Charity rejects disabled child for mother's GC views

[PaddingtonSwear]

Archive link here: https://archive.ph/zGGCc

Pretty shocking but it seems they think they're right.

Likely because the ward list said there were only females and nobody checked beyond that. I see that more like someone saying that it was an Irish man but as everyone listed was born in England, they assumed there was nobody Irish on the ward and ignored the fact that someone had emigrated to Ireland as a child.

It's not an illogical leap, it's a reference to an actual situation that occurred on an NHS hospital ward. That was the claim made by hospital management, which stymied the investigation into the victim's report until a member of the House of Lords intervened.

I will assume you were unaware of that.

Yes tbh. At a camp where they are there to do activities, it isn't appropriate for my child to confront this. We can discuss when they get home. I wouldn't encourage my child to openly disobey what the adults and child tell them.

You're getting desperate now. This case has been well documented:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-alleged-attacker-transgender/

Edited to add archive link for the Telegraph article:

archive.ph/IPdUX

And it is our responsibility as parents to ensure that gender ideology is not pushed on children.

You seem strangely unshocked by this story if you're hearing it fir the first time

I mean a women was raped, the hospital knew a man was on the ward and lied about it to the police

that doesnt shock you?

Can't read it but unless it says that they knew there was someone with a penis present and lied about that, then it doesn't disprove what Im saying. The issue was that the person was likely listed as female so on first glance, no men were present.

So if a crossdressing man tells a child that he is a woman, the child should just accept it?

Seriously, can you not see any problems with this?

No, what you do is challenge it yourself before the child goes to the camp and is put in that situation.

Which is what the mother here did.

No, when it comes to the depths of depravity in humanity coupled with the incompetence of our systems, I am quite unshockable
.

They did. That is exactly what happened.

No "we" dont have pronouns.

You have your language choices.

You can choose to use a word which inducates to the listner that you have sexed a person animal or object in one of sex class.

For the human you can choose to mis-sex her/him. When this happens when safeguarding is needed it is a safeguarding fail.

I'd have simply asked about logistics by phone or email. I wouldn't have put an inappropriate and irrelevant response on a form. But I tend to want effectivity over volume.

It’s the same logic. The man on the NHS ward claimed he was of the female sex. The victim was told that there was only those of the female sex on the ward. This debunks the ‘"Told the sex" doesn't leave much room for lies’ nonsense.

Ihavetoask you condone deliberately hiding the truth about the sex of other students and staff from children. You’re trying to avoid saying you do, but you do. If you didn’t you would clearly come out and say “I believe the actual biological true sex of people should not be hidden from children or their parents as it presents a safeguarding risk”. But you haven’t. You’re a safeguarding loophole of you’re own.

You can't choose my pronouns. I'll stop talking to you if you do.

They knew. You don’t have men on a hospital ward without being aware he is a man.

You'd be surprised, then, at how widespread this ideology has become. I think you're about 50 years behind the times - your view is quite in keeping with what used to happen and the reasons people like Stephen Whittle transitioned, but it's not the 1970s any more.

To take a wider perspective - the root problem is that a charity has made a contested socio-political ideology so important to their running of a camp for children with disabilities and their families that they are prepared to withhold their services from a disabled child because their parent not only does not subscribe to the same ideology, but believes it has no place in the context of a children's summer camp.

It wouldn't be so much of an issue if there were lots and lots of summer camps for disabled children in the area, including ones which do not require adherence to the ideology underlying the concept of a 'transgender child'.

But I'm guessing that it was Hobson's Choice - toe the line on pronouns and accept sending your child to a camp which labels gender-questioning children as 'trans', or be cancelled.

One child misses out on summer camp, another child misses out on the care and support they need to accept and love themselves, including the bodies they were born with and the sex they will belong to all their lives.

Allowing the most generous interpretation of the camp’s behaviour, this is still a clear cut case of unlawful discrimination to me. Even accepting the camp’s claim that the cause of the exclusion was the mother aggressive attitude, the question to ask is whether another parent who was also aggressive on the phone but for a different reason would also have been excluded. By the camp’s own evidence the answer is no. The camp’s exclusion was clearly related to the gender-critical subject of the disagreement or aggression. That meets the “because of” test in the EA2010.

Questions on what the child would or would not have done or said at the camp were hypothetical at the time of the exclusion and far too remote to be relevant, even allowing that the child himself has a right to be free of unlawful discrimination.

There Is clear evidence that the treatment of this mother was different from a hypothetical mother who behaved the same way but for her views on gender identity.

This is exactly analogous to the Alison Bailey vet clinic case, where AB was turned away from service after a negative interaction with staff, when it was found that another (hypothetical) customer would not have been, but for the known views of AB on gender identity issues.

Edited to correct the identity of AB!

I take it you haven’t taught your child ‘stranger danger’ or ‘pants are private’ either.

Edited to add an archive link for you.

Shocking to see you dismiss the rape of a woman so casually. Still - it fits with a pattern of being dismissive of the need to safeguard children & thinking parental alienation is a good thing.

5 / 10 for effort I suppose. But on a parenting site, dismissing the need to safeguard children and women's rights to safety and privacy usually exposes the author as an extreme transactivist.

Back to the whole 'it wasn't what she said it was they way that she said it'.

Why are you continuing to defend adults lying to children while also arguing that children should accept everything adults tell them?

This is exactly analogous to the Forstater vet clinic case, where MF was turned away from service after a negative interaction with staff, when it was found that another (hypothetical) customer would not have been, but for the known views of MF on gender identity issues.

That was Alison Bailey.

No. I support telling people the sex of other individuals. In a single sex environment like a ward, that would mean people of the other sex arent admitted.

I don't think not telling me the biological sex of a person always presents a safeguarding risk so I won't use the terms you suggest. I think it does in some instances, but not others. Safeguarding isn't why I think people should be told the sex of others. It's more about acceptance and understanding diversity. It's more about the trans identifying person actually. I see it more like an identity crisis that stems from the home as I said before.

So what's your explanation of why charities like this have fallen victim to this ideology? And not just charities - the NHS, government departments, companies, political parties... even the entire government in Scotland.

This all happened because the people in charge weren't raised with healthy views about diversity?