Residential trips

[JustFuckOffPlease]

Name changed for this.
I knew it was only a matter of time.

I teach in a secondary school and we've so far not experienced too many challenges to our single sex provisions despite having increasing numbers of teens (mostly girls) that socially transition for a short period.

I'm running a week's residential course (tied to my subject) for 14 yr olds and one biological male who identifies as a girl has requested that they share with their friends. Girls. I responded before half term to this request and said that they must share with friends of the same biological sex. It went very quiet for weeks, but yesterday afternoon, parents have emailed me, cc'ing the Head to express their dissatisfaction that their child can't share with their female friends.

The accommodation we use are dormitories - minimum of 4 sharing, maximum of 8. I've emailed the hostel (who frequently run school trips) to see what their policy is on these matters so I'll hopefully hear on Monday.

We have quite a strong LGBT staff body and an SLT that will tick all the boxes to be seen to be doing the 'right thing'.

I'm anticipating being told that I need to listen to these parents who are insisting that I let their DC share and to not be discriminated against.

What are my options here? There's 4 staff attending this trip, 2 male 2 female. I organise it and I do NOT agree with biological males sharing a bedroom and changing rooms with biological females, no matter what feelings they have.

I'm betting the schools insurer will say a flat no to males in female spaces particularly if the other parents have not given consent.

Make sure the insurer is consulted.

Write it all down, the risks and reasons for and against. One side will be a long list.

And don't ask the girls how they feel about it, they will be pressured and can't consent on behalf of others.

There have been several scenarios through the years where my children's schools have said 'the insurance doesn't cover X, Y or Z'. I'm 100% sure the insurance won't cover pregnancy as a result of statutory rape from deliberately housing underage boys with underage girls.

I don't think the girls consent or lack of it is at all relevant either morally or in law - and for good reason as children can be coerced / bullied more easily than adults. The girls can't consent to many things as they are underage. This is why statutory rape is a thing.

Insurance is a good point
But the main argument has to be like the toilets the dorms are either 'gender neutral' or single sex they cannot be both.
What happens if the next trans person is an Isla Bryson?

I do hate the idea that Muslim and Jews seem to have additional rights to say no, yet in an traditionally Christian country, Christians are poo pooed, as Bible Bashers if they stand up and say no. And if your an atheist then for get it your meant to suck it up.

Another possible hypothetical (I assume the male staff aren't allowed into the girls' dorms and vice versa?) What happens if the trans pupil has an accident in the dorm while in a state of undress, such as slipping and falling in the shower? Are you or the other female staff member supposed to deal with this, or would a male member of staff have to? In any other circumstances I can't imagine it being appropriate for you to have to with a male pupil of this age, and it leaves you as staff members open to all sorts of reputational risks.

Absolutely all women and girls of any faith or none should be able to say no. But some people care about not being seen to be racist whilst acting in a racist, ablist and misogynistic way.

A really good point.

Thank you for pushing this OP, zealots must not be allowed to jettison everything we know about safeguarding children because they want to be seen as 'with it' or can't be arsed with the extremist backlash.

We need to be a bigger headache to orgs than the gender identity proponents so that it is easier for them to do the right thing than capitulate.

Op present all your evidence, join the Free Speech Union, seek legal advice, find out about insurance coverage, raise a grievance and if the school still wants to make the girls' accommodation mixed sex, follow the whistleblowing procedures (assuming this is a thing in education? ).

If they insist on going ahead, I would withdraw from the trip and go to the papers. Any school failing so badly at basic safeguarding deserves to be on the front page of the Daily Mail imo.

If it's run by YHA then their policy states"Transgender guests are welcome to stay in the dormitory which corresponds to the gender with which they identify"

This is the reason me and my daughter cancelled our plans to travel the UK last year. If we couldn't get a private room I would have booked a girls dorm and felt ok till I saw this

Wasn’t there something at one point where if you told staff about your sexual assault or discussed how you were sexually abused then they might be able to magic up a single sex space? Presumably only if the intimate details of your abuse garnered sufficient sympathy though.

I would ask the school: How do you gate keep mix-sex situations? At what point does a boy become eligible to be in with the girls? At what point do they let a girl share with the boys? The only way to do this is to have it totally mixed sexed.

OP thank you for pushing back on this. I never thought I'd ever have to ask if my children would bunk in single sex spaces on school trips, but I will be every time from.now on.

Also, isn't a poor rating on Ofsted enough to downgrade the whole school regardless? So why on trips (and school loos) is safeguarding completely disregarded?

The policy should be no rooming arrangements that could result in pregnancy. Identity should not be a factor.

as much as you and the school may be getting pressure from one side, if you allow mixed sex sleeping arrangements you are setting yourself up for a different kind of pushback and bad publicity.

So if they were all on the pill it would be ok? Or prepubescent? It should be no rooming that undermines the safety, privacy or dignity of girls or facilitates the removal of boundaries from girls or suggests that these are in anyway inappropriate.

Presumably any parents asking if there will be single sex accommodation won't be certain if that includes boys identifying as trans

And many Youth Hostels have a licenced bar too, so safeguarding isn't too much of a concern for them nowadays

It's worth parents checking to see if their child's school is signed up to Stonewall. If they are it's guaranteed that there'll be a relentless assault on girls, their boundaries and rights to say no to males. Including sharing sleeping, showering accommodation on school trips.

How does one check? Is it a case of just asking?

I work there and am not sure if we are signed up to them. We seem to have LGBTQ events a lot (to the point that pupils start sighing and saying "not again").

In a similar situation near me, the school said yes, but the venue of the trip refused to allow mixed sex accommodation.

Also worth checking as I remember one of the key issues for Brownie Leaders is that they are forbidden to tell parents if their daughter will be sharing with a biological male, and must maintain the illusion that the male child is female for the male child's benefit and privacy.

Which creates very significant parental rights and consent issues. And again demonstrates the much greater priority of the male child over all of the issues creates for every female child involved. Should a female child be assaulted and parents then discover they sent their daughter to sleep in a room with a male child in a situation they never would have consented to if they had been permitted an informed decision?

Well I wouldn't want to be on the stand trying to explain that one to the judge. I really wouldn't.

Actually also relevant to add to that: worth looking at the evidence of how Stonewall behave when someone they have dropped in it through their guidance runs up against reality and legal consequences. Snow off a hot brick comes to mind.

I think at the recent court case it was a lot of 'well we offered our advice, but it was their choice to act on and implement it, and not realise the consequences, so it's nowt to do with us'. School SLTs need to be aware: if they blindly trust and follow these political groups without thinking it through, checking and double checking, and doing the good old asking the difficult questions, thinking the unthinkable - they will be the ones left in the shit if it goes wrong. Not the lobby groups.

Also needs to be pointed out to SLTs, those delivering the training on behalf of the lobby groups have included well known figures such as Aimee Challoner. SLTs need to do the due diligence and check: what exactly are the qualifications of the trainers or creators of useful packs of guidance? What safeguarding training have they had and when? What real life experience of safeguarding in practice in schools? What real life experience of implementing diversity and inclusion policy in schools with regard to all nine characteristics, not just one?

Brownie leaders have to lie to parents?!!

Excellent point, Nils. I think that was Alison Bailey vs Garden Court and Stonewall. The latter wriggled off the hook in exactly the way you said. "Us, guv? No, guv. Well, yes, we did tell Garden Court to illegally discriminate buy they chose to actually do it [shrug]".

When you're on the stand, it really doesn't wash to say "a bigger boy lobby group told us to"