Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Girlguiding - an update

418 replies

AgnesBadenPowell · 19/05/2018 21:23

Firstly, apologies for being offline for a while. It's been a busy few weeks, I went on holiday and started a new job. But back on it now!

You'll know that an article was published in the Sunday Times in March and a couple of weeks later the open letter went in: the final tally was 927 signatures (some of these collected after publication).

Since then I met the CEO, deputy CEO and chief guide. Prior to that, I was warned in emails to use the internal procedures for complaints and to not make things public (I did, and was ignored). I was also "reminded" of the social media policy and told that the campaign would not change the trans policy.

It's probably not appropriate to share my full notes from that meeting here. But I will say that Girlguiding was defensive and prickly. The fact that I have publicly discussed the trans policy on social media in particular irritated Julie Bentley (CEO). I don't know why; the policy is a public document available on the website.

Girlguiding stressed to me that the legal advice they received confirmed that they HAVE to treat trans members (including those who self identify, not just with a GRC) as the opposite sex) as the gender they identify as.

We did agree that in the absence of a test case, there is no legal precedent. It was left that we would await the updated EHRC guidance expected next month before any review is conducted (if they chose to review it).

We did discuss the inconsistencies that the trans policy brings about, eg GG has strict rules that accompanying male children on leaders must have separate sleeping and washing facilities. Even boys as young as 4. But if that boy identified as a girl, then no such rules apply, despite there being no physical, material difference between the two groups of males. Girlguiding referred back to their legal advice that have to treat trans members as the gender they identify as. This includes males who identify as females providing personal care to girls on residentials, a role which is strictly for female leaders only according to GG's safeguarding policy.

We also discussed gender non confirming girls. There was an agreement that the language in the policy was rather clinical, and it could be interpreted as a strict instruction for a GNC girl to be removed from their unit. It was agreed that the policy language would be reviewed. This is particularly important as most trans issues within GG are, as you might expect, around girls who are transitioning.

One of the key issues for me is that girlguiding now offers single gender but mixed sex accommodation. I accept that the number of trans girls joining guides will be small compared to our overall membership - but it would only take one incident to cause huge harm to the children involved, their families and girlguiding. I suggested that GG might want to make the single gender / mixed sex aspect clearer, perhaps by adapting the standard consent form to advise parents that we don't guarantee single sex accommodation. Yet again, I was accused of wanting "out" individuals. That is not my intention at all.

I've heard nothing from girlguiding since. I will be following up on the action points. We will have a new CEO in June and updated EHRC guidance which will hopefully give all children equal rights to bodily privacy and autonomy, not just the trans kids.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Janie143 · 20/05/2018 09:16

This will be presented as transgirls not being safe from nasty boys if they join scouts

WhatTheWaterShowedMe · 20/05/2018 09:11

The more and more I see of this- the colonisation of women’s spaces, the lack of concern for women’s rights amongst the political parties - it’s going to get to a point where we’re going to have to abandon them and start from scratch: new political parties that are actually female-centric, a guides type group that preserves a single sex space for female children and promotes positive messages about the different ways to be a girl.

Badgerthebodger · 20/05/2018 09:06

Agnes brilliant work thank you. I very much hope the new CEO is more sensible but I’m afraid they won’t be.

Opheliah · 20/05/2018 08:14

Isn't Julie Bentley leaving?
Anyone know if her replacement is/will be a feminist?
Anyone know about this?

Girl Guides is wrong about the legal advice I'm certain of it. There has to be a balance between all involved Fair Play for Women have a lot of info on this. Someone up thread said they just found the right sort of lawyer who would say the right thing, yy.

iamawoman · 20/05/2018 08:09

So their legal advice sums it up as gender identity protections come before sex based protections - surely this cannot be correct. Did they seek their legal advice from a trans lobbying organisation/stonewall ?

LaSqrrl · 20/05/2018 07:58

For girlguiding to remain single sex and trans inclusive by accepting biological females regardless of their gender identity.

Indeed this is it. Recognising the importance of single-sex organisations/spaces, AND being so-called 'gender inclusive'. In most other areas, this 'gender business' trumps biological sex. Make a stand, whilst partially conceding to 'gender identity', but on the basis on sex and sex-based protections.

Penis is a problem. Smile

IdentifiesAsMiddleAged · 20/05/2018 07:47

I have PMd you Smile

IdentifiesAsMiddleAged · 20/05/2018 07:13

Private Eye might be interested in this

Starkstaring · 20/05/2018 06:59

Agnes you are doing a great job. Completely agree with you here:

Do you know what I would really like? For girlguiding to remain single sex and trans inclusive by accepting biological females regardless of their gender identity.

That is the only way forward out of this utter mess.

OnTheList · 20/05/2018 04:58

Girlguiding stressed to me that the legal advice they received confirmed that they HAVE to treat trans members (including those who self identify, not just with a GRC) as the opposite sex) as the gender they identify as.

I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly sure that this is wrong advice. Guides cannot have a single sex exemption while allowing some members of the opposite sex in. Thats discrimination against (I hate the word but..cis) boys. It is not discrimination if it is single sex, but it is if they are saying that some boys can join, if that makes sense. Same as the legal challenge for Labours AWS I think?

As for the leader thing, thats bonkers. nd a nightmare waiting to happen. I do hope this gets sorted out, and am glad my daughter is not a guide tbh, nor will she be while this nonsense is going on.

LaSqrrl · 20/05/2018 03:34

and the faint possibility this was all part of a deliberately targeted campaign

More than a 'faint possibility', a highly likely scenario, given that it is coming to pass. It is what the T did, to first join the LGB, then take it over and make it all about the T. Colonization, and stuff the original inhabitants. This is exactly what is playing out at GGs, females don't matter (note the attitude towards transboys) and no concern about the safeguarding of girls, either from other GGs, or adult leaders.

Ereshkigal · 20/05/2018 02:39

The faint possibility this was all part of a deliberately targeted campaign using JB to get into GGUK and implement gender based policy.

I think it's very likely this was a deliberately targeted campaign.

Ereshkigal · 20/05/2018 02:37

This this this.

LaSqrrl · 20/05/2018 02:26

It's happened with women's officers, the Jo Cox award for women, etc. Not to mention numerous other, smaller places like restaurants, libraries, women's aid shelters, gyms, spas, salons, shops etc. All deliberately targetted.

What Datun said. Absolutely.
To successfully erase women, you have to also erase all women-only spaces.

Mamaryllis · 20/05/2018 01:28

I was just thinking about you yesterday, Agnes. I’m pleased you are still fighting this and increasingly nauseated that the single sex organization I believe in seems to be disappearing. I am actually feeling slightly sick about Julie Bentley and the faint possibility this was all part of a deliberately targeted campaign using JB to get into GGUK and implement gender based policy.
I don’t know what to do with that.

We don’t have any TiM leaders in my district. But in the last month I have become more aware of TiMs in our community who absolutely could take it upon themselves to volunteer. All middle aged men with dyed multicolour high bunches and mini skirts, simpering alongside their female bodied partners, performing a warped version of restrictive teen femininity. These are not people I want GG to be recruiting as role models for my guides.
I too would like to know who is providing this biased legal advice.

PlectrumElectrum · 20/05/2018 01:07

I think that would be a productive option Agnes. I'm more than happy to support that, my DD would be disappointed by the lack of prep or no guide session for however long it took, but we need to think long term - minor disruption for a worthwhile (THE most worthwhile aim) is something that I think should be looked at seriously. Getting the information out to guide leaders & parents would be key to this idea.

UpstartCrow · 20/05/2018 01:04

No you're right, it can't be the leaders doing it. It has to be people like me who are no longer involved.

AgnesBadenPowell · 20/05/2018 01:01

Handing out leaflets like that could get a leader in serious trouble. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but we should be aware of the consequences.

One thing that has struck me is just how much GG relies on women freely giving their time and energy to the organisation. We have power. It's not an hour a week- I spend at least 5 hours or more planning, preparing, doing the accounts, answering emails.

We need to go on strike in protest.

OP posts:
UpstartCrow · 20/05/2018 00:46

I think any message needs to be in plain English- 'GG is now mixed sex' can be understood by most people.

SonicVersusGynaephobia · 20/05/2018 00:43

Would giving out leaflets to other parents of Guides, saying something like "Are you aware that GG has recently changed from a single-sex org to a feminine-gender org, and that girls who are gender-non-conforming may be asked to leave".

That might make parents take notice, without the accusations of bigots/transphobe. Then they can realise themselves about the mixed-sex tents.

AgnesBadenPowell · 20/05/2018 00:17

Worse than that Maryz, women who speak up will be pushed out. It's a deliberate tactic to beat other women into submission.

OP posts:
Maryz · 20/05/2018 00:11

SeahorsesAREhorses is right. Girls will just quietly leave. As will leaders.

We are back to girls/women being compliant, not wanting to speak up, wanting to be "nice" and inclusive and all that shit.

Girls are being made to feel shit for speaking up about this. Even most of us, as adults, are worried that people won't like us if we speak up, how can we expect young teenagers to stand up for themselves in an environment that will label them as transphobic and bully them into agreement.

PencilsInSpace · 20/05/2018 00:11

If GG had 50 complaints about any other issue in a short space of time, how seriously would they take it?

Datun · 20/05/2018 00:07

"Girlguiding referred back to their legal advice that have to treat trans members as the gender they identify as. This includes males who identify as females providing personal care to girls on residentials, a role which is strictly for female leaders only according to GG's safeguarding policy."

What the what? I can't believe so many high up in Guiding would be okay with that? Are they thinking it is so unlikely they will actually get a trans leader that they think it is a non-issue and easier to go along with legal advice?

If transactivism is anything to go by they will wait until this gains traction and then deliberately target the GG with TIMs as leaders.

It's happened with women's officers, the Jo Cox award for women, etc. Not to mention numerous other, smaller places like restaurants, libraries, women's aid shelters, gyms, spas, salons, shops etc. All deliberately targetted.

Elletorro · 19/05/2018 23:58

Show them the GG Equality and diversity policy. Ask them what they think this means for safeguarding.

It takes no account of the sex protections in the Equality Act. To my mind failure to invoke the protections is a policy which indirectly discriminates against girls.

You should be able to discuss this without detriment either within the Guides or at work. The Equality Act itself states that subjecting you to a detriment in these circumstances would be victimisation.

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.