Help with talking to a 12 yr old about trans issues

[GoingOnce]

My son has a friend whose sister is apparently now his brother. I sense my son wants to talk to me about this and I want to have the right language to engage sensibly in a conversation. He has swallowed whole the ideology that people can change their gender as this has been “explained” to them at school. The child does not attend my son’s school but still attends a girls school - whilst going by a new name, wearing an adapted and having a special toilet assigned just for them.

The child in question (and the entire family) is struggling. There is self-harm and have been suicide attempts. I do not want to criticise them or their child. But I do want my child to realise that they are being presented with one narrative here. (I am quite certain the parents are simply going along with the whole thing because they are terrified of their child’s mental state and what they might do next. I feel very sorry for them).

Any advice for how I can discuss this sensibly? I can’t believe at age 12 we are already having to talk about all this.

Social Services are the corporate parent when a child is looked after. I think stopwaiting you may mean "in loco parentis" where a school or teacher acts in place of the parent during the day.

Sorry, I missed this.

I'm not sure the difficulty in following

I do believe my views, but even if I didnt (as others dont) I'd be in a position where it wouldnt be that easy. However, I dont agree with everything trans related, as for most people it's not a black and white topic.

I'm not sure why tbats so difficult to grasp, unless of course that doesnt work with making me out to be the idiot or monster others do.

But I do believe in trans

Can you explain what you mean by this @stopwaitingforpermissiontobeyou ?

Whoa! Really? You do know that “corporate parent” has a very precise meaning and you absolutely are not a “corporate parent” for the vast majority of the children in your school.

www.cypcs.org.uk/faq/what-is-a-corporate-parent/

Or as MrsOW said,

I actually find that very worrying. Certain have specific legal meanings and it’s easy to see how if you believe X means Y, then you could mistakenly think it also means Z because under the true definition of X, Z holds.

*certain terms

I didnt say I was!
But as I was the idiot spending hours at a recent in service drawing bloody mind maps and team challenges of what I need to do in my role as a corporate parent, il decide what it is that we are told!

I believe people can change gender. I believe children should have their pronouns and choices respected. I dont refer to it as nonsense or an ideology.

If you find my opinion or experience of a word worrying, you need to consider how over invested you are.

I havent hot a bloody clue what point yourr trying to make with your second paragraph _will I just assume it's another slur o my judgement and capability? It's been at least a page since I was a danger

I didn’t word the second paragraph well. I was trying to generalise beyond in loco parentis vs corporate parent. But in this example, if you (general) believe that in loco parentis is exchangable with the term corporate parent, it is easy to see how someone might mistakenly think that the powers and responsibilities under corporate parent might also apply to in loco parentis, when in fact there are large differences

And it is important if you care about accuracy (which I do).

In the interests of legal accuracy: What is a corporate parent?
The Children and Social Work Act 2017 says that when a child or young person comes into the care of the local authority, or is under 25 and was looked-after by the authority for at least 13 weeks after their 14th birthday, the authority becomes their corporate parent

From the Local Government Association:
www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/15.11%20Corporate%20parenting_v05.pdf
.

Just another example of wrong training providers can get things. 😡

I would say theres a mismatch here.

The latest guidance suggests that looked after children include any child who has ever been looked after (even with a relative) in their life.

@rogdmum I think what this thread is quickly showing is that parents dont know as much about what they think we do as it appears. Of course every aithorityis different though.

"Looked-after child" has a very specific meaning. It doesn't mean staying with an aunt or grandparent or other relative. Although a LAC may well be placed with relatives, if they are a looked-after child they are in the care of the state, even if living with relatives, including parents.

There's no shame in making an error. The problem is when someone claims to have an area of expertise (working with children in schools) yet misunderstands / misrepresents areas of policy / good practice / the law.

The training re trans issues in schools has been outrageous in so many ways rogdmum. I know a lot about safeguarding and pastoral care - as a practitioner and in advising schools about the law and good practice. That's why I recognise all the safeguarding breaching / poor pastoral care practice from numerous trans group "training" providers. It's a scandal that they've been allowed to weigh in on education areas that they have zero qualifications / experience in.

I think what this thread is quickly showing is that parents dont know as much about what they think we do as it appears.

Er, because you are telling us you are a 'corporate parent' when you are clearly not, that shows that parents don't know much?

Yes. Watching Allison Bailey's tribunal has been astonishing. That anyone is taking legal (or any other kind of) advice from an organisation like Stonewall is utterly shocking.

You forget that parents can also be teachers, social workers, work in this area and have as much or more knowledge than what you may have gleaned from one session on an INSET day.

I'm not sure why you are telling me this (not even on a professional level, I'm well aware).

It's me who clarified the LAC term. My point was that it never used to be thus.

For fucks sake.

Do you honestly think I'm arguing my case from one in service day? If it suits you to believe I'm some excited probationer, that's absolutely fine.

I am telling a poster what MY experience is with certain terms. Is that allowed?

Incidentally, continuing to take swipes at my experience is fine, but it makes it a one way street. I think some of the views on here are ridiculous, but I would never, ever take a swipe at someone as a parent.

Absolutely. Where possible Social Services will always try for a kinship fostering placement to maintain a child in their family.

We don't. I have worked in "Stonewall" schools, (and met Ian McKellen for the privilege) but I don't currently.

Well aware.
However, as previously stated, our kudos at the start of this term was that LAC refers to all children who have been looked after, at any point, at all, by anyone.

Of course, I could be a mad fantasist making all of this up, but even I'm not that sad.

It has just occurred to me it might be different in Scotland though. We are led by our councils, on the whole.

I'm going to say this very slowly.

I didn't make an error.

I also never claimed to "have an area of expertise", what a silly comment to make. I don't believe anyone has "expertise" in that sense because everyone's experiences are different.

I honestly think next time I will NC and pretend I'm of a different occupation as it is really boring taking this constant hammering.

@stopwaitingforpermissiontobeyou well, that's the specific experience that you referred to when explaining your expertise about what being a corporate parent is. So, yes.

I'm sure you're not a probationary teacher. Doesn't make you infallible as I'm sure you'd agree. Some of the longest serving teachers can operate under a misapprehension, and some of the newest ones can be absolutely on it.