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.

Thanks for posting this. It should be required reading for everyone working with children.

They're fucked

Where did you get all this from? Is this a gender camp or a general activities camp?

How are they insisting that they believe that? Is the pronoun question compulsory?

I dont think it as clear as that purely because of the mother's behaviour. If for instance, they came across her social media, saw sh3 is GC and then banned her child, that would be different.

There's more to it than your title

"In a statement, the charity claimed its decision was not based on the mother’s objection to the question about pronouns, but her “aggressive” conduct over the phone and the fact that a potential “conflict” might arise given there was going to be a <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/zGGCc/www.telegraph.co.uk/transgender/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">transgender child at the camp"

Then she told him to double down based on what he sees

Politeness is sexless.
I agree that asking pronouns is ridiculous, but going to the lengths of writing "seriously" on the form spoke volumes to the charity and tbh would have done to me as well.
The one we should all be sorry for is the child, because they've now lost out on a lovely trip which is possibly their first considering the difficulties they have.

I made those assumptions based on the mother's behaviour. As I said, I'd have left it blank and felt I'd said enough. She's one of those people who really don't know where and when.

@Nameychangington yes I completely agree. I refuse to call these people "women," or other female terms such as "sister," "mother" etc, and this is easily avoidable. Pronouns are much trickier - people might say, "Well you don't use third person pronouns to a person, you just say, "you", but these people come up in conversation with other people.

"How is X? Has he passed his exam?"
"Are you seeing X at the weekend or is he still away with work?"

I can't use a name as a substitute here, that sounds ridiculous, and it's mentally taxing to rework the sentences. This means I often avoid talking about them at all.

Asking how disabled children like to be referred to is not particularly outrageous and part of respecting their rights to self-expression, something that can be really hard for those children who need constant care.

Child cannot be held responsible for their own safeguarding.

What if the question was compulsory to answer?

She strikes me a someone who correctly identified that this organisation actively supports gender ideology, which poses a risk to her child.

So absolutely does know 'where and when'.

This. Any ideology that triggers the reaction “Sssshhh! They might hear you! You can’t say that you’ll get in trouble! Best just to keep your mouth shut” is a nasty, controlling, oppressive ideology. We already know of the Stasi like practices of police action against Wrongthink, it’s a feature, not a bug of this ideology to rely on people saying nothing in opposition to its horrible ideas and practices.

It’s remarkable to me how little understanding people have of how walked over they are when they comply with this way of thinking.

Staying silent and thinking you've said enough is not safeguarding.

https://sex-matters.org/about-us/

Because they know the staff will try to gaslight him.

It wasnt though. I'm 99% sure of that. And I've never seen it marked as compulsory despite seeing it more and more on forms. Actually, one one form recently it was, but it was a sort of drop down form and every single answer was compulsory. Even ones totally irrelevant to you and they wouldn't even have n\a to express that it isn't relevant. But that was more about the construction of the form than anything else. Bad coding or design or whatever.

Safeguarding who? You're filling out a form. It isn't the place to express your socio-political views.

The level of harm we're doing to children by selling them the lie that sex change is possible and desirable is immense. Transgender Trend published this by a Clinical Psychologist that lays out the immense psychological damage that is done to children by pretending they're the opposite sex:

www.transgendertrend.com/childhood-social-transition/

Do they? What if the parents think it is gaslighting to say that boys can have long hair or play with dolls? I'd want to know exactly what the parents are telling their child a boy or a girl "looks like" before I say said child should trust what they see.

Given that there seems to be no acceptable way that women can challenge gender ideology, I'm unconvinced that the decision was based on anything other than her disagreement.

Safeguarding her child FFS!

And yet you missed out the following paragraph

"In a statement, the charity claimed its decision was not based on the mother’s objection to the question about pronouns, but her “aggressive” conduct over the phone and the fact that a potential “conflict” might arise given there was going to be a <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/zGGCc/www.telegraph.co.uk/transgender/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">transgender child at the camp.
But internal papers documenting the incident state that the eight-year-old was barred after the summer camp concluded that the mother’s “views on gender and inclusivity” did not “align” with its own.
A report on the incident read: “We will be making the family unsuccessful for this year’s camp due to the lack of alignment with our inclusive environment."

Safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility. If a form presents a safeguarding risk then it absolutely is your place you raise it.

Safeguarding your child if you are putting them in the care of adults who lie to children.

In this case her instincts in questioning it were correct.