Girl Guides are now GIRL ONLY! - Thread 2

Does the email instruct you not to share it?

Sadly, I would not be surprised if threats of violence have been sent to GGHQ in the last few days.

However blanket bans of males in same sex spaces does not solve the issue of abuse...

Locking doors doesn't "solve the issue of" burglary, either. Or speed limits, car crashes. This is an endlessly recycled, bad faith logical fallacy.

I am going to repost this (posted a few pages back) as it is entirely relevant as to why no male people above about 8 years old should be in female single sex toilets. AND it is relevant as to why those single sex toilets should not be replaced with unisex toilets.

Often, what also was not considered is the female toilet usage includes activities outside of the ability to lock the door. It is like there is a group of people who have never in their life needed to use a toilet facility where what they needed didn't fit neatly into a toilet cubicle with a locked door.

How great for them!

Here is that list of toilet usage this is just my own experience:

I have had to use the toilet while having a pram / pushchair jammed into the door with groceries.

I have had to have my mum use the public toilet because the disable toilet was not available and had her wheelchair jammed in the door because I couldn't leave her sit to move it and shut the door.

I have had breastmilk leaks / children's vomit / food spilled on my clothes and needed to have an unbuttoned top to dry the top under the hand drier.

I have come across other women quite regularly washing out their tops or their skirts etc and drying them enough to put back on .

I have friends who have miscarried in toilets and needed assistance and for that to be female people to make it more comfortable.

I went to the pub the other night and there was a woman dealing with a spilled wine on her top.

Toilets are not just used behind a closed cubicle door. There are quite a few aspects of female toilet usage that happen in the public space, or even now still occur with a toilet door jammed open.

So, this push for 'unisex' toilets with just locked cubicles etc also really doesn't work in practice, women still need female single sex toilet provision. Imagine waiting for a woman to dry out her top in one cubicle while there is a line forming. It just doesn't work the way people demand that it does.

Why in the above circumstances, should any female person have to accept a male person's presence above the age of about 8 years old who need to be with their mother?

I look forward to your answer.

However blanket bans of males in same sex spaces does not solve the issue of abuse, as well as aggravating the many women who would stand with my trans daughter over this issue.

@SolidMam

Third spaces would solve that but that's not something that the trans community seem to want.

To bring back to this thread, your son could have achieved that in the Scouts, but you chose the single sex organisation instead.

it doesn't solve it but it sure as heck reduces the risk

It's awful to read this.

I'm not sure I said that mixed sexed facilities improved the safety of females.

I did say that there is not necessarily a heightened threat because males are present, which is true. If there is a male abuser present then of course it is less safe. It depends on the male, the context and setting.

This of course is little comfort to those who are abused.

I would also expect that any mixed sex toilet/changing provision are fiercely risk assessed so that they are not inherently dangerous places to be.

It's come back to toilets once again and for good reason. Obviously I do not want to be accused of being permissive to abusers.

However blanket bans of males in same sex spaces does not solve the issue of abuse, as well as aggravating the many women who would stand with my trans daughter over this issue.

Sorry for prolonged editing of the above. A bad habit. Wanted to extend my recommendation to Solid. (And be v. accurate re. what I'd found).

thanks so much for that. I'll definitely order it.

It does seem to be relevant. Two short quotes on skimming the matches.

'"While many young people seen at GIDS were very distressed, not all were. But they still needed help and there was nowhere else for them to go. 'Some of the children didn't experience high levels of distress, but they really valued coming to a place and just talking with someone who understands. They would never get into CAMHS," the clinician explained.' (Chapt. 21)

'..."I'd be in tears because CAMHS is treating him as a woman and saying all this will be cured when he goes to the Tavistock."' (quote from parent "Diana" in Chapt. 5)

PS On reviewing, a small proportion of the matches are in the bibliography - although this may be helpful in itself - and certain chapters will be likely to have much more concentrated reference to CAMHs, depending on their relevance to the focus. But it does look like I didn't remember entirely wrongly, and it may be of interest to you. Please be aware that I found it a distressing read even without a child of my own experiencing related issues.

While emphasising my warning to Dimes above, Solid, I wonder if it may perhaps be of interest to you, too. If you've not already heard of it, it won a significant journalism award for its exploration of the NHS gender identity clinic known as the Tavistock, delving into the complex reasons behind its recent closure with facts, stats, whistleblowers, personal anecdotes and opportunities for refutation and counter-argument. It was praised for its meticulous research, balance and diplomacy.

But OP and their child think women are female or male people, so being male IS being a woman for them.

They don't think "woman" is limited to "female" - it's to do with the things that make you happy.

So being male shouldn't be an issue for them.

Just searched "CAMHS" in it on my iPad and got 97 matches, so it's definitely referenced in some detail, whether or not my recollection of the exact dynamics with gender services are accurate.

OK. Give me a sec, and I'll see if I can confirm what I recall, at least about her discussing how services interacted...

No I haven't read it. That's really interesting that she has seen that link.

It's one of those books that I keep meaning to read so I will order it.

My earlier one, to avoid the need for annoying scrolling. The opening bold was a quote from yourself arguing that it's unethical to exclude transwomen as a demographic for safeguarding purposes.

It doesn't make them all worthy of the same treatment.

But it does! That's the essence of what democratic societies aiming to balance rights call safeguarding!

Our choices are:

1. We lose all single-sex spaces (I can't believe you're arguing for that).
2. We exclude males except for transwomen (I think you're arguing for this?)
3. We exclude males including transwomen (we're certainly arguing for this)

Please please please, if you answer any question, answer this one.

If I'm right, and you favour 2) above, why is your preference a blanket ban on the group who are statistically less likely to offend sexually against females (non-discriminatory, in your eyes) and an open invitation to the group who a statistically more likely to (discriminatory, in your eyes)?

I do sympathise with the "genuinely dysophoric" transwoman, I do. But I simply don't understand how you can put his feelings over women's physical safety (especially given his physical strength advantages and again, I believe, statistically supported - proportionately greater safety from actual physical attack)

Please, for the love of goodness, explain!!! Quote my post above to address each part, and give us some stats and links!

I believe you have misunderstood completely what I said.

Destabilised language. Not 'unstable' in your language usage. You choose to use language that is destabilised from it's original and intended meaning that now means the opposite to that original and intended meaning.

Yes, you are consistent in using destabilised language. And you have destabilised it to suit your political aims and personal aims for your child.

"I suppose events such as this will inform our conversations about who sees/affirms her as a 'girl' and who doesn't."

I see. So, do you see how you have leveraged destabilised language there to suit your personal agenda. You use 'girl' for your male child. That is not the meaning of 'girl' at all.

By using the term 'girl' for your male child, you have made the connection in your son's mind that he should have access to every single thing that is meant to be just for 'girls'. That is quite an entitled viewpoint that you are communicating to him.

If you used the term 'single sex' and made it clear that some things should be respected as being only single sex, maybe your child would not be so distressed by this decision. Because maybe your child would realise that society does not have to support any 'gender identity' at all when it comes to single sex provisions.

Hence why I have pointed out the issues with your chosen language usage.

Dime, I'm so sorry to hear about you and your daughter's experiences. May I ask if you've read Hannah Barnes' Time To Think? I imagine you may have done, but if not, would recommend it if you feel able. It can be a tough read, particularly, I imagine, after your experiences, but is enlightening on the dynamics between CAMHS and gender services, including, as I remember it (may be wrong!), practices, in squeezed services, not dissimilar to what you suspected. (This may, of course, be what led you to suspect this - apologies if so).

It's disgraceful. It was my daughter it happened to.

At the time my theory was that the minute any suggestion of 'gender' came into an autistic child's presentation the preference of CAMHS was to signpost to gender services and remove the child from their caseload. We ALL know that CAMHS have massive caseloads.

In our area the vast majority of autistic girls now identify as trans or non - binary.

The parents and their daughters were sold a lie, that identifying as boys would solve their issues and then suddenly the children now have a 'cool' identity. At that time it was all Mermaids and Unicorns.

I haven't had the strength to do a FOI request about this at our local CAMHS, my daughter is about to transfer to adult services, when that happens and she will not be impacted I will make a complaint and investigate further.

Hm, I've realised that in a few places in recent posts I've slipped into being a bit... "catty" (which, despite my username - which was never intended to link to this! - I really, really try to avoid). If you're actually trolling, Solid, then a gently facetious thanks for giving us the opportunity to challenge what I will now call some of the more surprising perspectives in this debate. From this point on, I'll return to assuming you're not, with apologies for my unusual directness a few times above - and would be especially reassured if you do now feel able to address my twice-posted question in good faith.

There’s going to be a lot of hard times ahead as you have set him up for a massive fail in life. What’s your plan when he hits puberty and the difference between him and actual girls becomes too difficult to deny.

"I prioritise inclusion, unless actual safety is the priority - which in many day-to-day cases it isn't".

I'm still wrestling with this one. It's up there with sex-based rights being obsolete, but for different reasons. I think there's probably some logical fallacy or literary device applicable here - something like irony, or oxymoron, or paradox, although none of those are right.

Safety is always the priority. Always.

I think you perhaps mean, except where safety is applicable (like, in origami, bar a severe risk of paper cuts, it isn't, really, but in football, it is)?

I always remember being allowed to play rugby with the boys in my very early teens on one crazy afternoon (weirdly enough, it didn't happen again) and, in a moment of unsupervised silliness, 3 of us girls flinging ourselves at one of the taller lads' legs and grabbing his ankles to stop him getting a try.

You know what? He had a good few meters still to go - and we still didn't stop him (although we loved the muddy ride!)

Looking back, it honestly wasn't very safe - kids need adults (and sports orgs) to protect them by making that clear, and, where it's arguably a bit of a grey area (as eg. the FA has argued) prioritising safety over inclusion.

Does this mean that as leaders you are allowed to ask about sex rather than gender
What happens if you haven't been told officially? Do you just accidentally happen to arrange the tents by sex?

Here's a recent thread she was on, anyway. KeepToiletsSafe, some way down the main page, with MarieDeGournay and others sharing many key details before her arrival. The survey's interesting, too.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5414272-the-removal-of-ladies-toilets

How do you tag someone not in the chat? I'm thinking of KeepToiletsSingleSex, to address the same old mistakes here with her campaigning expertise in loo design and safety.