For the past 12 hours I’ve been involved in a Twitter debate, stemming from this tweet.
The guidance it refers to is this, from Allsorts, which is being given to schools, to educate them on how to accommodate transgender students.
Much as I love Twitter, it’s often difficult to use it to debate subtle points, which is possibly why my question has seen me being accused of being “transphobic” and “hysterical” and having “medieval ideologies”.
I spend a lot of time designing policies and procedures, and what I tell people is this:- Imagine a worst-case scenario occurs. There is an official investigation, where you’re asked “What did you do to prevent this happening?”. Now imagine what answer you’d like to be able to give to that question in that scenario – that’s the starting point for writing your policies.
In that vein, here’s a scenario.
You are the head-teacher of a secondary school, with pupils aged 11-18. A police officer arrives at the school and asks to speak to you. They have found a video on a porn site which shows the changing-rooms at your school, including a number of girls, who appear to be aged 13-15, in various states of undress. It has clearly been filmed with a concealed camera-phone.
The video has been taken down, but not before it had tens of thousands of views. The account that posted it has been traced to a student at the school who identifies themselves as trans and was, in accordance with the guidance, allowed to use the female changing rooms.
The police need a female member of staff to view the video with them, to identify the 20 or 30 teenage girls who appear in it, so that they and their parents can be informed that they have been victims of voyeurism.
What did you do to prevent this happening?
The answers that Twitter has thrown up so far don’t seem to be very good answers to that questions. Assertions that it could never happen, that nobody could or would fake being trans just to get access to female spaces, and a strong suggestion that simply asking the question is bigoted, or even “dangerous”.
There are around 2.2 million males aged 13-18 in the UK, no matter how much experience you have with children, with trans people, with trans-children, you cannot absolutely assert that none of them will abuse, or attempt to abuse, the guidance given in a manner that infringes of the rights of other students.
This isn’t about demonising all trans people, or suggesting that any given one of them would act in such a manner. This is about the risk presented by the guidance itself, whether that risk can be mitigated in a manner which is proportional to the potential seriousness of the outcome and whether the risk is, in part or in whole, outweighed by the risks of not implementing the guidance.
To draw an analogy, every school will have a policy about visitors to the school which might say, for example, that no visitor to the school will be given unsupervised access to children unless they have an enhanced DBS check.
It is not visitorphobic for that policy to exist. No school has ever been accused of being biased against visitors for implementing it.
This policy doesn’t suggest that all visitors would be a risk to the children, or that any particular visitor themselves presents a risk, it simply recognises that the entire sample-space of ‘visitors’ may contain some people who may be a risk.
Where the analogy breaks a little is that, when assessing the level of risk represented by moving from traditional sex-segregation of spaces to gender-segregation, it’s important to realise that our sample-space isn’t ‘trans-children’ but ‘teenage males’. In the month a 16-year-old boy was found guilty of abducting, raping and killing a girl it would be reckless to suggest that this group is entirely risk-free for others.
If there’s an acceptance that the suggested guidelines aren’t risk free then the questions that follow have to be, “How much risk?”, “How can that risk be mitigated?”, “Do the benefits justify the risk?”
Those are big questions, and I have no intention of tackling them here, but they need to be asked. To suggest that they are unaskable is, dare I say, a little hysterical…and certainly dangerous.
9 thoughts on “The unaskable question?”
I worked for 30+years in alcohol, drugs, mh. One of the best bits of advice I was given early on was to imagine worst case scenario and understand how I’d explain to a Court my actions. Shit still happened but I could sleep knowing I’d done as much as was humanly possible to cover all known risks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Similar guidance has also been adopted by half of the local authorities in Scotland. It’s been in place for over a year. And some schools are following it to the letter. I know that for a fact. Yet when a relative (politely) questioned the policy with local councillors, they were accused of being a bigot. It’s as if we learned nothing from the Saville affair. Nothing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Careful this is wrongthink, you haveto be 100% affirming and supportive of “identities” to the exclusion of all biological reality these days or the thought police will come get you.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Since the majority of TIM’s are autogynephiles and HETEROSEXUAL of course they don’t have to “fake” being trans because that’s one type of TRANS. Further, I DO know self-loathing TIM’s and they are vile sexists like many other gay or heterosexual men. Why always with the “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy all the time with so many people. No male belongs in female sex segregated facilities under ANY circumstances, fetishes and delusions are irrelevant, except that both of those are relevant to actually being TRANS.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I work in a school office, greeting visitors. You would actually be surprised by the number of people without ID or a DBS who get cross with me for not allowing them in unsupervised because “what are you trying to say about me? I’m not a threat, how dare you!”.
They are, without exception, the male visitors.
I’m sure if some of them thought they could get away with accusing me of being visitorphobic, they would…
LikeLiked by 2 people
The group here is not “young males” as such, it is “young born-males who went to the trouble of presenting as girls full time at school” with all the social upheaval this entails. The question is whether this particular groups presents a greater risk of the described action than some other groups who already have access to the spaces, such as “lesbian born-female girls” and “bullied born-female girls” (as sexual lust and revenge are two possible motives for this sort of action).
How is that Allsorts guidance allowed to stand when it so seriously misrepresents the Equality Act? Not every school governor is going to be a legal expert, but if we have reached a situation when governors are not able to challenge school leadership teams as ‘critical friends’ then we are in for a terrible time down the line.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m quite late to this discussion, but I feel like I should say why I don’t think this is an effective argument even though I completely agree with it and that’s that TRAs believe that “trans women are women” (yeah, yeah, maybe some of them don’t truly believe that mantra, but they believe it in the same way that a lapsed Christian believes in God).
And so while we recognize that young males pose a threat (even if we assume that 90% are safe, that 10% of violators is a big enough problem) to young females, they think of this as akin to separating girls taller than 5’6″ for the safety of the shorter girls.
I’ll answer. Males feelings should NEVER be put above girls’ integrity and safety.
Pyramid of needs, safety is more important than feelings.
I know this was written a few years ago and with the passing years I’ve totally removed my gloves and just say it as it is. I’m done with ALL their BS.