Girlguiding expels leaders who question trans policy

I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal to people now, they've had this policy for at least 5 years, where are all the law suits and safeguarding failures?

Funny enought, from the Catholic Church to Savile, the systemic sexal abuse of children is regularly discovered only decades later.

So, fruitloop, you think there is nothing wrong with a policy that states informing the parents of the presence of male bodied kids and/or adults even in overnight settings is 'not best practice'?

I think it is quite unique for an organization that deals with children to have such a policy. And for good reason.

Sorry, that was to loops

They won't allow a girl who identifies as a boy to join. 80% of girls detransition. They shouldn't even be MENTIONING leaving. They should push girls to stay. And the prohibition on making trans status public applies to leaders too. So a girl can't tell her parents her leader is a self-id'ing man. Secrets. And I've had 4 or 5 schools represented in 10 Guides. No they do not know each other before they join or transition.

• [Message edited slightly at poster's request]

There's so much misinformation it's almost funny, if it was as bad as you're saying I'd agree with you, but half of this stuff you're just making up based on an incorrect interpretation of a policy that's been around for ages.

I just had to explain the Equality Act to you as you had misinterpreted it.

I mean, I read the threads. Disagreement with your view is not synonymous with me not understanding your opinion. I understand you, I think you are incorrect.

I’m sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought when you said I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal to people now that you honestly didn’t know.

I also don't think GG have done anything wrong in 1) Including trans people and 2) Requiring their volunteers to follow their code of conduct and policies.

As EHRC state, GG are legally able to include male trans people if they want to. But if they do this, then there are certain responsibilities which they must fulfil.

EHRC state:

Where organisations decide to adopt trans inclusive policies and practices, the needs of all members or service users have to be considered in any particular case.

Operating trans inclusive policies is permissible, provided that this is consistent with the rights of others and justifiable. The risk of sex discrimination against other members can be a relevant consideration in this context.

There has been no evidence presented as to how GG have assessed this policy to ascertain whether it is consistent with the rights of others. There has been no evidence presented as to how GG have assessed and mitigated against the risk of sex discrimination. There has been no evidence presented regardig the procedure GG use to consider the needs of all members in each particular case of trans inclusion. In particular it is dificult to see how this would be managed when parents are not informed and cannot make their child’s needs known in any particular case. Unless GG consider that children as young as 5 can advocate on their own behalf.

Incorrect, they are saying they won't "out" a trans member without their permission, a trans child has a right to privacy about their own identity. The likelihood is most people would know already as most GG members in units attend the same schools or live in the same area. At large scale events, the child's leaders would know, and they'd be sleeping in their own units with their existing friends (as would other units).

They are also saying that girls who transition to male during their time in GG will be supported to find an organisation that better fits their identity if they wish to move on. They are not kicking out trans boys, but they will provide help if the child wishes to say join scouts.

It's about supporting a child who may suddenly find being in a "girls' organisation" uncomfortable if they see themselves as a boy. Not pushing out people who wish to be there.

There's so much misinformation it's almost funny, if it was as bad as you're saying I'd agree with you, but half of this stuff you're just making up based on an incorrect interpretation of a policy that's been around for ages.

And they are acting like is a big secret (both their policy and the individuals involved). Asking children to keep secrets.
And they are excluding girls who identify as boys.

I mean, I read the threads. Disagreement with your view is not synonymous with me not understanding your opinion. I understand you, I think you are incorrect.

I also don't think GG have done anything wrong in 1) Including trans people and 2) Requiring their volunteers to follow their code of conduct and policies.

I have empathy for volunteers who were removed, Guiding becomes an important part of life for members and volunteers. But it's hardly surprising given the amount of very public evidence from these volunteers both denouncing the policies (and GG itself) and stating categorically that they would not follow the policy within their units.

Increase in referral to gender identity clinics has increased by 4000%.

That’s perhaps why it wasn’t an issue 5 years ago but is now.

*are doing this

Yes you are right, they are doh good this because they want to.

If you don’t understand why people disagree with this then perhaps go back and read this thread or some of the many others on this issue.

Yeh, exactly, they have chosen to include trans members. As has been the case for at least 5 years (probably longer than that, but that's when I first asked them)

If they wanted to maybe, but they want to be inclusive to trans girls and women, which they can do because as the EHRC guidance says "organisations should treat (people) according to their acquired gender"

The law is interpretation unless there is case law, there is no case law at the moment so GG can interpret this guidance to include trans girls and women. Guessing that's how their lawyers interpreted it.

I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal to people now, they've had this policy for at least 5 years, where are all the law suits and safeguarding failures? If it's such a big risk, where is the evidence?

From EHRC:

As a single-characteristic association for the purposes of schedule 16 of the EA 2010, Girl Guiding UK can choose to refuse membership to trans girls, or choose to admit trans girls as members.

loopsdefruit

Nope.

Anyone can have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment as soon as they state their intention to transition. I could have it right now.

This means that a person cannot be discriminated against for this reason.

For example, it would be discriminatory to require a male child who identifies as a girl, and therefore has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, to change in separate facilities from the other boys. This is because you would be treating them differently from a male child without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Discrimination in this context does not mean that boys with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment must be treated as if they were girls.

The EHRC say that Girl Guiding could remain single sex if they wanted to, without admitting male children who are trans.

Yes, as you say 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.

Girl Guiding is one of these circumstances.

I think it's also an attempt to hold back the tide because there's probably a dim sense of recognition that they don't really have any kind of justification for keeping out any male bodied individuals now that they've made it acceptable as long as those males sincerely believe they are female.

That's a gossamer thin distinction that will be almost impossible to maintain long term. I know we're talking about the ominous possibility of legal action needing to come from a girl who is mistreated, but I actually think it's entirely likely to come from males who identify as males now. What is the legal justification for keeping them out now, in reality?

Apologies, meant to include the link to the above guidance www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination

People think 'living as' is good enough to count. It doesn't.

Except according to the EHRC it does.

"To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any specific treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender. This is because changing your physiological or other gender attributes is a personal process rather than a medical one.

You can be at any stage in the transition process – from proposing to reassign your gender, to undergoing a process to reassign your gender, or having completed it. " (my emphasis)

Also:

"A difference in treatment may be lawful if..."

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.

So GG should treat trans children as their acquired gender, and the circumstances where people can lawfully discriminate are very restricted.

male children who identify as girls are still male in every sense of the word including legally

This.

And this woolliness seems to be because of the Equalities Act and its confusing definitions of who or what counts as 'gender reassignment'.

People think 'living as' is good enough to count. It doesn't.

Interesting.

The bit which people are complains about not including ‘sex’ starts:

“No girl Guiding member should suffer discrimination on the grounds of...”

I wonder if they think they don’t have to include sex because all members are girls, therefore any discrimination could not be due to sex because they are all the same sex.

But now they admit people of the male sex, this is no longer the case and it would be possible for male children and female children to be treated differently by GG and potentially suffer discrimination.

They seem to not to be able to compute that male children who identify as girls are still male in every sense of the word including legally.

Sooner or later this is going to end up in court.

I hope for the sake of the Girls it happens by banning a tomboy or some other bit of daftness. And not because some poor girl suffered abuse because of the holes in the safeguarding regulations.

Tough shit to those who didn't listen to logic at the time and decided to ban leaders they didn't agree with.

It's a bizarre attempt to square a circle.

"We are still only open to girls. Honest. We really, really are, and to prove it, we'll remind you that we went through all that equality act stuff to ensure we would be only open to girls. The fact that we won't tell parents if any girls or leaders on residentials are actually just 'identifying' as female is because we're so mired in cognitive dissonance that we are now actually lying to ourselves."

I think they mean, we can discriminate on the grounds of sex so we can't say we don't.
But they don't know what "sex" means AND they are discriminating on the grounds of gender reassignment.

Does the Equality Act define girls?

A boy can't be a legal girl under existing law because you can't get a GRC as a minor. Have they even begun to understand what this is about, even if they don't agree with it?

Im not aware the Eq Act talks about positive actions?