Trans Swimming sessions

[DaveDave]

Just saw the below event advertised at my local pool. How come this is ok but we can't have biologically female only swimming sessions? I'm annoyed, not because of the event, but because it seems impossible to have female only swimming without being accused of being transphobic.

"Been hoping for a swimming event that's only for trans, non-binary, and/or intersex people? Well, here it is!

To ensure privacy we have booked an entire public pool so it's just for us! Apart from the lifeguards, the rest of the building will be empty too, so there's no need to worry about which changing room to use or people staring. Whether you want to swim laps, float about, or just hang out, you're very welcome. We want these sessions to be accessible to as many people who need them, so if you need a carer who is cisgender to attend with you they are welcome to come along. Parents/guardians are welcome to come and wait in the changing rooms but will not be allowed in the pool or on the poolside.

VENUE: The venue will be given to you during booking to ensure privacy. Please do not advertise this information. You can arrive 15 minutes prior to our swimming session starting, but please note that if you arrive more than 15 minutes late you may be locked out. There is very little phone reception by the pool so you may not be able to get in touch with anyone to let you into the building.

CHANGING FACILITIES: The changing room is gender neutral, wheelchair accessible, and has individual changing and shower cubicles. Before swimming you'll have 15 mins to get ready, and 30 mins at the end.

AGE RANGE: This event is for all ages, but if you're under 18 you'll need to get a consent form signed. Just let us know when you're booking and we'll send you one to bring filled in on the day. Please bear in mind that we do not currently allow cisgender parents and guardians to be in the pool or on the poolside.

DRESS CODE: As always, genitals covered. If you have [insert word you're comfortable using for your chest/boobs/breast tissue] you'll need to have your chest covered too. A rash vest would be best, but if you don't have one or can't afford one a light weight t-shirt is also acceptable.

BOOKING: To book, or ask any questions, contact [email protected]. If you are disabled and need a cisgender carer to attend with you please let me know during booking.

COST: This event is free to attend but as a charity we welcome donations. You can donate on our website

www.rainbow-project.org/donate/ or there will be a donation bucket available at the event.

(redacted)

Let’s hope that there’s a landline or emergency phone by the pool in that public pool they’re hiring, for the lifeguards to use. Because it would be quite something if that pool didn’t have any way to call for help any time the pool is in use. That would be a major scandal for the pool organisation to deal with - not anything to do with a hiring organisation.

Come on… reach harder. There has to be something.

I am happy to admit prejudice here. Show me things have changed and I’ll challenge my own prejudices. Until then, I have zero trust in any organisation that doesn’t even see there’s a problem.

Prejudice is another of the words, like -phobe and bigot, that terrify people into mindlessly Being Kind.

Prejudice has a vital part to play in safeguarding. Not the prejudice of "Ooo, he looks a nasty piece of work", but the prejudice of assuming that anybody is capable of doing harm, therefore we must put into place conditions that reduce the risk of anybody doing harm.

I have colleagues who object to the necessity of DBSs and regular Safeguarding training. They consider these an affront against their personal integrity and intelligence. These are precisely the people who need training, because they are so emphatically unprejudiced that they cannot see that their actual prejudices endanger others. Yes, they themselves are as pure as the driven snow, but others may not be.

Equally, if somebody's DBS comes back as saying they have had some inappropriate activity with vulnerable people, would we be prejudiced if we said they could not be involved in or organisation or activity involving vulnerable people? Would we be afraid of being judge to be prejudiced in those circumstances?

Yes, I am happy to admit prejudice here. Show me things have changed and I’ll challenge my own prejudices. Until then, I have zero trust in any organisation that doesn’t even see there’s a problem.

And what does ‘ hang out’ mean in this context exactly?

Fingers in ears going lalalalala some of them

You want to find major and dangerous fault with this session whether it’s there or not

It’s important to look at an event and see all potential dangers whether they’re there or not.

That’s what safeguarding IS FFS.

Do you know who’s supposed to do this, instead of posters here? The registered charity. Have they done it? Who knows?

What makes you so confident they have, Strawberry?

You still haven’t said why you’re so confident this organisation is different.

I haven’t said anything of the sort (there’s that making stuff up thing again!)

I’m pointing out that finding major fault with them on grounds of children being unsupervised by parents is completely unreasonable because that happens all the time in every public pool in the UK, without even the consent form this organisation requires.

Challenging that is leading to lots of other tries at finding fault, all of which so far are equally spurious.

Doesn’t seem to be going down too well, so the ad hominem attacks and whataboutery are rolling out. Big surprise.

There is no "reach" about it.

But you ar eadamant that there is nothing to worry about.

Parents aren’t banned, locked out of the building or excluded. They have to give explicit consent for all under 18s to attend, knowing that they would have to wait outside the pool area. They can choose whether they’re ok with that or not.

They're not allowed to supervise their children. And you can't tell me why. They're not even allowed in the same room.

Why can't parents be in the pool, at the side, chatting to each other, and keeping an eye on their offspring splashing about?

Why is that expressly forbidden? What's the reason to keep parents out of sight of the children?

But you’re determined to find reasons to be horrified at trans people setting up a much vaunted third space activity. So have at it. The only people you’re making look bad here is yourselves.

Nope.

a) if this is being billed as a third space activity, then the hypocrisy is rank. Women would've been threatened with death and rape by now if they'd done the same. A male individual is being financed to sue a woman in the Supreme Court simply for having a female only dating app!

b) third space activities have fuck all to do with organising a parent free swim session without any safeguarding.

It's not even your determination to avoid addressing the safeguarding issues that's so stark, it's your commitment to trying to shame others for doing so.

Why? Why wouldn't you want children who say they are trans to be subject to the same safeguarding as other children?

I do find it amusing that they are keeping the venue secret when most of the time it is the TRAs and their allies that try tp shut anything down that they consider discriminatory.

I have short hair and don't wear make up. Not really up for sex much. I'm sure that makes me asexual non-binary. So I'm under the umbrella. I'd turn up and demand they let me swim.

But you ar eadamant that there is nothing to worry about.

Also didn’t say that.

My whole point is that if you’re worried about unsupervised children changing and swimming with mixed sex adults then be worried about every public pool in the UK.

Go start a thread about that far far bigger issue than this one single session that has additional consent policy in place compared to public pool sessions, instead of using it as an attack angle on trans people setting up the third space you keep telling them they should.

Just to clarify, the pool will normally have someone on reception so that they can call emergency services.
It will be part of not only there safeguarding policy but a requirement of insurance.

I’m pointing out that finding major fault with them on grounds of children being unsupervised by parents is completely unreasonable

And it has been pointed out to you multiple times that no one is finding fault for this reason, we are finding fault because parents are being deliberately excluded.

You can’t see a difference. Neither can they. It’s concerning.

You miss the point that every other mixed sex session has the ability for the parents to be in the pool with there children .

Why can't parents be in the pool, at the side, chatting to each other, and keeping an eye on their offspring splashing about?

Lifeguards actively discourage or prevent non swimmers from being poolside as it blocks lines of sight, and adds noise that masks unfolding accidents.

It’s completely normal for pool areas to not allow non swimming people to stay poolside.

This

You miss the point that every other mixed sex session has the ability for the parents to be in the pool with there children
That's definitely not true, sessions are usually parents cannot be poolside in my experience.

Sprogonthetyne

I’m interested in what you think could go wrong? Parents are allowed in the changing room - the place where it theoretically might be possible to be alone with a child - but not on poolside which is a public place? There are life guards. So what safeguarding issue is there?

It is a private hire event. There would be absolutely no ‘outcry’ whatsoever if you hired your local
pool and invited anyone you wanted.
This type of post just feeds the transphobic narrative.

Ridiculous

I didn't say poolside. I said in the pool.

I’m pointing out that finding major fault with them on grounds of children being unsupervised by parents is completely unreasonable because that happens all the time in every public pool in the UK, without even the consent form this organisation requires.

No it doesn't.

There aren't any public pools in the UK which expressly forbid parents from keeping an eye on their children.

In my experience sessions for all ages (as this is) allow parents in the pool.
The only times that I have seen parents not allowed in the pool have bee sessions by age.

Why wouldn't you want children who say they are trans to be subject to the same safeguarding as other children?

Didn’t say that either.

In this instance there is arguably more safeguarding as explicit parental consent is required for all attending up to age 18, compared to public UK pools where none is required.

Why do you keep ignoring that Datun?

Regarding parental supervision, thousands of swimming lessons take place in public pools where parents are prevented from viewing the session or being at the poolside. Like this session, the parents would have considered whether they were ok with that or would prefer an open to viewing session.

Do you take issue with all swimming activities for children where parents leave their kids in the supervision of lifeguards and other adults like charity group leaders? Say, guides or scouts for example, or a water polo club?

I'm NOT saying there is something awful and sinister going on. I'm saying that the organisers do not appear to have given proper thought to the safeguarding of children who may try to attend their event. I pointed out an 'ordinary' thing that could go wrong. Scouts, schools, PTAs - every organisation that required my consent as a parent for my child to attend an event unaccompanied sought it in advance. That's the normal and sensible thing to do.
Given that children who wish to attend this event may also be struggling with relationships with their parents, as we are so often told by these very organisations, it is not a stretch at all to think that a child may try to dodge the requirement for parental consent. So if the organisers take the issue of parental consent seriously they should take reasonable steps to ensure it is obtained. And that includes requiring a form to be returned in advance of the event.

I haven’t said anything of the sort (there’s that making stuff up thing again!)

You wrote:

Unless you’ve actually seen that form, and any supporting policies from that organisation, and can evidence that they’re less robust than policies at public swimming sessions, there’s no grounds for assuming an absence of proper safeguarding for these sessions.

You’re giving them the presumption of good practice and good safeguarding policies on the basis of the fact no one has seen any documentation to prove how bad they are at safeguarding.

Why? Why do you not want to see supporting policies before you give them the tick of a approval, rather than give them the tick of approval unless a document that may or may not exist proves otherwise?

The parents are signing consent forms for them to go for a swim. They wouldn't do that if they thought they couldn't swim by themselves and needed them in the pool with them.
Like if you have a teen or even say a 10 - 12 yr old you don't usually swim with them anyway, haven't supervised my now teen in the pool for a few years now as doesn't need me in too when there.

Why if this is "all gender" and "all ages" would you ban the parents from the pool?