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
Elletorro · 07/03/2018 21:41

Hi Agnes

I’m pretty certain that there’s direct discrimination there against girls who id as boys on the grounds of them being transgender henc my made up word “transsexist” Possibly it’s sexist too. My brain is also broken now.

There’s no way that managing an exit can be a defence against a claim. There is no defence for direct discrimination like that.

It’s rather satisfying because the trans lobby would have to support such a stance and actually illustrates that you are trans INCLUSIONARY.

I’m not sure about the biological boys though but I’m not wading through the Equality act tonight, too stupid now.

AgnesBadenPowell · 07/03/2018 21:18

@Elletorro sorry, I didn't read your post properly. You did say the policy was transsexist. Apologies - my brain is always frazzled after Rainbows!

OP posts:
AgnesBadenPowell · 07/03/2018 21:16

@Elletorro I think you are onto something here (I am not a lawyer!):

*GG is allowed to sex segregate under the Equality Act 2010. So only girls.

However they say boys who id as girls can join too. Letting self id boys in but not biological boys discriminated against biological boys.

Direct sex discrimination. No defence

On top of that they are directly discriminating against transgender girls by saying they are not allowed in.

Both sexist and transsexist

Conversely, does that mean that by asking girls who ID as boys to leave but letting other girls be members, GGUK are discriminating against girls who self ID as boys?

Would that explain the language in the policy around consulting with the trans boy and their parents to manage their exit - to avoid direct discrimination?

OP posts:
AgnesBadenPowell · 07/03/2018 21:09

Sorry for disappearing, it was Rainbows tonight. I'm so glad I started this thread; there's some very articulate posters who've been able to put into words what I've been struggling to say. It's so much more than anxiety about teen boys/girls sharing tents - it's about how self ID may be exploited by those who are not trans, how GG have unilaterally redefined what it is to be a girl, what the impact of losing one of the few girls only spaces will be.

I said this in my other post on AIBU:

It really hit home (at Rainbows tonight) that these are wonderful girls with so much potential - and GGUK is already imposing a gender stereotype on them, denying their biology and overriding their ability to make their own choices and assert their boundaries. I will protect them as much as I can but how much can one guider do?

Even at this young age (5-7), they already talk about what girls and boys can and can't do. We involve them in our all unit decisions, give them a voice, make sure no one is left out and hopefully give them confidence that they can be whatever they want when they grow up. We try to teach them about being kind and helpful - it's part of the rainbow promise - but I fear with the new policy, it's nurturing an attitude of giving way to whatever a boy or man wants, because no one likes a "difficult" woman.

GGUK has always been an inclusive organisation. In my unit, 25% have English as an additional language. There are SEN issues, disabilities - and GGUK has always trained and empowered leaders to make our unit meetings and events accessible to all. If one girl can't participate in an activity, then we adapt so everyone can. I can't understand why GG is now determined to excluded so many girls, when a few changes to the policy would make it accessible again.

OP posts:
Elletorro · 07/03/2018 20:51

Thanks Haru

I’ve got some homework now!

HaruNoSakura · 07/03/2018 20:15

Sorry, that was for @Elletorro

HaruNoSakura · 07/03/2018 20:14

Offhand:

Equality Act in full

Then s7. & s11. define the protected characteristics of Gender Reassignment and Sex respectively.

Chapter 2 in its entirety deals with defining what is Prohibited Conduct, but s15-s18, & s20-22 can be skipped (they deal specifically with disability, pregnancy, and absences from work for gender reassignment purposes).

s29. as this situation is likely to fall under the provisioning of services.

I don't know enough about the Guides, Scouts, etc, to know if they count as Associations, but if I'm reading s107 right then they are in which case s100-s103

Part 11 -> Chapter 2 (Positive Action) s158-s159

Then there's the Schedules:

So Schedule 3 -> Part 7 -> s26-28

and maybe Schedule 23 -> s3 if ss5 is in effect

And then, because to be fair, that's a headache to get through, there's actual explanatory notes containing commentary on the different sections in each Schedule/Part as well:

so for Schedule 3 -> Part 7

and Schedule 23 (Ctrl-F "Communal Accomodation", it's down near the bottom of the page)

Given the way that EHCR has worded the guidance I get the feeling that there might be case law involved as well somewhere, but I can't find anything off-hand.

There's probably sections I've missed though, so if anybody spots them feel free to add.

ijustwannadance · 07/03/2018 20:02

If gender identity becomes a protected category and men can say they are women, are we still covered by 'sex' being a protected catergory.

Will sex still be defined in law by biology or will they combine/confuse it with gender?

Sittinonthefloor · 07/03/2018 19:47

Nearly all the comments on twitter I can see seem to be supportive of gg's policy - I don't know how to link them on here though. None of them mention being guides or parents of guides though!

Elletorro · 07/03/2018 19:28

Hi Haru

Do you know which section of the Equality Act they are referring to? Save me time scanning the whole thing!

HaruNoSakura · 07/03/2018 19:16

Per The Equality and Human Rights Commission:

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination

" Gender reassignment discrimination
...

Circumstances when being treated differently due to gender reassignment is lawful

A difference in treatment may be lawful if:

...A service provider provides single-sex services. If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your acquired gender. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment."

GirlScout72 · 07/03/2018 19:03

"The bigger picture of men declaring they actually are women so protected under equality laws as women is terrifying isn't it."

Yes it is, however it's not going to happen because we said NO. I'll even throw myself under the King's carriage if necessary but No Pasaran, fellas, jog on.

Bellamuerte · 07/03/2018 18:44

I was a guide as a child and I don't think I'd have had an issue with a trans-person. However, I'm now a grown-up and I'm aware that when I was a child I had no understanding of personal safety (like many kids I did some silly things because I didn't understand it was dangerous). My point being that we cannot rely on children to make decisions about their own safety because they're children! That's the whole point of safeguarding - to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Parents and leaders need to protect the children in their care, and as a parent I would permit my daughter to attend a group session with a trans-person but not a residential event. I'd be extremely upset to discover that I hadn't been informed about risks to my child because of someone else's "rights". The world has gone mad Shock

StickStickStickStick · 07/03/2018 18:31

The bigger picture of men declaring they actually are women so protected under equality laws as women is terrifying isn't it.

I'm so grateful there's bigger minds than me on it and grateful to you all here. Thank-you x

GirlScout72 · 07/03/2018 18:28

Yes they say they are invoking exemption to be single sex for leaders and members but they are in fact now mixed sex (trans girls (TiMs) cannot be legal females as you have to be 18 to have a GRC, also self ID'd transwomen without a GRC are legal males, GGA say they need no evidence of transition). Therefore they are mixed sex but boys can only join if they say they are girls, which is discriminatory to boys who are just boys (for a mixed sex org). So they EITHER need to be female only again OR mixed sex, but not this half assed in the middle thing, that also discriminates against TiFs (girls who think they are boys, their website says they are female only, TiFs under 18 are legal females)

However the legal challenge really is they are discriminatory against actual girls - they've done no impact or risk assessments and for all the reasons you articulate women have outlined, GGA have been single sex for over a hundred years because it's valuable to girls. They wafted in these policies that harm girls. They have to show that they are not harming girls, and also that what they have done is a proprortionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, I think if they went to court they couldn't do that.

Direct discrimination
This means treating one person worse than another person because of a protected characteristic.

Indirect discrimination
This can happen when an organisation puts a rule or a policy or a way of doing things in place which has a worse impact on someone with a protected characteristic than someone without one.

Harassment
This means people cannot treat you in a way that violates your dignity, or creates a hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

Victimisation
This means people cannot treat you unfairly if you are taking action under the Equality Act (like making a complaint of discrimination), or if you are supporting someone else who is doing so.

StickStickStickStick · 07/03/2018 18:21

Wow terfyowl I want my daughter to go to your guides!!! I don't think our unit is as deep thinking /in depth but still looks fun.

Elletorro · 07/03/2018 18:19

Yup Dodo

Same logic as the AWS argument. Did JJ publish the letter before action?

LangCleg · 07/03/2018 18:19

Not sure about this bit:
Letting self id boys in but not biological boys*

That's the legal argument in the AWS case, so yes. It's discrimination against boys (men). I know that is counter-intuitive, but that's what it is!

DodoPatrol · 07/03/2018 18:12

Not sure about this bit:
Letting self id boys in but not biological boys

I assume you mean 'letting self-id-as-girls-boys in but not other boys'?

So it discriminates against those who do not ID as transgender.

Elletorro · 07/03/2018 18:10

I’ve cracked it

GG is allowed to sex segregate under the Equality Act 2010. So only girls.

However they say boys who id as girls can join too. Letting self id boys in but not biological boys discriminated against biological boys.

Direct sex discrimination. No defence

On top of that they are directly discriminating against transgender girls by saying they are not allowed in.

Both sexist and transsexist

I think we might have a nailed on case for the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Any legal critics who can spot a hole in this?

TerfyOwl · 07/03/2018 17:51

I’m a completely ordinary guider Grin but thank you Blush
Guides gave me the freedom to figure this out as a kid - I don’t want that opportunity lost for the next generation of girls and young women.

GirlScout72 · 07/03/2018 17:43

Ditto, standing ovation for Terfy Owl, girls need role models like you.

EmpressOfJurisfiction · 07/03/2018 17:26

You sound like a bloody brilliant Guider, TerfyOwl. Flowers

PositivelyPERF · 07/03/2018 17:06

Actually I think that’s what the leaders need to start doing. They need to do what TerfyOwl is doing and gives the girls the strength to stand up to the TRA bullying. The more leaders that do thus, the more gender critical and brave the youngest girls will become.

PositivelyPERF · 07/03/2018 17:03

How the actual bejesus do I do that with a biological male in my group? I’d be splashed all over fecking Twitter for attempting conversion therapy on a vulnerable trans girl. For encouraging him to question gender in and of itself.

You keep doing it, you amazing woman. If he wants to be called a girl/woman, then he’s going to be happy knowing what ‘other’ girls/women go through. He doesn’t get to dictate the parameters of the discussion. You have been such a good friend to those girls, I’d say they will have the courage to shut him down, just like many men like to do to women.

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.