Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Girl Guides are now GIRL ONLY! - Thread 2

741 replies

CohensDiamondTeeth · 03/12/2025 07:41

I hope no one minds me starting thread 2, I clicked post on my last reply but the thread had filled up.

There was some interesting discussion had, and on the last page @LostMySocks posted that she was thinking of sending a positive email to HQ, which I think sounds like a great idea. Maybe those who support this move could do the same? It would show Girl Guides that people are paying attention.

Link to the first thread here: Girl Guides are now GIRL ONLY! | Mumsnet

The first post of the thread was so good I'm just going to copy and paste it here too. Girl Guides statement is incredibly begrudging in tone.

@Iamwhoiamwhoareyou · Yesterday 14:41

Following April's supreme court ruling, the Girl Guides have FINALLY made a statement and will remain GIRLS ONLY - Finally closing the door on admitting trans members or allowing BOYS to invade female only spaces/camp (which, would be done without informing parents that their daughter would be sharing a room with a biological male!) - I have a previous post in feminism chat for anyone wanting to read the previous thread on this

EMAIL RECEIVED HOT OFF THE PRESS 5 MIN AGO -

As the parent of a young member in Girlguiding, following April’s Supreme Court decision relating to sex and gender, we wanted to give you an update. Many organisations across the country have been facing complex decisions about what it means for girls and women and for the wider communities affected, including us.

Girlguiding’s governing charity documents set out that the membership and people who benefit from our organisation are girls and women. In April, the Supreme Court ruled that girls and women are defined in the Equality Act 2010 by their biological sex at birth.
Following detailed considerations, expert legal advice and input from senior members, young members and our Council, Girlguiding’s Board of Trustees has made the difficult decision that Girlguiding must change Girlguiding must change, following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

From today, 2 December, it is with a heavy heart that we are announcing trans girls and young women will no longer be able to join Girlguiding. This is a decision we would have preferred not to make, and we know that this may be upsetting for members of our community.

There will be no immediate changes for current young members but more information will be shared next week.

Most adult roles, including unit helpers, district helpers and administrative support, are already open to all, so we are confident that no volunteers will have to leave the organisation.

Girlguiding believes strongly in our value of inclusion, and we will continue to support young people and adults in marginalised groups. Over the next few months, we'll explore opportunities to champion this value and actively support young people who need us.

You can find our full statement and updated policy on our website.

We are proud to be the UK’s largest youth organisation dedicated to girls and is focused on creating an equal world for girls and young women. For over 100 years, we have been a welcoming space for all girls to have new experiences, support their communities, build friendships and grow their confidence.

While Girlguiding may feel a little different going forward, these core aims and principles will always be the same. We remain committed to treating everyone with dignity and respect, particularly those from marginalised groups that have felt the biggest impact of this decision.

If you have any immediate questions, we have our special support team in place, to give volunteers, parents and carers the best support we can. We are asking Girlguiding HQ, trading and country/region staff to refer any volunteer or parent who has questions about this announcement. Details below.

Contact [email protected] or 020 7532 3970
All calls/emails will be confidential, and the service will be open 24hrs, 7 days a week.
Find out more, including how this team will handle personal data.

Denise Wilson (Chair of Trustees), Felicity Oswald (CEO) and Tracy Foster (Chief Guide)

https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/globalassets/docs-and-resources/mango-data-privacy-policy.pdf?utm_campaign=1859632_EDI%20update%20for%20parents%202%20December%202025&utm_medium=email&utm_source=dotdigitalemails

OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
TheKeatingFive · 04/12/2025 09:18

SolidMam · 04/12/2025 09:16

That's exactly what suffragettes were told in 1910. It is a civil rights issue - just as yours is. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Unless you are wholly committed to sex-based rights, which are incredibly outdated and reductive.

Show quote history

No that's absolute nonsense.

Lets start from first principles ...

WHY do you think anyone would have a human right to be treated by the opposite sex, by the law.

What are the grounds for that?

Helleofabore · 04/12/2025 09:17

SolidMam · 04/12/2025 09:09

I can't be clearer

Women = females + trans women

Show quote history

That is your personal definition of the word and if is contradictory to the established and original use of that word.

Do you also understand that there are now many male people in the world who also have used the word ‘female’ to include them?

So, your personal definition is just as meaningless now too. That is what happens when groups of people decide that they can change language to suit themselves and to completely make the words meaningless.

potpourree · 04/12/2025 09:17

SolidMam · 04/12/2025 09:09

I can't be clearer

Women = females + trans women

Show quote history

But you said some females were trans men. Have you changed your mind or are you now claiming they are women?

You can't include the word 'women' in your definition (as in trans women). That means it is circular and not a definition. Sorry, I didnt think that needed actually explaining!

I have no way of knowing what a trans woman is (to you) beyond a male person, as you refuse to explain the difference.

Therefore you must be including all male people in 'trans women', making your definition of women:
Women = females and male

SolidMam · 04/12/2025 09:16

truthsayers · 04/12/2025 09:05

not when the overwhelming majority of the public and medical establishment have no appetite for it, as you well know.

Show quote history

That's exactly what suffragettes were told in 1910. It is a civil rights issue - just as yours is. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Unless you are wholly committed to sex-based rights, which are incredibly outdated and reductive.

potpourree · 04/12/2025 09:13

If I had a gender-questioning child with me I would previously have encouraged them to ask away if they wanted to know "how do I know whether I'm a boy or a girl? What is the difference if it's not the body?"

Having seen the awful responses from people declaring themselves to be kind and promoting understanding, I would no longer encourage them.

I would love to see solidmam and others provide a clear, model answer to this question that a 10yo could understand. Yet they refuse.

truthsayers · 04/12/2025 09:11

SolidMam · 04/12/2025 09:09

I can't be clearer

Women = females + trans women

Show quote history

that’s unclear though because transwomen are male, as you know.

Shedmistress · 04/12/2025 09:11

SolidMam · 04/12/2025 09:09

I can't be clearer

Women = females + trans women

Show quote history

You are saying the word women is meaningless if it includes men and women.

TheKeatingFive · 04/12/2025 09:10

SolidMam · 04/12/2025 09:09

I can't be clearer

Women = females + trans women

Show quote history

What is it you think females and 'transwomen' have in common with each other (but with no other men) that unites them in this group?

SolidMam · 04/12/2025 09:09

potpourree · 04/12/2025 08:57

Genuinely - when you (general "you") refuse to explain what you even mean by "women" in this sentence, do you think that is helping understanding, or hindering it?

I asked solidmam this and the response was "i think I've answered this on other threads "

Anyone (not specifically this poster) calling for understanding yet ignoring, insulting and waving away people asking what you mean is hypocritical behaviour. You don't want understanding; you want unquestioning obedience.

It can't be a surprise that educated liberal women take issue with that, can it?

I can't be clearer

Women = females + trans women

truthsayers · 04/12/2025 09:08

TheKeatingFive · 04/12/2025 09:07

It is important it point out that this is not a civil rights group.

There would never be any 'right' for a human to be treated as if they were the opposite sex, by law.

The petition is asking for males to continue to disregard females need and legal entitlement to single sex spaces.

Show quote history

I say let em crack on with their silly petitions. It’s all disinfectant.

TheKeatingFive · 04/12/2025 09:07

SolidMam · 04/12/2025 09:04

You can, it's how the law works. It's how civil rights groups have always work. As the suffragettes knew well.

Show quote history

It is important it point out that this is not a civil rights group.

There would never be any 'right' for a human to be treated as if they were the opposite sex, by law.

The petition is asking for males to continue to disregard females need and legal entitlement to single sex spaces.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/12/2025 09:07

Helleofabore · 04/12/2025 09:03

“You don't want understanding; you want unquestioning obedience.”

This has been pointed out several times to that poster. Their response was denial followed by more personal attacks.

Either they cannot see how their behaviour is unreasonable and hypocrital, or they are so entrenched and can see it but cannot change direction. Remember, there is a huge personal investment in this case. A huge personal investment.

Agree.

truthsayers · 04/12/2025 09:05

SolidMam · 04/12/2025 09:04

You can, it's how the law works. It's how civil rights groups have always work. As the suffragettes knew well.

Show quote history

not when the overwhelming majority of the public and medical establishment have no appetite for it, as you well know.

potpourree · 04/12/2025 09:05

Separately, I am saddened for the autistic children in my family who learn and make sense of the world by asking questions (as do I).

They see adults as authority figures. When adults pretend to respond to questions but say something obviously contradictory or confusing or answer a different question (eg a woman is often female, but we don't say women are female because it's not about the body, or, a girl is someone who feels like a girl, or there are differences between men and women and we all know what those are) it's a form of deception. They doubt themselves.

I know we can't force everyone to consider neurodiverse kids but wouldn't it be nice?

SolidMam · 04/12/2025 09:04

truthsayers · 04/12/2025 08:36

it’s the law. You can do as many petitions as you like, but you can’t overturn a supreme court clarification of the actual law of the land.

Show quote history

You can, it's how the law works. It's how civil rights groups have always work. As the suffragettes knew well.

Helleofabore · 04/12/2025 09:03

“You don't want understanding; you want unquestioning obedience.”

This has been pointed out several times to that poster. Their response was denial followed by more personal attacks.

Either they cannot see how their behaviour is unreasonable and hypocrital, or they are so entrenched and can see it but cannot change direction. Remember, there is a huge personal investment in this case. A huge personal investment.

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 04/12/2025 09:01

Whittle suggested the ‘sturdy pyjamas’??

I don’t know where to start with it.

I should be shocked, but, I couldn’t really have a lower opinion of her already.

Namelessnelly · 04/12/2025 09:00

BeOpenTealSnail · 04/12/2025 08:42

The transphobia in this thread makes me feel absolutely sick. I don't know how you sleep at night being this comfortable attacking young trans girls. Cis MEN are still allowed to be in the space with young girls, yet everyone is concerned about young girls trying to find a safe space to be themselves? I think we've all lost the plot when we start attacking eachother instead of understanding the real issue here, which is misogyny.

Yes. We are concerned about young girls having a safe space to be themselves. That’s why boys are excluded. You’re right and I’m glad you’re with us in this. You’re right. Boys should leave girls to grow without butting in and using gendered, outdated stereotypes (or babies waving) to justify invading those groups.

TheKeatingFive · 04/12/2025 08:59

Helleofabore · 04/12/2025 08:58

This is the thing.

Any male adults that come to help are chaperoned, or should be if safeguarding is strong. There are limitations to what they can do there.

This could not happen if that male person said they were female.

The ‘sturdy pajama’ quote was from a female person who describes herself as a man who has been instrumental in the dismantling of UK policy protecting women. Whittle also told the world that as a GG teen on camp, would have sex with the scouts during the night. Whittle said that of course male people can sleep in the same accommodation as female people, the sturdy pajamas is all the protection needed (my paraphrasing).

I would describe those admissions as coming from a female person with no personal boundaries around sexual activity and someone who should never be considered an expert on safeguarding.

Show quote history

That is absolutely horrifying

Helleofabore · 04/12/2025 08:58

Shedmistress · 04/12/2025 08:49

I sleep like a baby hoping that girls are better protected in the future from boys and young men who pretend to be girls.

For the record:
Men and Boys who attend Girl Guides are kept away from the girls and their toileting, changing or sleeping arrangements.

Men and boys who attend Girl Guides who pretend they are Women and Girls are not, they are allowed to pretend to be Women and Girls for all purposes. Including sharing sleeping arrangements.

That is the issue. It really is not difficult to understand.

It is also where the Sturdy Pyjamas suggestion originally came from, on this very forum. Why should girls have to wear 'sturdy pyjamas' to protect themselves from boys who are pretending to be girls in the first place?

Show quote history

This is the thing.

Any male adults that come to help are chaperoned, or should be if safeguarding is strong. There are limitations to what they can do there.

This could not happen if that male person said they were female.

The ‘sturdy pajama’ quote was from a female person who describes herself as a man who has been instrumental in the dismantling of UK policy protecting women. Whittle also told the world that as a GG teen on camp, would have sex with the scouts during the night. Whittle said that of course male people can sleep in the same accommodation as female people, the sturdy pajamas is all the protection needed (my paraphrasing).

I would describe those admissions as coming from a female person with no personal boundaries around sexual activity and someone who should never be considered an expert on safeguarding.

Namelessnelly · 04/12/2025 08:57

ByShyRaven · 04/12/2025 08:29

For anyone that wishes to object to the decision there is a petition available (apologies if this has already been shared).

https://www.change.org/p/allow-transgender-women-and-girls-back-into-girlguiding-uk

Why? Why should women petition to allow men and boys back into a fender dingie sex group? How does this benefit girls? Those boys could join scouts. Leave girls their single sex group.

potpourree · 04/12/2025 08:57

Genuinely - when you (general "you") refuse to explain what you even mean by "women" in this sentence, do you think that is helping understanding, or hindering it?

I asked solidmam this and the response was "i think I've answered this on other threads "

Anyone (not specifically this poster) calling for understanding yet ignoring, insulting and waving away people asking what you mean is hypocritical behaviour. You don't want understanding; you want unquestioning obedience.

It can't be a surprise that educated liberal women take issue with that, can it?

Silverbirchleaf · 04/12/2025 08:54

BeOpenTealSnail · 04/12/2025 08:42

The transphobia in this thread makes me feel absolutely sick. I don't know how you sleep at night being this comfortable attacking young trans girls. Cis MEN are still allowed to be in the space with young girls, yet everyone is concerned about young girls trying to find a safe space to be themselves? I think we've all lost the plot when we start attacking eachother instead of understanding the real issue here, which is misogyny.

No one is attacking young trans girls, but are supporting girls.

You could argue the reverse, that by allowing boys into girl organisations, you are attacking girls.

truthsayers · 04/12/2025 08:50

BeOpenTealSnail · 04/12/2025 08:42

The transphobia in this thread makes me feel absolutely sick. I don't know how you sleep at night being this comfortable attacking young trans girls. Cis MEN are still allowed to be in the space with young girls, yet everyone is concerned about young girls trying to find a safe space to be themselves? I think we've all lost the plot when we start attacking eachother instead of understanding the real issue here, which is misogyny.

there’s no such thing as cis and no such thing as trans children. And it’s an insomnia free zone on the right side of history and child safeguarding.

Helleofabore · 04/12/2025 08:49

“The transphobia in this thread makes me feel absolutely sick. I don't know how you sleep at night being this comfortable attacking young trans girls. Cis MEN are still allowed to be in the space with young girls, yet everyone is concerned about young girls trying to find a safe space to be themselves? I think we've all lost the plot when we start attacking eachother instead of understanding the real issue here, which is misogyny.”

So says another poster who doesn’t understand the GG safeguarding failures around those previous included male children.

And that post is quite the study in hypocrisy considering it in itself is an ‘attack’ on people striving to understand the issue.

But it is right in that the inclusion of male children and any non DBS checked male that is not adequately chaperoned is indeed ‘misogyny”. I don’t think the poster understood quite how they support that misogyny though with the wording of the post.