have I got this right? (girl guides again)

Every time I read one of these threads I keep thinking isn't this really simple. Willy = male. No willy = female.

Yep it really is that simple. Sex is not gender identity.

Ok, on large scale camps jointly organised with the scouts, the guides DO NOT sleep in the same tents or use the same washrooms as males.
Each unit camps as an individual group, sleeping in tents with other members of that unit, under the supervision of their own leaders.
There are strict rules about not going off on your own or going in other people's tents. As a leader you make sure that everyone is tucked up in their own tent and settled before turning in. We normally arrange the tents "wagon train" style with the doors towards the center of the circle. Usually there is a security team patrolling the site at night too.
Now I am not so daft as to think this will stop a determined randy teenager, but they are kept separate and the parents do give their informed consent to the arrangements.

Under the new rules, I could have a male bodied teenager sleeping in the same tent as a female bodied teenager. Teenagers are teenagers, I don't care how they identify, they experiment and they are just as randy now as they were when I was their age.
AND I cannot tell the parents, so they cannot give informed consent.
And no, I would not be willing to hand out condoms to guides!

Fortunately I have not been put in this position yet

Keeping my train of thought going. If a female volunteer with girl guides identifies as a man or a boy, what are the safe guarding issues which mean they would have to be provided with separate sleeping and bathing facilities away from the women and girls?

None as she is still the same sex as the girls. The risk is not from someone being trans. It is from deciding mixed sex accommodation is ok because a male says he feels female.

lancelottie I said there is already a small risk, this won't increase that risk because leaders already plan for the possibility of that happening and provide measures that members can access to protect themselves.

Yes, units can carry condoms at their discretion, they do have to inform parents if this is the case. If a young male joins the unit and then suddenly this policy is added, we'll know the leaders have done a risk assessment and decided that sexual activity at camp is now a very real possibility. Girls now miss out on camp because the GGs safe guarding policy on mixed sex accommodation is to carry a stash of condoms and hope for the best.

"......this won't increase that risk......"
Nope, you've forgotten how to compute probabilities correctly.So, a basic sketch of a computation would be something like:

Assessing Risk of teenage pregnancy

1. Probability of pregnancy when not using a condom per act of PIV
2. You have to ADD to this the probability of pregnancy when using a condom, and then factor in to both the ease and otherwise of accessing a condom.

Which is why making access to condoms easier would hopefully decrease the risk........

BUT then you have to multiply the whole shebang (pun intended), by a factor which reflects the ease/likelihood of situations occurring where a PIV encounter might occur. So, for example, in WonderWoman, on the island before any males arrive, the multiplicative factor would be zero to all intents and purposes, which is why they didn't have a condom machine around..........

Whereas in the case of GG, allowing males into the sleeping accomodation of females DOES increase the risk. Because (if nothing else) condom use is not 100%, and the contraception rate of condoms isn't 100% either. But not letting males in is (probably) the largest factor in the computation that is controllable at the moment, rather than encouraging more use of/greater availability of condoms.

Here endeth the first lesson (courtesy of Rev. Bayes).......

In fairness, most teens identifying are likely to be genuinely dysphoric as opposed to agp and consequently attracted to the opp sex but that's not going to affect results of experimenting. More important is what barracker said; one pregnant girl, bad every guide denied privacy and boundaries. Disastrous.

@loopsdefruit - how do you know this risk has been assessed? Is it just your assumption?

How did the assessment conclude there was no increased risk of pregnancy? Prior to the policy being in place, sleeping arrangements were not mixed sex even if other group activities might have been. It flies in the face of common sense to think that the risk of a couple sneaking off into the woods or behind the bike sheds is the same as a couple have sex at night in a bed.

JellySlice, I would have assumed you were joking, but talking to my teenage DD last year it appeared that she genuinely thought transgirls were now somehow genetically female.

We forget sometimes that kids only half-listen to explanations, and this topic seems (ahem) harder to discuss in clear terms than most.

Besides, if they know that sex is illegal under 16, and I'm sure they do, why would they announce to a Leader that they're going to Do It? And just how likely is it that they've planned ahead? And can you really see any of them getting past the embarrassment of asking for a condom?

and provide measures that members can access to protect themselves

Unfortunately many of these teenage girls are totally accepting of trans ideology, and consider a self-declared 'girl' to be a girl, complete with a female penis. And as girls can't get other girls pregnant, why would they need a condom?

The risk, as far as I can see, has been assessed by going 'Nah, can't see anything wrong with that, Guides would never have sex.'

Guide leaders have been specifically asking how they risk-assess in this new situation of NOT separating by sex but by gender, and being told they are not thinking inclusively enough.

lancelottie I said there is already a small risk, this won't increase that risk because leaders already plan for the possibility of that happening and provide measures that members can access to protect themselves.

The risk has been assessed

We're used to thinking of trans folk as suffering from gender dysphoria and there is a tendency for them to be homosexual or bi-sexual (I have a trans friend also who now lives as women but prefers men). The transgenders seem to be the ones with a sexual preference for women, which makes self-id all the more concerning as they're the ones happy with their "lady penis".

this policy is not going to increase the small risk that already exists.

How not?

Are you saying that mixing the sexes doesn't cause a risk? If so, why do we usually have separate sleeping arrangements?

Every time I read one of these threads I keep thinking isn't this really simple. Willy = male. No willy = female.

No sure if lesbian transwomen (not sure I get that though) are more prevalent than hetero transwomen... this is blowing my mind.

If a no willy transwoman is there she is err committed to being seen as a woman. With willy = could be a danger. Am I being thick?

I'm just curious as to if people think that Guiding has never up to this point had to deal with underage (or legal as some young members are over 16) sex on camps? Even if a camp is just your unit, the campsite may have other groups of scouts or youth groups, large-scale events often have people of different sexes socialising together.

Many leaders have condoms for young people to access alongside things like sanitary ware and medicines.

If all you are concerned about is the risk of pregnancy after consensual sex, this policy is not going to increase the small risk that already exists.

Keeping my train of thought going. If a female volunteer with girl guides identifies as a man or a boy, what are the safe guarding issues which mean they would have to be provided with separate sleeping and bathing facilities away from the women and girls?

And how on earth did a normally perfectly sensible organisation end up thinking this was OK?

Apologies @MyAuntyBadger,

I'm so bloody cross about this. The gaslighting and the complete disregard for girls' boundaries makes me feel so betrayed.

Oh gosh, should have read through my post before posting it. Hope you can make sense of it.

It's bizarre. Girl guides guidance on residential is that male volunteers and male children must be provided separate sleeping and bathroom provision for them. But if a male happens to identify as a woman or a girl then they're allowed to wander around freely in a place where women and girls are sleeping or partially dressed.

I want to know what the safe guarding issues are that require males to be provided with separate sleeping and bathroom provision. And why don't these safeguarding issues apply to those males' who believe themselves to be women or girls?

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/running-your-unit/events-and-going-away/going-on-residentials/

Google cotton ceiling or Youtube search your dating preferences are transphobic Note: In the context of adults

Sorry, I should have used quotation marks but I'm being careful. Without quotation marks it looks ridiculous because it is ridiculous.

You are correct, OP.

Several concerned Guide leaders have emailed HQ to say that consensual sexual activity is a safeguarding risk and been told very brusquely that it isn't.

We recently had a long thread with prominent transactivist and academic Stephen Whittle on here. Stephen felt that the best solution would be to provide leaders with a supply of condoms.