Victoria Derbyshire today and Girlguides

She said that the advent of puberty made her body something she didn't recognise. It didn't feel like it should be growing the way that it was

To be fair most people feel like this about puberty.

Drspouse

I meant a person who was born a boy, identifies as a girl and fancies girls.

Heggy by lesbian transgender girls do you mean
a) girls who grow up to be teens who think they want to be men and who fancy girls? Or
b) boys who grow up to be men who like dressing in women's clothing and who fancy girls?
Both are very common.
The ones in a) often transition back to being women but continue to fancy girls
The ones in b) complain that lesbians are transphobic because they won't sleep with them.
The person you know is probably in the group that have a high likelihood of transitioning back and deciding they are a gay man.
I don't think a gay man or boy would make a good leader or Guide because they didn't grow up a girl and know what it's like to be treated as a girl.

But if we had a gay male helper (there are lots of male helpers in Guides) then that's fine as long as a) a group is allowed whether to take them as a helper (for some it won't be appropriate for e.g. religious reasons) and b) within a group individuals are given the choice of whether to share rooms/changing facilities.

lesbian transgender girls must be few and far between?

Welcome to the peak trans Mountain range Heggy. Allow us to be your guides.

What you have met sounds like a nice old fashioned transsexual. Still not a 'woman in a man's body' but someone with gender dysphoria.

But most transgender men do indeed keep their penises. Not only that but they say they are lesbian and that actual female lesbians are homophobic to not want to sleep with them (Google - cotton ceiling). And they tell us to suck their lady dicks when they get angry 'cos, y'know, male socialisation.

Shall we let them share a tent with a 14 year old girl? And if not how shall we frame the policy so it keeps them out?

Thank you to those who replied to me.

I must admit that I didn't really know much about transgender people until a couple of years ago. My understanding now comes from a student of mine a few years ago who transitioned from male to female. She and I spoke about what had made her realise that was she wanted to do at such (as I thought then) a young age - she was 14. She said that the advent of puberty made her body something she didn't recognise. It didn't feel like it should be growing the way that it was. She felt like she shared an understanding of who she was which was comparable with her female friends rather than her male friends. She hated the fact she had a penis and wanted it gone, she wanted breasts, as teenage girls do. Her body was 'wrong'. She underwent surgery when she was 17. Would you let her be a Guide? At which point in her journey?

And I understand that we classify using biological sex, but we also have gender as well. They are different. Gender is beyond the biological plumbing. It's a social construct as well as an understanding of our place in the binary sex classification. Who I am as a woman is more than my sexual organs.

I understand the concern about boys with penises being in a room with girls with vaginas - and, to be honest, I'm not sure what my position would be for my own daughter. But ... the point is that they don't want to do anything with that penis, isn't it? That many don't even want that penis. I don't think there are statistics, but lesbian transgender girls must be few and far between?

Safeguarding is ultimately the most important thing in the whole debate, but we also shouldn't demonise or exclude children just because we disagree with their perception of who they are, should we?

The role of a pre/surgery transgender adult who self-ID ... now, to me that's a whole different issue. A much thornier one at that. But the case of the Guides themselves is what made me initially want to post my thoughts.

Hi all. Not caught up with reading whole thread as been working and looking after toddlers. Will catch up.

I have printed out the Equality Act and have a fun weekend ahead! My opinion is that starting a claim will give you leverage to get GG to reconsider.

Now anybody got any understanding of judicial review? I think that there’s a time limit to bring a claim of 90 days but I’m not sure what starts the clock?

When was the policy published?

Also any recommendations for law firms which specialise in judicial review?

I think the first thing is to work out the timeframe we need to meet, then identify a firm and get an idea of initial costs. Possibly 20k will get things started.

I’ve no idea about crowd funding mind but possibly Jennifer James could give some advice

@Heggy79

The point is they aren't^ boys. In their sense of self they are a girl. It's not that they want to be a girl it is that they are^ but have the wrong body.

I'm not surprised it's making you feel uncomfortable.

Anyone with an ounce of imagination, or has ever watched Freaky Friday, would empathise.

But it's only because you believe that it's possible - to have a female brain in a male body.

There are two parts to this. Firstly, we categorise people based on sex. Not thoughts. Sex is purely a description of biological function. That's it.

The reason why sometimes sex segregation is necessary is because, unfortunately, men commit the overwhelming majority of violent and sexual crime (99% of sexual crime). A statistic which doesn't change, incidentally, however they identify.

And of course, in terms of sport, physiology is everything. Not thoughts.

But secondly, the question you need to ask yourself is what are they identifying with?

You can't identify with ovaries, a womb and a vagina.

So what are the thoughts they are thinking? The only possible thing they can be identifying with is what they imagine constitutes a female, but is separate to their biology.

And that's when it starts to become clear.

When you actually start to list what those possible things could be.

Because for every single thing that you could imagine that is stereotypically female, there will be men who do it, and women who don't. Because it's not innate. It's personality and preference.

You only have to look at children in America who play soccer, for instance. There it's considered a girls' sport. So a boy wants to play it is considered 'girly'. And often questioned as to whether they are really trans.

If you speak to transsexuals who know they are men, but want to identify as women there is always a story. There is always a reason. If you speak to detransitioners, they will say the same thing.

It's rejection of toxic masculinity. Rejection of ladish, sexist banter. Or prevalent male violence in the media, pornography, etc. The rejection of the be strong, don't cry narrative.

They will often have come from a background where gender roles are rigourously enforced. To their great distress.

Ther are all sorts of reasons why people transition. But having a brain of the opposite sex in their body, isn't one of them.

And that absolutely does not mean that you can't have profound compassion for someone with gender dysphoria.

It does mean that you can't change sex.

And it certainly doesn't mean that you should be able to redefine the very definition of woman.

The laws clearly aren't being used for the purpose for which they were designed.

We could, of course, just sit back and say, well since there is enough of a loophole to be legally exploited, let's just have our tea and go home.

Which, fortunately, is something said by no feminist ever.

It was perfectly legal for my husband to rape me when I was first married.

It was perfectly legal for a barman to refuse to serve me on my 21st birthday bash purely on the basis that I am a woman.

And for my boss to pay me less my male counterpart when I first worked.

And it might, currently, be legal to define the word woman as a set of stereotypes, and utilise that to allow men access to rape refuges, female locker rooms, single sex organisations, women's sport, all women shortlists and female prisons.

But that's not what the law was designed to do. And until people realise how that has been allowed to happen, and why, feminists need to challenge it every step of the way.

That's what they do.

I dunno Haru, I think women are so pissed off about this, that the money would come from somewhere. We kind of need a 'Gina Miller' type person willing to put their hand in their pocket on a test case.

I think there are good arguments to say their current policy needs reviewing and shifting to rebalance things.

I also think that to some extent these policies and outcome if it goes to court depend on prevailing public views about single sex spaces, and I am concerned that this debate is not being had honestly.

@DoctorW

"The least discriminatory policy must be implemented and think its clear that the adverse impact on girls has not been considered or given appropriate weight. I think there are good arguments to say their current policy needs reviewing and shifting to rebalance things."

Well, this is a matter of policy, and it is entirely the purview of the Girl Guides on how they wish to set it. As I'm not involved in the policy making decisions, and it isn't a matter of interpreting current legislation, there really isn't anything I can add there.

As to being tested in court, I certainly agree, However, given the courts are legally required to take into account all relevant Statutory Codes of Practice issued by EHCR, insomuch as it covers the area(s) in a case, and given that nearly all organisations now use the Statutory Codes of Practice as the basis for their own policies, I'm struggling to see any organisation that would be willing to take that risk given the potential losses involved if they lose the case, unless that organisation can be certain it meets the threshold set in the example given in the legislation via an objective justification.

Heggy

Can you define what a girl is? What is this sense of yourself as a girl, can you define it? Do all girls feel like this?

It seems to me that 'feeling like a girl' is something only boys experience.

Couldn't it be far more likely that instead of being born into the wrong body, boys are born into the wrong society, and what they are feeling uncomfortable about are sex role stereotypes? Remember the average age that boys see hard core porn these days is 8 years old, maybe they are looking at that toxic, aggressive, dominant masculinity and rejecting it.

Miranda Yardley, gender critical transsexual says it's more like being a 'refugee from masculinity'. He knows he's not a woman, but a type of a man, a sensitive and gentle man. But still a man. That's objective reality.

It's not possible to born INTO the wrong body, we ARE our bodies. Male and female just describe reproductive function, everything else is (or should be) just your personality.

Personally I find it offensive that I'm supposedly female due to some ineffable feeling, or a set of submissive stereotypes, I'm female because of my biology. I bleed, I have a vagina, a uterus, breasts, fat on my hips and belly etc. THAT is all a woman is, biology.

Maybe what boys are 'identifying' with is the stereotypes on the LEFT of this picture. That's cool, but doesn't make them female. And girl guides is all about tearing down those stereotypes and saying to girls, those aren't innate, you can be anything you want to be. I'm all for feminine boys, doesn't make them girls. It'd be far more revolutionary (and actually ask patriarchy to concede something) if instead of kicking these boys out of the 'man box' as 'girls' we embraced them as boys and widened the bandwith of what it means to be a boy. This is what GGA do for girls. I dont' see it's women's job to babysit the feelings of males, that's their job.

heggy79
I've been reading this post and trying to work out what I think of this issue (as an ex-Guide and mother of a daughter) and why some of what is being said sits so uncomfortably with me. I think that it's this misunderstanding... The point is they aren't boys. In their sense of self they are a girl. It's not that they want to be a girl it is that they are but have the wrong body.

However you want to think of it - 'a girl in the wrong body' or as a 'boy thinking he's a girl' it doesn't change the practical safeguarding issue. We have child with a penis undressing and sleeping with children with a vagina. The children with a vagina are at risk from pregnancy or rape or sexual assault from a child with a penis. This reality needs to be acknowledged and safeguarded against. That's the long and the short of it. All the children's needs, the one with a penis and the ones with a vagina, needs to be considered and balanced.

Haru
So the Girl Guides could seek to exclude any transgender woman from joining whether they have a GRC or not, but given the standards set out in the legislation that must be met, and given the details contained in the EHRCs "Services, public functions and associations Statutory Code of Practice", and given the further guidance on EHRC website, it is unlikely that the discrimination would be considered legal.

This is untested in court so we simply do not know whether it would be legal or not to apply schedule 3 Part 7 (28). It needs to meet the 'proportionate means and legitimate aim' test and this is dependent on the overall impact on all the people affected. The least discriminatory policy must be implemented and think its clear that the adverse impact on girls has not been considered or given appropriate weight. I think there are good arguments to say their current policy needs reviewing and shifting to rebalance things.

BTW I think trans lobby groups know this, which is why they are quietly going around lobbying and 'advising' rather than slapping law suits on everyone, but if need be we could see them in court. As Datun said, it's BAD LAW.

Haru

Girlguides have been single sex for over 100 years. They've been single sex since GRA 2004, and since 2010 when EA10 came into law.

In 2011, they won a case to keep a boy out. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356075/Teenage-boy-wanted-join-Girl-Guides-accuses-organisation-sexual-discrimination-turned-away.html

It is perfectly legal to exclude transwomen, partic legal males (remember only 1% of transwomen have a GRC).

I think it's important not to over complicate it, I'm sure you've read the guidance written by a women's rights barrister outlining women and girls' rights to single sex spaces.

The ONLY thing preventing girl guides keeping it female only and even excluding transwomen with a GRC, is the GIRL GUIDES!

If they have the wrong body to be a girl, it’s because they’re a boy.

If their sense of self says they’re a girl, they are still a boy, but one who needs to reconsider what being a boy feels like, in that it feels like being a person with a boy’s body, no more, no less.

these boys who think that they're girls

I've been reading this post and trying to work out what I think of this issue (as an ex-Guide and mother of a daughter) and why some of what is being said sits so uncomfortably with me. I think that it's this misunderstanding... The point is they aren't^ boys. In their sense of self they are a girl. It's not that they want to be a girl it is that they are^ but have the wrong body.

@OldCrone

N.B. 'Woman' in this context also means 'girl'.

Not quite correct. It is, as with everything involving the Equality Act 2010, somewhat complicated but I'll try and break it down as much as possible.

Part 7 details the law surrounding discrimination and how it applies to Associations

Schedule 16 provides an exemption to Part 7, allowing for the formation of Associations that restrict membership to people who share a protected charcteristic.

s.29 of the EA2010 concerns itself with the provisioning of services by a service provider and via s100.2 EA2010, and section 1.23 of the "Services, public functions and associations Statutory Code of Practice" [ISBN: 978-0-10-850972-8], any Association is considered to be a service provider for the purposes of this Act.

Schedule 3, Part 7, s27 details when service providers are allowed to provide a single-sex service

Schedule 3, Part 7, s28 details when single-sex service providers are allowed to discriminate against providing their service to somebody with the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment (regardless of whether that person has a GRC or not).

The explanatory notes for Schedule 3, Part 7, s28 then explain what is meant by Schedule 3, Part 7, s28, what test needs to be applied to determine if a single-sex service can legally discriminate against somebody with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (can the discrimination be objectively justified), and an example of what would be considered objectively justifiable for the purposes of Schedule 3, Part 7, s28.

Then sections 13.57 to 13.60 of the "Services, public functions and associations Statutory Code of Practice" gives further guidance and detail as to when a single-sex service shouldn't discriminate against somebody who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Special note should be taken of section 13.60.

So how does that apply to the Girl Guides?

• In the case of the Girl Guides they are allowed to form an Association under the EA2010 (Part 7 EA2010);
↳
--• are forbidden to engage in discrimination, harassment or victimisation as applies to Parts 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the EA2010 (Part 7 s100.2 EA2010);
↳
----• are not forbidden to restrict their membership to persons who share the same protected characteristic of sex (Schedule 16). In other words they are allowed to restrict their membership to women under the use of the word 'woman' in EA2010;
↳
-• are a service provider for the purposes of EA2010;
↳
--• are not forbidden from being a single-sex service provider for the purposes of EA2010;
↳
---• may, if they so wish, seek to invoke Schedule 3, Part 7, s28 of the EA2010 if they wished to exclude any transsexual (transgender) woman who by definition of s7. EA2010 has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. However, this exemption is only legal if it can be shown to be an objectively justifiable proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, where the standard of what is considered to be objectively justifiable is set by the example given the relevant explanatory notes contained in EA2010, and is further clarified by the "Services, public functions and associations Statutory Code of Practice".

So the Girl Guides could seek to exclude any transgender woman from joining whether they have a GRC or not, but given the standards set out in the legislation that must be met, and given the details contained in the EHRCs "Services, public functions and associations Statutory Code of Practice", and given the further guidance on EHRC website, it is unlikely that the discrimination would be considered legal.

Agree with you all, and yes transwidows really deserve more support than they are getting in this. I was reading yesterday the story Bruce Jenner told about dressing up in his ten year old daughter's underwear and watching himself in the mirror. I can imagine this is a nightmare for kids and female partners. Oh and Kelly Maloney, wife beater, now admitting to pimping women for clients! Such a lady!

Crone - I confess it makes my head hurt. And I think it's HOW the GRA and the EA10 interact that is still open for interpretation, as there's no case law. I suspect it will boil down to a test case eventually. This whole thing gets further complicated by human rights guidance then interpreting the law (which I think is what GGA are quoting).

But agree, all GGA need to do is keep it single sex, and admit girls who identify as boys - then they are female only AND trans inclusive, without undue neg impact on the other girls.

You know it's a men's rights movement when it's not front page of Pink News that Eton aren't allowing in girls who identify as boys. Nobody cares about TiFs, because they are just women.

I'm sure Nicola Williams will pull us up if we've got it wrong, but she's my go to when I get confused, I just keep rereading her fab factsheets!

GirlScout72
However without a GRC you remain your birth sex.

I think this is the most important point, and where GG are getting it wrong. From the moment you declare your intention to transition, you acquire the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment. But legally you remain your birth sex until such time as you acquire a GRC. So a girl who identifies as a boy is still a girl, but has the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment. So girl guides should have no problem remaining single sex, since under-18s cannot get a GRC.

I think where I have been confused on this is the assumption that once you have the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment, you also have in some way changed your legal sex. I think this is the assumption many people are making and is why we are in this mess. I think the other reason it is confusing is the terminology around single sex exemptions. Schedule 16, Part 1 of the EA2010 allows single-sex organisations. But there is a further exemption by which even those with a GRC can be excluded, which I think is harder to invoke, but is not required to simply keep boys out of the Girl Guides.

I'm still not sure if I've totally understood this correctly, so please put me right if I haven't.

although they cared enough about the detail to prevent any woman changing sex to inherit a title, money or be able to take male religious positions.

I can just see a couple of men poring over the legislation.

"I've gone over the entire thing, and I can't see a single problem with it. No one is going to be negatively affected, this won't impact on anyone else's rights, we needn't bother even consulting over it. It all looks absolutely perfectly doable..oh wait, just one thing"

In short, this was for effeminate transsexuals, who are not political, just trying to get on with it under the radar.

I'd go further and say that they were meant for effeminate same-sex attracted transsexuals (i.e. TIMs who were attracted to men). It appears that the thought that this could be applied to adult males attracted to women never occurred to them - although they cared enough about the detail to prevent any woman changing sex to inherit a title, money or be able to take male religious positions.

Datun, GirlScout72

Yes. Bad law with unintended consequences.

Nobody ever foresaw that the activists would include the cross dressers in all this. And, even if they had foreseen it, policy makers would probably have been ignorant of the correlation with domestic abuse (see trans widows thread) and sex offending (see prisons).

We are in such a mess. Yes, the GRA and EA need revising. Just not in the way the TRAs think.

Exactly Datun

It was really interesting to read the Hansard transcripts for the GRA when it went through it's readings in the HoC, a lot of the pro arguments were 'you are exaggerating, this is a TINY number of people' - they did not forsee this.

Here's the piece Dr W did with the transcripts as GRA passed through the Lords and the Commons fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-rights-get-part-2-changing-legal-sex-status/

But then like with the Mesmac scandal at the weekend, wherever there is wriggle room in law or safeguarding, it seems to me creepy men seem to find a way of exploiting it.