bad faith gender ID for the sake of the trip.

It is always wise to get to understand exactly who benefits with the lowering of childrens and womens boundaries.

All the benefactors - immediate and future.

So if, let's say you make a blanket judgement and just put female bodies in with female bodies, and male bodies in with male bodies with no other influencing factors (and of course, as already noted several times on this thread, people are most likely to be abused by people they are close to, so you must also logically ensure that all female bodies must go into rooms with other female bodies they don't know / are not friends with - they will be safer after all that way, right?

Well yes. That's exactly what you do. Because there is no risk of pregnancy that way. And you think this is an example of doing it wrong?!!!

Why not let Sarah and Tim share? They've been going out together for ages and have probably had sex. It'll be fine surely?

Your arguments are absolutely absurd @suggestionsplease1 so I'm not going to engage with you any more after this post.

The government guidance on sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools and colleges clearly states:

The evidence shows that girls are more likely to be subject to sexual violence and sexual harassment than boys, and that boys are more likely to perpetrate such violence and harassment. School and college policies should reflect this.

Nothing about friends. Nothing about making children responsible for making decisions.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/1014224/Sexuallviolenceanddsexualharassmenttbetweenchildrenninschoolssandcolleges.pdf

So we seem to be back to the “solution” that adults provide contraception for teenagers in their care because, well, teenagers have sex anyway so shrug.

I’m glad it’s not me telling parents their year 10 kids all want to share rooms so send some condoms as the school budget no longer stretches that far, but it’s what the kids want so what can we adults do?

@suggestionsplease1

OK, lets take the UK government definition of safeguarding:

‘The process of protecting children from abuse or neglect, preventing impairment of their health and development, and ensuring they are growing up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care that enables children to have optimum life chances and enter adulthood successfully'

This is a process, nowhere in that description does it entail a binary decision on binary sex. That is simply reductive to operate in that way, and leaves both females and males at risk of harm from their own sex.

So if, let's say you make a blanket judgement and just put female bodies in with female bodies, and male bodies in with male bodies with no other influencing factors (and of course, as already noted several times on this thread, people are most likely to be abused by people they are close to, so you must also logically ensure that all female bodies must go into rooms with other female bodies they don't know / are not friends with - they will be safer after all that way, right?

Does that make sense? That's some of the logic being expressed on this thread. Is that what you want for your daughters on their school trips? That's what the logic dictates.

Or they could go on their trips and stay in rooms with friends they feel confident, comfortable and happy around, consolidating secure friendships and support networks that might last for decades to come. That seems fairly consistent with the safeguarding definition above, doesn't it?

There is no implication from the OP that this is a spurious, bad faith gender ID for the sake of the trip.

Third paragraph is total obfuscation. Actually quite painful to read. I think you’re being deliberately obstreperous.

My mind is boggled that some here are so incredibly keen to have boys and girls in together

female bodies must go into rooms with other female bodies they don't know / are not friends with - they will be safer after all that way, right?

That's right. Well done. You've nailed it. Girls will be safer that way.

It’s a safeguarding risk. This is opening up a large can of worms.

Parents of boys and “trans girls” should be concerned with their sons being accused of inappropriate behaviour just as much as the parents of girls being concerned with their daughters being assaulted.

It’s inappropriate. And what happens if an underage child is impregnated on one of these school trips? There is a reason why mixed sex spaces and sleeping arrangements for teens on trips exist.