Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Victoria Derbyshire today and Girlguides

608 replies

AgnesBadenPowell · 05/03/2018 19:29

Did anyone see Victoria Derbyshire on BBC2 this morning? Interesting discussion about transgender people and self ID. One of the speakers mentioned Girlguiding, which caught my attention as I am a Leader and I’ve had similar concerns but few people to discuss it with IRL.

You might have seen the press coverage (and threads here) about the changes to Girlguiding UK’s policy on inclusivity for transgender members

As a leader it’s my duty to implement the policy. I also have a duty of care to the girls in my unit. I’ve thought long and hard about this and in my view, GG has got it wrong.

GGUK recognises gender self identity, which is “a person’s inner sense of being a girl or a woman”. A male child who identifies as a girl can enroll as a rainbow, brownie, guide or ranger and a male who identifies as a woman can make the Guide promise and become a leader. Leadership roles have historically been women only (although men can volunteer for support roles that don’t need the promise and aren’t in charge of units).

The policy states that transgender children should use the accommodation of their acquired gender on camp. Parents of other children should not be informed - leaders are told it is neither required or best practice. Remember that Guiding also permits adult leaders (including men who identify as women) to share accommodation with children; it’s not the preferred option and at least 2 adults should always be present in the tent or guide hut but it does happen.

I have written to GGUK to outline my concerns:

  1. the policy allows, for example, a 14 yo biological male Guide to share sleeping accommodation with a 10 year old female Guide.NSPCC advice is that children over 10 do not share a bedroom with the opposite sex. It’s not unreasonable for parents to expect GG to follow this advice. Why aren’t we?
  1. The policy does not acknowledge the embarrassment a teen may feel when dealing with periods, washing and bathing in shared facilities with a person they may have known as a boy.
  1. The policy is focused on the needs of the transchild and their preferences. As a Leader I have a duty to all children in my care and must balance each of their needs. Only in reference to changing clothes does the policy state that all children should be offered a more private place to change if desired, otherwise transchildren chose what facilities they use with no reference to their fellow guides.
  1. If GG cannot guarantee truly single sex accommodation then some girls will miss out on residentials, eg girls from certain religious groups, those who have been subjected to abuse or who just don’t want to. This is against GG’s inclusive ethos

So far GG has responded with (template?) emails to say that GG has always been a single gender organisation, gender identity (as defined above) is recognised as separate from biological sex and Leaders should refer concerned parents to the higher ups.

Today’s TV show made me wonder how many people really understand the implications of the policy and have similar concerns. Leaders can't discuss other children with parents (rightIy so) but that means parents can't give informed consent to their child sharing mixed sex facilities. I'd like to gauge the feeling of parents but it's a sensitive issue and not something that I can just ask my girls’ parents. Perhaps you think I am over reacting. Perhaps you share my concerns. Either way, I’d like to know.

Finally, I should add that I’m not trying to have transgirls removed from GG. Neither do I think all men/boys are potential sex offenders. But I do owe it to the parents and children in my care to have assessed all the risks thoroughly. My point is that this policy poses a risk, which doesn't appear to be recognised by GG and Leaders aren't being advised how to manage it.

I do have to pop out for a bit now but will come back later, if anyone replies!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
19
ContemporaryPankhurst · 06/03/2018 12:00

AgnesBadenPowell Thank you for your well reasoned post and bringing this to people's attention. I think certainly get this out onto the main boards and the legal clarification is a fantastic move.

Are there any news agencies you can try and get involved? You are clearly coming from a position of safe-guarding and balancing competing rights.

I was talking to a fellow scholar about this last night, after one too many wines I must admit, and as we couldn't resolve our feelings on the trans argument - the what is a woman/who gets to define ad infinitum we abandoned it and just discussed good and bad law. They were instantly on board with the notion that we cannot have objective laws based on subjective feelings. We need the law to be applied equally to all people and we cannot do this with subjective and changing definitions.

It appears the GG by leaving it to individuals to decide means they won't have a coherent policy which will apply to everyone equally, this risks discrimination creeping in.

Lemonjello · 06/03/2018 11:34

A petition was just an example, it may not be the right way forward, I don’t know. But I do know that people are chomping at the bit to actually do something productive to challenge all of this so if you can find a way to direct their energy that would be amazing.

AgnesBadenPowell · 06/03/2018 11:21

Sorry for sporadic replies, am supposed to be working!

Someone did start a petition on CitizenGO but it never really got off the ground. I'm not prepared to have anything to do with CitizenGO - they are an ultra conservative group, anti gay marriage and pro life. So I'd have to start a new one. Will have a think about the wording. As it happens I am gender critical but my issue here is around safe guarding so that should be the focus.

OP posts:
Elletorro · 06/03/2018 11:08

Agnes

Do dm me. I’m at work right now.

I can help you get a decent referral together to the ECHR. They can intervene before legal proceedings commence. They need to assess so it takes time to come through the system with a yes or a no.

I will be drafting an “on notice” letter for GG tonight. I’ll put it on here and speak with SexMatters about putting together a downloadable document. Then we can spam the threads

Lemonjello · 06/03/2018 11:08

Do you think it's worth posting about this in Chat or AIBU?

Yes. It would also be useful to have something concrete people who agree with you could do i.e. sign a petition.

MyVisionsComeFromSoup · 06/03/2018 11:06

so GGUK would be quite happy for the boys who are "a bit handsy" at parties to declare themselves girls, and carry on being "a bit handsy" while sharing a tent with the girls who've managed not to be backed into a corner by them at parties (or who have been backed into a corner and been rescued by friends)?

And are they saying that sexual assault and rape won't happen? Or even can't, as obviously the 14 year old girl I know who you couldn't shut up at Guides, but was almost totally mute in class, is further up the oppression list than than the gobby 14 year old boy who won't take no for an answer and has to be carefully placed in a class seating plan?

HandbagKrabby · 06/03/2018 11:01

This is just awful. I have to question why organisations are so keen to have transgender children/adults as members that they’re happy to ignore biological reality - it doesn’t feel like genuine inclusivity to me.

AgnesBadenPowell · 06/03/2018 10:59

Thank you everyone who has read and contributed to this thread.

I'm still seeking legal advice but will continue to press GGUK for answers in the meantime. Thank you to those posters who suggested other bodies I could write to to to keep the pressure up. I have already written to my MP about this in a wider letter about the implications of self ID although I haven't heard back from her either.

Do you think it's worth posting about this in Chat or AIBU? FWR is a much smaller board with lots of gender critical posters who have already thought about what self ID means for organisations like GG. If I could reach a wider audience and get support from across a range of political viewpoints then GG will find it much harder to ignore us.

OP posts:
LangCleg · 06/03/2018 10:42

I keep coming back to this thread in complete disbelief.

Every time I think I've peaked, something else happens.

The possibility of tween/teen sex resulting in pregnancy is not a safeguarding issue for the Guides.

I keep having to say it to myself and see if it sounds any less ludicrous. It doesn't.

Elletorro · 06/03/2018 10:42

Hi Sema

I have been speaking with the EHRC and I believe it’s possible to ask them to intervene. They take 20 days from receipt of the request to respond.

I’d be happy to work on drafting the request with you. If you dm me I will provide you with my credentials.

I’m wondering about contacting the health and safety executive too. Not a field I have any experience in though.

Lastly I suggest sending them a letter saying you are taking legal advice. Explicitly put them on notice that if a child is abused due to their policies then they will have been grossly negligent and parents will litigate. I suggest ccing the letter to NSPCC and also the children’s minister Nadhim Zahawi and your mp.

Actually I’d be happy to draft that and share the text. Every parent here would be within their rights to send it.

DoctorW · 06/03/2018 10:35

Victoria Derbyshire has made a clip of me talking about the girl guides policy of allowing natal boys sleep with girls. It would be ideal for sharing on facebook etc to get the word out and to see who's else is worried about it.

twitter.com/VictoriaLIVE/status/970608359102545920

Datun · 06/03/2018 10:01

It looks like the NSPCC and girl guides have been given the biased re-education that is being fed everywhere.

Anyone who can say gender is your inner sense of being male or female, in the same breath as saying it's nothing to do with stereotypes has been force fed the Kool-Aid.

They will absolutely be niggles about this. Because they are, hopefully, not stupid. But they will not be seeing this with any kind of true clarity.

They can acknowledge autogynephilia? Do they realise that it's a fetish which directly involves members of the public, including children?

But are just throwing their hands up?

They know that there is a fetish which relies on presenting as female and being acknowledged as female, which could be a motivation to work at the guides - that is officially crap included under the trans umbrella.

Do they say the same thing about a man who they knew was hanging around the school gates? Yes, we know he would like loiter at home time, but his DBS is clean and we can't actually ask him if he's a paedophile.

The problem with this is they have been brainwashed into thinking a certain way. And now, as objections are arising, they have little recourse other than to keep parroting the same phrases.

TerfyOwl

Yes, Millwall caved. They're looking for another venue

SemaMjinga · 06/03/2018 09:54

Yes, if that is true, then it is worrying smurf

SmurfOrTerf · 06/03/2018 09:39

In the letter MorbidMuch had posted - it sounds to me like they were deliberately targeted by TRA's
a lot of enquiries by people wanting to volunteer

BULLSHIT

IWasAVentureScout · 06/03/2018 08:57

I have already contributed to this thread.
I was a Guide but there were no Rangers in our area so I went to Ventures.
I was at a party which was (memory is fuzzy) organised by or attended by a leader (in the TSS age range).
I was under 18 and I was sexually assaulted by another Scout.
I was also assaulted on camp by another Scout but over 18 then.
Make of that what you will.

GirlScout72 · 06/03/2018 08:56

Oh and girls who think they are boys are not welcome in the Guides. So a girl who is confused about her identity (and let's be honest, probably her sexuality) has to leave her safe space, her friends, her trusted adults whilst she works it out cos it's a 'single gender' organisation.

GGA also explicitly state that with regard to trans leaders and transboys 'no evidence of transition is required'.

Their website is a laugh as they actually have a section on how they are invoking exemptions on single sex as it's an organisation for girls (honestly, look it up, I suggest everyone reads the word salad on their site) and then they can't define what a girl is.

They also have materials for working with girls about sexuality - not sure how that's going to work either (and sexual orientation is protected in EA2010 too)

What I think is fascinating is the trans kids juggernaut is mainly spearheaded by adult men who NEVER HAD dysphoria as children and didn't have it as adults. I'm not a safeguarding expert but that makes my spidey senses tingle. Plus Gendered Intelligence et al are MAKING MONEY out of this bobbins.

SnibbleAgain · 06/03/2018 08:56

"Girlguiding is an organisation for all girls and young women, based on this sense of gender identity"

How are they checking gender I'd? Rainbows starts at age 5. What about all the girls who don't "feel like a girl" but just like a person, they're out are they?

Why are they supporting the utterly regressive sexist idea of "lady brain"?

So they are now a mixed sex organisation for anyone who "feels like a girl"? Why not just come out and say it then?

GG was valuable for girls, it's a shame it's gone mixed sex. I imagine the same will happen with good girls schools.

The idea there is no safeguarding concern putting male and female teens in to sleep together is ridiculous.

I note someone mentioned upthread from private sector. Private sector people have got into a lot of charities, for various reasons, we are seeing a lot coming out now about abuses etc. Who is in charge of GG? People who love the org and care about girls, or people who are simply there as a job?

GirlScout72 · 06/03/2018 08:48

A little fact

Gendered Intelligence have trained:

Girl Guides
The NSPCC

Make of that what you will.

Somerville · 06/03/2018 08:44

How, with the current spotlight on charity safe-guarding and sex scandals, do the Guiding trustees think that they are immune?

Perhaps everyone who used to be a guide or is the parent of a guide (or prospective parent) should write to all the trustees directly? Is there a list of them floating around?

The press might be more interested than in the past, too, in the current climate.

xxmarksthespot · 06/03/2018 08:42

"she has to take it on trust the transgirl or transwoman leader is not intending any harm"

It doesn't matter if the man or boy with an “inner sense of being a girl or a woman” (quote from GG rules) intends harm or not.

Women and girls are entitled to privacy, even from supposedly nice boys or men. The breach of privacy is the harm. The lack of a single-sex space is the harm. The gaslighting and lies and lack of consent is the harm.

drspouse · 06/03/2018 08:39

Thank you sema
I'm still happy therefore to tell parents about the law re children and non-GRC-adults and to share my risk assessments.

SemaMjinga · 06/03/2018 08:39

Regarding the Equalities Act 2010;

The GGA already invoke Schedule 9 Part 1: Occupational Requirements to exclude males from GGA Group leadership. It is just as legal to exclude a transgender person from such a job.

· Schedule 23 is the exemption which allows for the provision of single-sex accommodation. Provision is also made in this exemption to exclude males with a trans-identity (adults and children) from female accommodation and facilities

· Schedule 16 gives legal provision to restrict membership of a club to 1 of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act. GG uses this to legally restrict to members of the female sex and to exclude boys. A trans-girl is not a member of the female sex (they are legally male and cannot change their legal gender until 18). A trans child is protected from discrimination based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This is a different protected characteristic to sex. Being part of the group 'Gender reassignment' does not influence their membership of the other protected characteristic sex. They remain in the male category. There is no legal obligation to allow legally male trans children into a club specifically for girls. In doing so the club is no longer single-sex and so all male children should be allowed. Allowing only trans-identified male children is unfairly discriminating against non-trans-identified male children (boys)

SemaMjinga · 06/03/2018 08:29

To reassure you, we have worked with volunteers and expert organisations throughout on the policy update, reviewing our current guidance and ensuring that we are meeting best practice and current legislation

Aye morbid...that would be Gendered Intelligence. A single issue group. Which is why the rights of the girls to safety and privacy havent been a consideration. And why the law has been misinterpreted

SemaMjinga · 06/03/2018 08:26

It doesnt drspouse, it is a misinterpretation...which is why it needs a legal challenge

morningrunner · 06/03/2018 08:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread