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)

But nobody 'requires' anyone to be a priest, or a boyscout leader to access vulnerable people. Those are just roles that potentially provide an opportunity.

The fact that there are various ways for predators to access victims doesn't mean that we should focus on only one and exclude others.

We look for all the risks, and we try to minimise them. We don't say, 'oh sure, they could find another way so let's not bother trying to address this risk'.

@WarriorN there seems to be no lower age limit. I've not noticed anything about swimming ability either. Meh, details!

But I thought your argument was that it is totally fine for unsupervised kids to swim without parents overseeing?

Nope, I’ve never said that and don’t think that.

Feel free to re-read the many times I’ve pointed out that there’s an inconsistency in objecting to children not being directly supervised by parents in this one specific scenario vs not objecting to the well known and provable risks of children not supervised at all by parents in their thousands every week all over the country vs also not objecting to similar safeguarding arrangements for community groups and private hires outside of the trans community.

It’s the hypocrisy I’m calling out.

Meh, I'm sure the invite to email any questions will probably provide whatever details are required. It's one advert alerting people to the events. Why does it have to include every possible piece of information someone might require? Do you expect t that of every event advert you see?

So you are saying there aren't 'bad outcomes from a safeguarding loophole'?

'there’s an inconsistency in objecting to children not being directly supervised by parents in this one specific scenario vs not objecting to the well known and provable risks of children not supervised at all by parents in their thousands every week all over the country'

So you acknowledge there are risks in non supervised children in this situation?

Good.

Be honest with yourself... do you scrutinise every event open to children in this way? Do you think everyone on this thread does? Or are peopkes antenna raised when the event is organised by or for specific groups of people?

But me talking about rapists in women's prisons isn't whataboutery. It's exactly the same thingery.

It's giving a group of people, or even people who are not in that group, a free pass when you wouldn't do it with anyone else.

can I ask you, strawberry, are you a parent of a child who identifies as trans?

Because if you are, I can understand why this is upsetting to you.

But me talking about rapists in women's prisons isn't whataboutery. It's exactly the same thingery.

It's giving a group of people, or even people who are not in that group, a free pass when you wouldn't do it with anyone else.

can I ask you, strawberry, are you a parent of a child who identifies as trans?

Because if you are, I can understand why this is upsetting to you.

If you want ot go back to that it is possible
As you are more likely to get TRAs and their allies protesting about transwomen not being allowed as TWAW etc.

Name me one other group of people, who can insist on men accessing changing rooms for women, who can insist on rapists being put into female prisons, etc.

And for that matter, would claim to have an inner belief that they shared with little kids, which meant they could swim with them but banned their parents.

I will be totally honest: When people start insulting, berating, sneering and deriding women for mildly making observations (as many did early on in this thread) that the 'all ages' approach was probably not very well thought through, then all the red flags start popping up.

A fairly normal response from someone who disagress might have been 'oh, I can see why someone might think that this might be a problem, but here is why it isn't' or similar.

It's when the ad homs, the angry retorts, the viciousness, the nasty insinuations start that I tend to think - oh, why are these people being so defensive? And start to google the organisation and all the trustees and ask more questions.

No thank you Datun - though I’m not sure why you think I’m upset?

Are you upset?

No one is suggesting anyone gets a free pass on safeguarding - that’s one of those making stuff up things again. As much as your intentional mis-interpretation is entertaining, it’s going around in circles and not getting anyone anywhere.

it’s going around in circles and not getting anyone anywhere.

But you've not answered any of the questions asked of you, Strawb. What age were your kids when they attended pool parties with adult strangers?

That's true but life guards don't allow children under 8 alone in the pool. Over 8 must demonstrate they can swim a length. A Swimming lesson is the only case where they are.

I know I'm quoting you again, but there was something similar on here a year or two back.

A woman, a parent, took her kids to a nudist event, which, if I can remember correctly, was to do with swimming. And most people thought it was completely out of order and a safeguarding nightmare.

it was nothing to do with trans people. It was a family of nudists.

And whereas posters thought it was okay at home, at an event which included nonparents, and nonfamily members, most people thought it was wrong.

Where where the insults, snide comments, derision, berating visciousnesness insinuations and angry retorts??

Having googled the trustees what questions have you been left with?

I suppose it comes down to do you think politically supporting a group by closing your eyes to issues that usually you would recognise as red flags and potential risks is a good thing, and worth it even if it leads to collateral damage to others.

I don't. And I can't help seeing that as 'othering' which is supposed to not be a good thing. And I can't help the pattern recognition that the collateral damage is stacking up over time across multiple counties and multiple situations and multiple people.

insulting, berating, sneering and deriding women
ad homs, the angry retorts, the viciousness, the nasty insinuations

I think you’re seeing things that aren’t there. This has been a very civilised thread by general mn standards, never mind by FWR standards.

Have there even been any deletions? If not then we need some sort of medal!

”People” we’re being “defensive” because a trans organisation was being unfairly maligned in their view. It doesn’t follow that there must be something wrong with the organisation - otherwise no one could ever defend anything or anyone from perceived unjust criticism.

No, I'm not upset, I'm a bit concerned though. You don't think that male rapists who say they are trans and are put in women's prisons are benefitting from a free pass?

What would you call it?

I’ve answered lots of your questions, patiently and politely. I’m not going to answer personal questions that have no bearing just because you ask them.

It is an insanely long thread. From what I've read of it, no-one seems to have a problem with a trans only swimming session. The only sticking point seems to be safeguarding because of the broad mix of ages and the stipulation that parents are excluded. Oh, and the complete lack of any sign of it.

I admire the optimism of the side that are arguing that it's probably all good, there's bound to be proper safeguarding in place and good reasons for no parents, although it's only speculation that that is the case.

I do believe you are probably right. I can't remember where the road that was paved with good intentions went but I'm sure it was nowhere bad.

What other group of people would advertise a mixed sex all age private swim session banning parents on the poolside?

Datun you’re making up words for me again, and trying very hard to move discussion to rapists and prisons. No thank you.

Probably is the word absent from all risk assessments.

No one is closing their eyes to anything. They are saying that one group does not deserve extra scrutiny, higher expectations, should not have to go through any more hoops than anyone else does. They should not be assumed to be wrongdoing with no evidence to suggest they are unless every other group is also assumed to be wrongdoing until its proven otherwise.

There would not be thread on this, I am pretry certain, if it was an event organised by almost any other group.