Residential trip: club following Stonewall advice

[Fireandwaters]

My DD is in a club which has a residential trip abroad over the summer.

Buried deep in the FAQs is some info about rooms policy. I couldn’t believe my eyes:

”[Club] has a strong equality, diversity and inclusion ethos and is an inclusive organisation.
Sometimes, rooming on the trip will need to be arranged in line with our responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 towards young people with a Protected Characteristic. Ordinarily, rooms will only be shared by people of the same biological sex, however this may not always be appropriate, in order to facilitate the wellbeing of those on tour. If rooms are shared by people of different biological sexes, then there must be a bathroom/toilet available with a lockable door and the people concerned must be 16 or over.
Any such arrangement will always be carefully considered and our various responsibilities –
to the Act, to safeguard all the young people in our care, and to the principles of confidentiality
– will be carefully balanced. [The club ] believes that safe spaces are created by careful agreements
around behaviour; it is behaviour, not bodies, which makes situations unsafe.
This guidance has been developed in line with the following key documents:
• The Equality Act 2010
• Data Protection Act 2018
• The Human Rights Act 1998
• The Gender Recognition Act 2004
• Stonewall: An Introduction to Supporting LGBTQ+ Children and Young People, a
guide for schools, colleges and settings
• Provisions to support gender-questioning children in schools,
commonslibrary.parliament.uk, April 2024“

No mention of the Supreme Court ruling, and no insight into the absolute insanity of accommodating teenagers of opposite sexes together.

I think it’s more virtue signalling than anything else (I don’t think there are any trans identifying kids in the club) but I’m pretty shocked.

How do I approach this?

• Stonewall: An Introduction to Supporting LGBTQ+ Children and Young People, a guide for schools, colleges and settings

Seriously? they are quoting Stonewall as being a valid source of guidance.

Have they not seen the warning on the Stonewall web site that their advice isn't legal?

If the “it’s behaviour not bodies” mantra were a sensible way of approaching this there would be no need to split girls and boys at all. Nor a need for lockable stalls either.

The fatal flaw with the TRA reasoning on this is that no one is complaining about sharing with someone who’s trans, they are complaining about sharing with the opposite sex - the trans or otherwise status is immaterial and you can only justify them sharing if you can justify all the other boys sharing with the girls too.

Sorry, OP, that rant isn’t helpful to you. I think you need to message them along the lines of -

I hope this is just a matter of you not having caught up with the recent discourse around the equality act and the protections it provides, especially to women and girls.

The recent Supreme Court ruling highlighted the fact Stonewall has been pedaling dangerous and unlawful advice for years (something even they are half admitting with their new warning about the nature of their advice). It is not acceptable to mix sexes for sleeping accommodation for children. Whatever your logistical difficulties you do not have permission to put my child at risk by placing her in sleeping accommodation with a male, however they identify. And you should not be doing this to any child. Please update your policy to something more lawful.

Dear club,

The Equality Act has recently been clarified by the SC. In view of this having same sex accommodation is lawful, having accommodation that is not same sex is illegal.

Please amend your policy so that it reflects the current law.

Are there any trans people in the club? If not I really shouldn’t worry about it!

The problem with their “behaviour, not bodies” policy is that it’s a fairly safe bet that they’d fall over backwards to dismiss complaints of poor behaviour that were about a trans identifying club member.

I suspect they’d be categorised as arising from ‘transphobia,’ regardless of the truth, and the roommate forced to continue to share.

'...towards young people with a protected characteristic...'

ALL young people have a PC and it's called sex. FFS.

My eyebrows were up in my hairline before I even got to the end of the first paragraph, never mind the second.

Quote the SC Judgment at them.

OP, please follow it up. Please don’t not follow it up because there might not seem to be a risk for your child.

If you can write to them and highlight that they are acting now in violation of the EA, I recommend that you do.

it is bodies, not behaviour, which makes situations unsafe.

Fixed it for them.
Otherwise every situation becomes mixed sex, even the most necessarily intimate and vulnerable situations like being asleep in a private space shared with another person. And if women want to avoid these risky situations all they can do is stay home and hope for the best there.

This Stonelaw attitude means that women are being dragged back into total reliance on men’s good graces not to attack or assault them. No safeguards allowed because that might offend men. Women and girls are not being allowed to be in the public space in the same way men and boys are.

Misogynists really get off on enforcing that inescapable relative physical female vulnerability compared to men. It makes the misogynists feel powerful and it does genuinely give them power, at women’s expense. This particular issue is a perfect example of why all this is a straight up men’s sexual rights and sexual access to women (and often children) campaign. Please spell it out to them incredibly bluntly. Hold up a mirror for them if they won’t do it themselves.

Sometimes, rooming on the trip will need to be arranged in line with our responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 towards young people with a Protected Characteristic.

There is no obligation to provide mixed sex sleeping areas if a child has any of the PC. The SC says Sex is the PC which allows or prevents mix sex provision.

They can no longer say Girl A and Boy B can share a room but Girl C and Boy D cant because A or B are just friends with an "extra" PC while C and D are in a sexual relationship.

So my first question to the org would be what provision are they relying on in the EA to justify mixed sex rooms.

the people concerned must be 16 or over.

Where are they going?

Transporting a minor (cross-border) which enables sexual activity can be a criminal offence in some States.

IE Ireland is an over 17 age of consent State so 16 is not a get out of jail age for the adults in charge. Plus in a 3 person+ room (afaik) an adult allowing a third child (under 17) to be in a room where children (other or same sex) having sex are themselves by the room allocation engaged in a child sex abuse act.

So the org need to understand the laws of the countries they are going to.

Any such arrangement will always be carefully considered and our various responsibilities –
to the Act, to safeguard all the young people in our care, and to the principles of confidentiality

Here is where the org needs to clearly state if they will tell the other child and the childs parent that she or he will be sharing a room with a member of the other sex.

[ ] believes that safe spaces are created by careful agreements
around behaviour; it is behaviour, not bodies, which makes situations unsafe.
This guidance has been developed in line with the following key documents:
• The Equality Act 2010

What provision are they relying on. Becuse the SC ruling now makes it clear its single sex for all or mixed sex for all.

• Data Protection Act 2018
• The Human Rights Act 1998
• The Gender Recognition Act 2004

Catch 22 games of "we can not say" dont matter.

The club are dealing with children and cant build in a special class of protection for some and not all children.

If they know a child is one sex they can not say they are providing single sex provision for the other sex and sneek in the child of the other sex.

If they claim they do know what sex the child is but its ok as we have told the other children involved and these children oked the room share the club is breaching privacy by asking and confirming that a mixed sex room is ok.

They should not be asking any of the children about safeguarding as the first rule is that children need to be safeguarded against themselves.

"Questioning" children need single rooms.

• Stonewall: An Introduction to Supporting LGBTQ+ Children and Young People, a
guide for schools, colleges and settings

No legal standing

• Provisions to support gender-questioning children in schools, commonslibrary.parliament.uk, April 2024“

Is this outdated by the EA?

You ask if they considered your childs PC of sex and can they confirm they provide a single sex sleeping spaces for her.
And get them to confirm how they manage her safeguarding situation it is not relevant to any other decisions made for other childlren.

Unless now of the children decided to identify as trans and insists on sleeping in the girls’ room(s). Then what?

Sure because children would never learn how to game the system to have sex on a holiday 🙄

I would point out the total lack of safeguarding and make them very aware of the possible consequences of this. I wouldn’t be letting my daughter be in the ‘care’ of people with this mindset on a residential trip.

Do you understand safeguarding at all?

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/guidance-for-service-providers-on-single-sex-services/

Send the club the above link along with a screenshot of the Stonewall statement admitting that their information isn't legally binding.

If rooms are shared by people of different biological sexes, then there must be a bathroom/toilet available with a lockable door and the people concerned must be 16 or over.

This makes it sound like the only concern with mixed-sex accommodation is toilet provision. The lack of other considerations is a worry in itself!

“It is behaviours, not bodies, which makes situations unsafe” just smacks of “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Let’s just say it makes it an awful lot more unsafe when guns are involved…

I would respond simply, to state that their policy isn’t in line with legal requirements on single sex facilities or safeguarding and ask them to change it; and state that you do not consent to your DC sharing a room with other students (or staff) of the opposite sex.

I would contact the safeguarding lead at the organisation to raise your concerns and report the organisation to the local LADO team.
I would also be reluctant to allow my child to attend a residential run by them.

"I take it this advice will be updated in light of the supreme court ruling and the fact that by Stonewall's own admission they aren't legal experts. Preferably before I have to go legal on you and claim discrimination so that my child can safely attend this residential."

I have recently read your policy on providing mixed sex accommodations.

Please can you provide the following:
The laws they are using to provide mixed sex accommodations, not an external body's 'guidance', but the actual law including the sections that orders this.
Your risk assessments and method statements for providing this mixed sex accommodations.
Any other pertinent reasons for making this decision to house in mixed sex accommodations.
Your insurance documents that show this mixed sex accommodations are insured for so that any female getting pregnant on this trip and future child/ren will have a full lifelong financial support for the decisions that you have taken.

Many thanks.

stron disagree with you on this, parents have a responsibility to challenge and ensure safety as far as possible! Do you have a good reason for not putting them right?

"Behaviour not bodies". Are all bodies equally capable of getting someone else pregnant?

I would ask to see their risk assessment - and ask how, if they state it is not appropriate usually for mixed sex accommodation, how they mitigate any risks should it be “required for someone’s wellbeing”.

And ask what they mean by “a protected characteristic” as just like a pp has said - sex is also a protected characteristic which applies to everyone.

Since theyre haven’t actually said they mean trans people - it’s only implied I wouldn’t mention trans specifically at this point.

Let them tie themselves in a knot first.

The error needs to be highlighted, not ignored.