Girl Guides are now GIRL ONLY! - Thread 2

That thread is very eye opening. Just when we think we have seen it all.

Exactly! Like you, I think, am following the fast-moving main WI thread in FWR on and off, and the amount of hyperbole from the TRA side there is beyond belief. (It's a rather nice oasis of calm over here in comparison🌴).

Even then, it's not women who would be erased - just their rights.

I genuinely think that awful term "erasure" that gets rolled out so very much is far, far more applicable, by any stretch of the imagination, to women and girls' current predicament.

Surely the group that is closest to being "erased" is the group denied the language necessary to describe and distinguish themselves to advocate for their rights?

And that loss of our language is so dramatic, so absolute, that I really do feel as though I struggle to know how to express what "women" used to mean. It's an awful, genuinely frightening position in which to be, particularly when that language that I've lost is fundamental to my health, physical safety and psychological wellbeing: medical research, single-sex spaces etc.

A transgirl doesn't have the same problem of an inability to describe their needs. They may not have the power to make me use the pronoun they prefer, but they do at least have a word with which to unambiguously describe themselves and their demographic.

By the way, how is it also erasing 1% of the population when 100% of the population has a sex class that their body belongs to.

AND when feminists talk about protecting female people's rights, they are also including probably 50% of that 1% who are female people.

This accusation is one we see very often and it lacks accuracy, logic and coherency.

It's just all so bloody regressive.

No, my daughter can be/ wear and do whatever she wishes.

The fact that she doesn't engage in stereotypically female activities and doesn't dress in a stereotypically female way doesn't make her a fucking boy.

It's so offensive it's untrue. Thankfully now she's gone through puberty she has got over the I would rather be a boy bit. She's a happy teen / young adult female.

I am sorry @SolidMam I really think you have let your son down. Boys can be whatever they want to be, what they can never be is the opposite sex and they have no place in single sex spaces reserved by law for people of the opposite sex. If your son is upset by this it is entirely on you and any other adult who has lied to him since before he could even speak!!!!!

And here is that dishonest language usage.

EasternStandard : Why are you not open to what a boy can be like?

SolidMam : I am. Boys, trans boys, it's all good.

Leaving the reader to have to ask, hang on... what does the word boy mean to each of these people? Knowing that one of these people has stated that their male child is a 'girl'.

This is the power of language.

Thank you SolidMam for demonstrating that so very clearly .

So why don’t you let your son know he can be a boy and do whatever he likes, dress how he likes?

But be honest about his sex which he can’t change.

https://x.com/KnownHeretic/status/1988090968613237131?s=20

Maybe this is useful for people who don't understand how consent works for access to single sex provisions and how if some female people want their male friend to have access, this does not remove the basic standard of consent to be met where if even 1 female user of that provision wants it to be female only, that is where the standard has to be.

I am. Boys, trans boys, it's all good.

"It is a terrible shame however, that you have taught your son that as a biological male, he's doing it 'wrong'."

Indeed.

This should have been an excellent opportunity for a male child to learn that he can do whatever interests him and be whatever he wants to while acknowledging that he has a male sexed body and is a boy and later a man. Because all that boy and man indicate is the maturity status of a male human.

We should be making sure our children know this and that there are endless ways to be a 'boy' or a 'man', but the only requisite is that they are male people.

"The girls that might want to allow their trans girl friends in to Brownies won't be protected by this ruling, they'll be sad, confused and frustrated.'

Now we have reached the 'but what about those girls who want their male friend to be in the group'?

Do you actually understand how consent works in this instance? Surely, if you are safeguarding trained as I would have thought a Brownie leader was, you would understand this.

Just because some female children agree that their male friend can access a female single sex provision, it doesn't change that fact that one female child who doesn't is the bar set for consent. And this would have to also be organisation wide.

Despite this, it is the law.

So those sad, confused and frustrated female children might need to understand that when a group is designated as single sex, it means female children only. However, if they all want to join a group that is available to both sexes, they can join Scouts together. That way your child will have friends to join him.

"I wonder how and if the board at GG consulted with the girl members themselves about the decision? This is common practice across many charity organisations. I know it's a response to a legal change but that simply doesn't make it right or correct."

yes.... I wonder whether the board at GG consulted with the girl members to allow male children into their groups in the first place. I doubt it. As a volunteer around the time, I didn't see any discussion of this inclusion with the female members.

"I suppose that I'm realising through this debate that that I just don't agree that sex based rates need protecting as much as other people clearly do on here. I thought there'd be a wider range of views - but I suppose that's how echo chambers occur."

Echo chambers occur when alternative view points are blocked and removed. You are here having a discussion, while making personal attacks I have to point out. No one is blocking you or asking for you to be removed from the discussion.

That you, personally, don't believe that female sex based 'rights' (I assume, please correct me if I'm have assumed you meant 'rights') don't need protecting is a choice you are very free to make. And feminists will feel free to disagree with you and point out why they believe sex based rights are vital to be preserved.

@SolidMamwhy wouldn’t you expand the definition of what a boy can do and be like?

You can be honest about your child’s sex and they can live as they like still.

"You're free to disagree but it does make you seem very close minded as to what and who a girl can be."

Really? You have made so many poorly aimed accusations at me, this one is really laughable. This is your next line of attack?

Remarkable. A 'girl' can choose do be whatever she wants to be and do whatever interests her while she will always be a female juvenile human. No male person can be 'a girl'. If you cannot understand the difference between acknowledging the material reality of a sex class of humans and having no other expectations of a girl than that, I think you have again demonstrated your own limitations and not mine.

"I'm really not demanding, I'm requesting."

No. You are continuing to demand it. You can deny it all you wish, however the more you attack me for disagreeing with your demand the more that anyone reading this thread sees that demand for what it is. It is in no way a request. A request can be freely rejected. You have continued to personally attack me with the intention of shaming me to comply with your demand - making it not a request at all.

"How is the erasure of women through language a huge problem, compared to the erasure of 1% of the population?"

Referring to a person as their sex class when sex is entirely relevant to the discussion being undertaken at that time is not 'erasing' people with transgender identities. However, people with transgender identities demanding to be described using language that doesn't accurately convey what their sex is and demanding to be described using the language that female people need to use to for their own rights, when that person is male not female, provably does remove the rights of female people.

A very clear example of this has been when male people described themselves as female athletes and convinced sporting federations to allow them to enter into female sporting events.

Surely the only reason to attempt to change sex characteristics is if you were 'transphobic' enough to think that being a girl requires being female?

If you think it's about how you feel inside and not the body, then no need to change the body.

You're free to disagree but it does make you seem very close minded as to what and who a girl can be.

For me, the only requirement to be a girl is to be female. Other than that, it is utterly irrelevant what they like, what they want, what they are good at. That has literally no bearing on whether they are a boy or a girl.

Yet you seem to think being a girl requires certain types of feeling (and aren't even open-minded enough to share what you think these are) - you are restricting the definition, not me.

it does make you seem very close minded as to what and who a girl can be.

Were the NAACP being closed minded when they said Rachel Dolezal wasn't black? Are people who think that Stefoknee Wolscht isn't a six year old (or a girl) just closed minded? (Apologies to anyone not familiar with Stefoknee who now googles). What a girl is is a female human under the age of 18. Who a girl can be is limitless.

There is only one way to be a girl - biologically.

It is a terrible shame however, that you have taught your son that as a biological male, he's doing it 'wrong'.

Why are you not open to what a boy can be like?

Re: your last paragraph, please read Invisible Women, Solid. That you don't believe sex-based rights need protecting as much is, to my mind, is just an indication of how much they need protecting. With women not even aware of how much they need the protections they have, and how much more they're owed, the patriarchy really has done a number on us.

Just one example. There are thousands like this, many with similar life and death implications:

Women are 70% or so more likely to be significantly injured in a car accident because car design ignores their needs.

Try substituting any other demographic, and you'll feel the horror more strongly:

Cars are designed in a way that makes People of Colour 70% or so more likely to be injured.

Then ask yourself why you don't feel the same horror about women's increased risk of injury and death. Ask yourself why you didn't even know this.

And ask yourself why, in contrast, it has been drilled into you never to ask an ethnic minority where they're from or to call a transwoman "he". Just take a minute to really feel the difference here: women's physical injury on a massive scale is unacknowledged and unimportant. But ignorant and sometimes intentionally offensive language is gasp-inducingly taboo.

People don't see sex-based oppression in the way that a goldfish doesn't see water.

Paradoxically, that's how feminists know how bad it is.

Edited to add link: https://womeninbalance.org/2025/09/04/are-cars-more-dangerous-for-women-understanding-the-risks-and-how-to-protect-yourself/

You're free to disagree but it does make you seem very close minded as to what and who a girl can be.

It doesn't matter how open or closed Hellabore's mind is. A girl is female human who has not reached adult maturity and that is the only restriction on what a girl can be.

Many of the rights (womens/trans) can seem mutually exclusive, depending on the position you take. The girls that might want to allow their trans girl friends in to Brownies won't be protected by this ruling, they'll be sad, confused and frustrated.

They only seem mutually exclusive if you have grossly overstated the right of females to selectively offer out female only spaces to the males they want to be in them. If it's a private group or something, fine. Let a male into the book club you hold at your house with some pals if you like. But for a public organisation like Guides, that is simply not a right that we as women have. You, I, those girls can't consent on behalf of other women.

To the extent that any girls are left sad, confused and frustrated, this is entirely the fault of the people who failed to properly safeguard them in the first place. Not those who are now ensuring that a better job is done of it.

No, we're a long way off any medical interventions, thanks for your concern.

How is 1% of the population being erased?

How is the erasure of women through language a huge problem, compared to the erasure of 1% of the population?

I'm really not demanding, I'm requesting. And if you deliberately referred to her as a 'girl' in person, I'd request it then too. You're free to disagree but it does make you seem very close minded as to what and who a girl can be.

Now that I'm engaging with the debate on here, I can see why it so easily becomes polarised. Many of the rights (womens/trans) can seem mutually exclusive, depending on the position you take. The girls that might want to allow their trans girl friends in to Brownies won't be protected by this ruling, they'll be sad, confused and frustrated.

I wonder how and if the board at GG consulted with the girl members themselves about the decision? This is common practice across many charity organisations. I know it's a response to a legal change but that simply doesn't make it right or correct.

I suppose that I'm realising through this debate that that I just don't agree that sex based rates need protecting as much as other people clearly do on here. I thought there'd be a wider range of views - but I suppose that's how echo chambers occur.

@SolidMampls read this. Don’t mislead your dc