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.

No, she wasn't safeguarding her child by stating her sociopolitical views on a form asking the personal details of her child for a summer camp.

She might have been if she enquired about mixed sex environments and how that would be handled. She chose to make this about her and what she has to say on the matter rather than practical steps to safeguard her child. Now her child isn't going at all.

Funny how ‘inclusive environments’ are so exclusionary

If you’d read the rest of the article it states that internal documents revealed that not to be the case:

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 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.

The form indicated they followed a belief system at odds with reality and safeguarding.

She was safeguarding her child from the harms of gender ideology imposed by adults.

Where have you found that? The article linked to quotes the record made by the camp representative who said the mother said that if her son saw a girl he should call her a girl. There is nothing in the article to say that (in the highly unlikely event) the child makes a mistake about another child's sex and is corrected them he should continue to refer to them as the wrong sex. The mother is not quoted as having said that at all. It would also not align with her views as she would no doubt feel it important that the children were referred to as their correct sex.

You keep repeating this argument as if there is some basis to it. There isn't.

The report linked in the OP.
They demand that the mother comply with their language rules and refused the child access on the basis of the mothers rejection of the rules.

‘We will be making the family unsuccessful for this year’s camp due to the lack of alignment with our inclusive environment.’

or
‘We will be excluding the child from this years camp because we are an exclusive environment. We do not include everyone. We only include people we want to include. People who agree with us. A clique, if you will. And yes, we’re saying fck that disabled child. Who cares about That child, we have so many others to care about, whose parents views do align with ours’

What reason did the staff record as the reason they rejected the application?

Some of us have been siren voices pointing out that in the pecking order of life, the disabled are permanently below all others. Any and every tiny little advance will be washed away by the societal pressure of disdain (if not disgust) for the disabled.

Notice how the immediate solution to all this gender woo bollocks was to "use the disabled facilities". Presumably because they are so common everywhere there's no way the disabled could need all of them. That and the spaces on buses.

That’s simply the excuse they have given when backed against a wall

From the actual information sourced it’s clear it has nothing to do with what she said on the phone and everything yo do with her GC views

They are lying

What a terrible parent she is for daring to question gender ideology.

And then raising the matter on the phone (which is taking practical steps to safeguard her child, by the way).

And now her child is being punished for it.

This is not about her 'socio political views'. It is about children being told the truth about sex by adults in positions of trust.

In all of this as well I'm reflecting on how tiring and stressful it is to be the parent of a child with disabilities. The endless battle to get support and help in a country where social services is broken, where the benefits system can be Kafkaesque if you don't understand it, the fact that even with help it's exhausting

and then the orgs that are supposed to help want you to pass their gender ideology purity test

I think i might have got a tad aggressive too...

💯

There absolutely is. I see it often in my children's peers and their parents. Even among the "woke" ones. They always say their quiet, compassionate, passive boys aren't like other boys, aren't "boyish", and even will say words akin to effeminate. They have less rigid views about their girls but will still revert to these tropes.

It’s also not an excuse for discriminating based on a protected belief like GC views are (Forstater).

“Oh yes, we know we can’t normally discriminate because someone has GC views, but we are pretty sure the law doesn’t apply if someone is just sooo uppity and rude about it.”

Let’s give that a test in court, shall we?

Made up what ifs are made up what ifs.

The beliefs were clearly documented by the staff member.
So either
a) the staff member made a decision which was not per policy or
b) the policy was followed.
As the organisation is not offering an apology or discussing retraining of staff (b) would be held to be true.

And the camp staff had no lawfull reason to collect and process other personal data belonging to an applicant nor their family.

If the staff were collecting and processing data and then failing to disclose their action and making decisons on the unlawfully collected/processed data the Charity have fundemental flaws in their Hire Policy and ageneral Ethos and Ethics problem.

The idea that boys 'should' be like this and girls 'should' be like that is precisely the kind of gender stereotyping that gender critical people are critical of.

How does the charity define a 'transgender child' if not a boy who isn't doing boyness right, or a girl who isn't doing girlness right? Therefore they must be the wrong sex/in the wrong body.

The whole concept of 'a transgender child' is based on gender stereotypes, and putting that inappropriate, contested adult label on a child is detrimental.

The mere fact that the charity in question uses the term 'transgender child' - and rejects any child who might not go along with it - makes a statement, and reveals an unhelpful attitude to gender-questioning children.

I feel sorry for the child who was rejected because of his mother's opinions, but I also feel sorry for the 'transgender child' who, instead of being given the support they need to accept and love themselves as they are, will instead have an adult-defined disconnect with biological reality reinforced.

No that's not what happened. She made it clear that she would be telling her child to go with what they thought rather than what they were being told when it came to assigning pronouns to others. That's not what a child should be doing regardless of the state of affairs.

There was no need for her to do anything other than ask questions about logistics. She chose to step on a soap box inappropriately and her child was dismissed as a result.

The staff member failed to record the "was agressive" as reason for the rejection eg "called mother she was agressive on the phone decided child should not attend"

All the woman did was write "seriously" on the application. The charity then contacted her to criticize her beliefs. They'd clearly already made the decision that, unless she relented, her child was going to be kicked out of the camp. The law has already made it perfectly clear that you cannot compell people to "share pronouns" or do anything else that forces people to bow to the alter of tans ideology. The camp should have just let it lie but no, these self righteous cultists are still insisting on forcing their ideology on a world that has repeatedly said enough. So now, like time and time again, they'll learn their lessons through the court system.

Perhaps because I have rather a lot to do with religious people, I am privy to a lot of people who completely reject trans ideology and still hold very rigid views on masculinity and femininity. I think that is why I am sensitive to that line of thinking in completely secular people, because I hear the echoes from our past values which were more openly centred around religion.

The solution is that (as you said earlier) adults tell the truth about sex and we encourage diversity within the sex classes.

You are arguing that the concern is that a gender non-conforming child will be mis-sexed at the camp by this child and this will cause some harm. This could happen, but it based on no evidence.

What has been confirmed is that there is a 'trans child' at the camp and the concern is that the adults at the camp will require that the child mis-sex the 'trans child'.

The first is unlikely and based on zero evidence. The second is what definitely was the situation.

The same obviously applies if the child is female. But seeing as you don't seem to be able to understand my post unless I spell this out to you:

Will a boy who says he's a girl be sleeping in a girls' dormitory and will a girl who says she's a boy be sleeping in a boys' dormitory?

I used the example of a boy who identifies as a girl because that was the example used by the PP who I was replying to:

We're talking about (eg) a boy with long hair saying that he is in fact a girl.

Does that help you to understand?