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
SardineReturns · 20/05/2018 21:47

GG does include sex in protected characteristics on website so at least they have changed that:

"Who is covered by the Equality Act?
The Equality Act protects people from being discriminated against based on their:

age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation.
These are known as protected characteristics."

Underneath is a confusing thing:
"Does this mean that Girlguiding will let boys join in future?
No. Providing a girl-only space is key to what Girlguiding offers. Since this girl-only space is a way of achieving our aims of enabling girls and young women to develop their potential, it would not be seen as discrimination."

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Kyanite · 20/05/2018 21:39

Yes we do lose sex discrimination against us with this.

I was expecting Jess Phillips to be vocal on this...she certainly is on everything else! But no, not a peep that I have noticed.

We can write to our MPs about this guidance, it is creating "bad law"...I don't know if that will get us anywhere but I am sure a lot have no idea what it says!

SimonBridges · 20/05/2018 21:32

Basically women and girls are fucked.

Literally and figuratively.

UpstartCrow · 20/05/2018 21:29

How about MP Jess Philips?

Ereshkigal · 20/05/2018 21:27

Offred

Yes I agree. But that would mean getting them to respect the rights of women and girls. I think the safeguarding angle has to be the way to go.

AgnesBadenPowell · 20/05/2018 21:27

On a practical level, what can we do under the law as it stands now to protect girls? My concern is that there are children who are at immediate risk of harm - not just in GG but in other youth organisation, schools, which take an "inclusive" approach.

Social services, the NSPCC - they've all been targeted by trans lobbyists. Where can we go with these concerns?

OP posts:
LaSqrrl · 20/05/2018 21:27

Agnes: When I met JB, I questioned the secrecy aspects of the policy and was immediately slapped down. She didn't want me to use the world secret because it implies covering things up.

If one was not doing anything secretive, one would not be offended and laugh it off. But the whole "don't use the word", means hand caught in the cookie jar.

Offred · 20/05/2018 21:26

Organisations will be relying on the guidance to help them interpret the their responsibilities under the law.

Offred · 20/05/2018 21:25

I would say it is this guidance that needs to be challenged TBH. It’s guidance rather than law so it can be.

LaSqrrl · 20/05/2018 21:24

So why purposefully target an organisation that is supposed to be just just for girls? It smacks of trying to prove a point, to validate an untruth, whilst simultaneously not giving one fuck about who you are negatively affecting.

Yes, the so-called 'validation' aim. But this has been the theme through all of it, including using the women's toilets. As many have said previously, we may have been polite in the past, but we (usually) did notice.

But now the entire atmosphere has changed. The TRA are making a very big deal that 'they belong there (women's spaces) and you cannot do anything about it'. That is aggressive infiltration into women's spaces. Or rather, a hostile takeover.

Ereshkigal · 20/05/2018 21:22

Unclear guidance introduced in 2015 to clarify how sex is applied which gives the impression that self ID gender ID overrides sex based exemptions now.

YY. It's all going against women. I'd imagine familiar trans organisations had a hand in that guidance.

Ereshkigal · 20/05/2018 21:19

It certainly wouldn't be sex discrimination if all those men had a GRC, which I think is pretty likely under the new proposals.

Offred · 20/05/2018 21:18

This is the worrying part;

2015 guidance from the Gov

The Equality Act 2010 says that organisations may treat people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment differently in very particular and limited circumstances.
The key areas in which people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment may be treated differently under the law are:
 Some competitive sport.
 The provision of separate and single sex services.
 Religious marriage services.
 Insurance contracts.
 Communal accommodation.
It is advisable for an organisation always to seek ways to enable full inclusion and only use the exceptions if no other option can be found. Under no circumstances should the allowable exceptions be treated as something an organisation should do.

Unclear guidance introduced in 2015 to clarify how sex is applied which gives the impression that self ID gender ID overrides sex based exemptions now.

Ereshkigal · 20/05/2018 21:18

An organisation that only employed men who said they were women and never biological women - would that even be sex discrimination? How would we be able to describe it as such?

Exactly.

Ereshkigal · 20/05/2018 21:17

Sex discrimination may end up being totally meaningless because the sex categories will have mixed characteristics.

Yes that was part of my point.

Offred · 20/05/2018 21:15

My point eresh is that they won’t necessarily even want or need access to sex discrimination. Gender reassignment/identity discrimination will remain important because it only applies to trans people. Sex discrimination may end up being totally meaningless because the sex categories will have mixed characteristics.

How sex discrimination is proven is by reference to the the characteristics of the group in a variety of ways re indirect discrimination. Most discrimination is indirect.

Potentially; While you may still have a sex discrimination claim if someone directly said to you that they were not employing you because you are a woman you would not if the organisation’s policies disadvantaged biological women as trans women are now female legally. An organisation that only employed men who said they were women and never biological women - would that even be sex discrimination? How would we be able to describe it as such?

Obviously this is extreme but we are already on this slippery slope.

AgnesBadenPowell · 20/05/2018 21:15

We absolutely need to be mindful of language and it's true meaning. For example, the GG website, in the section in equality and diversity, lists all 9 protected characteristics. The list refers to gender, not sex.

I pointed out this error several months ago. I was advised it would be changed but it's still there.

I agree with PP that the Equality Act has already legalised a complete fiction - that an individual can change sex, just on their say so.

In this environment it's not so hard to believe why a sympathetic lawyer might advise that all members must be treated as the sex they identify as.

Girlguiding should be at the forefront of campaigns to protect the legal status of the female sex class. Girlguiding was very involved in the "no more page 3" campaign. Why not this?

OP posts:
Ereshkigal · 20/05/2018 21:05

Kyanite

The point I am trying to make is that legally they are still male without a GRC. Yes that makes little practical difference. But the more male bodied people who are members of the female sex legally (apart from the exemptions, which are the only difference) the more the idea of sex as biological reality for women is eroded. And sex based protections will be seen less as a female need. It's all related.

Ereshkigal · 20/05/2018 21:02

A GRC would be neither here nor there though in a self ID world. If you can change sex for all practical purposes; accessing services, in employment, in stats, on documents etc etc just by saying you have then there really are very few instances where you may want a GRC.

I think that most will get one though as then they are legally female and can claim sex discrimination for being a woman rather than male as they are without a GRC.

TheMostBeautifulDogInTheWorld · 20/05/2018 20:58

@AgnesBadenPowell thanks for all the incredible effort you're putting into this issue, and for the time you're taking to keep us informed here too.

You know what is getting up my nose most, right this second? The sheer, rank hypocrisy and deceitfulness that Girl Guiding is exhibiting here. They could have considered the current climate; felt that having to accept boys was becoming inevitable; consulted their members and so on on that basis, and become a mixed sex organisation (and therefore inclusive of all children no matter how they identify).

But no. They know that Guiding's single sex status is a huge part of its appeal to girls and to parents alike. They know single sex organisations are important for girls, But the current leadership want to suck up to men too, and they've decided that that is more important.

So they've decided to cheat and lie to all the women and girls that put so much into the organisation.

Offred · 20/05/2018 20:54

Yy that’s what I mean kyanite.

Kyanite · 20/05/2018 20:52

They already don't need a GRC -

“A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.”3

 The Act protects people of all ages, regardless of whether they are children or adults.
 The characteristic applies to anyone who has proposed, started or completed a process to change his or her sex.4
 A person does not need to be under medical supervision to qualify for protection.
 Someone assigned female at birth who makes the transition to live as a man and a person assigned male at birth who makes the transition to live as a woman both share the characteristic of gender reassignment.

Picassospaintbrush · 20/05/2018 20:51
Picassospaintbrush · 20/05/2018 20:51

It is becoming ever more clear that actually changing the GRA is not the main issue. The main issue is changing the definition of the word ‘sex’ to include gender identity.

And if anyone hasn't seen the convoluted bollocks put together to justify the nonsensical, unjustifiable and dangerous change please read this exercise in self serving wordplay used to gaslight our leaders.

socresonline.org.uk/12/1/whittle.html

Bottle glass, glass bottle (Toomy Cooper for the young people).

Wanderabout · 20/05/2018 20:50

Offred if you had a magic wand what would you do to protect the rights of women and girls at this point.

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