Girlguiding expels leaders who question trans policy

This is extraordinary. They actually don't know what they're doing, saying, or thinking any more.

So according to that tweet to Lucy Bannerman GG are now NEITHER single sex (they'll accept Male and female members), nor single gender (they'll accept members who identify as girls and those that identify as boys). At least their position this morning was consistent.....

The words piss up and brewery spring to mind.

Billy, is place is a cottonwool palace compared to Twitter

While it has been as tortuous as pulling hen's teeth, the slight change in wording in today's pronouncement is, hopefully, the first tentative step by GG to review and reconsider its position over including male persons with penises in GG.

This is my first message on MN so hopefully I have not crossed some line or other with my language. I have managed to get away with it on Twitter, but I am not sure if MN is so understanding.

I

I'm VERY pleased about that Old Crone. But that continues to suggest that the amount of intellectual engagement and just plain thinking that went into this policy was essentially nil - they got legal advice based on who knows what questions or assumptions, and never thrashed out any of the real world implications.

I wonder if they've quite thought that through given that tweet also has GG saying they're a single gender organisation.

In this tweet, the GG have said that girls will not now be managed out if they identify as boys.
twitter.com/TimesLucy/status/1045251761227943936

If girls can stay even if they identify as boys, GG are accepting that girls are still girls no matter how they identify. Surely then they have to accept that boys are still boys, no matter how they identify.

I think that's what it means but the original GG policy wasn't intended to be trans inclusive in this way, as far as I understand it but everything is getting so complicated now!

Are the EHRC saying that GG can restrict membership on the basis of sex, but also be trans inclusive by allowing girls who identify as boys to be members, as they are still legally female? Boys who identify as girls should clearly not be allowed to join, because they are legally male.

Adults who are legally female could be leaders. This would include transwomen with a GRC and female birth certificate.

I'm sure the law could have been applied quite simply like this, but GG chose to consult Gendered Intelligence instead of the EHRC.

This one

Has the EHRC tweet been discussed on here yet?

Aimee Challoner is happy to support the Girl Guides.

m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=484938835249598&id=203074990102652

Note the photo of Aimee at the bottom of a loft ladder.

Shower thought this morning: "the effing masons are more inclusive than GG" they let members who transition stay.

I don't think a single sex organisation needs to be inclusive of anyone other than of that sex but I think GG should be available for everyone born female who wants to be a member

Share token link:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ban-for-girl-guides-who-identify-as-boys-dlj8mjk23?shareToken=458a5c985d4e97bcb789621c17ed7289

And what makes it even more heartbreaking is the record number of girls who are questioning their gender identity.

For those girls who are already in Girl Guiding, the one safe space that should be supporting them through that has changed its rules to kick them out.

It is utterly shameful.

Exactly.
It’s essential to be supportive and inclusive of trans kids.
Er.. Except when they were born female.

Really good article from The Times. Gets to the heart of it.

GG are trans inclusive for boys only.

But not girls.

The trans lobby of course have nothing to say about girls getting booted out because of their gender identity. Funny how some discrimination is perfectly okay, isn't it? So long as it isn't males who are affected.

Great article from Lucy Bannerman. Brilliant.

The commenters below the line see it too.

Well thank fuck at least one newspaper has worked out there are massive issues with GG policy and are actually highlighting them rather than parroting the TRA position.

Fuck me that's a good article. Lambasted. Brilliant word.

The Times really are covering this issue in depth. Janice Turner talks about Philip / Pippa Bunce in her column today and their coverage of Posie's poster yesterday generated a massive debate below the line.

Thank you for the share token. Excellent, clear, truth-telling article. Many thanks Lucy Bannerman.

That’s a brilliant article scepticalwoman and pulls no punches.

Please do apply.!!!

Not only will they start to see that their policy is not accepted by quality candidates, but getting applications from qualified gender critical candidates gives them the clear sense that this is a turning point when they could actually become a modern organisation for girls and women.

They’ve been lobbied by interest groups into becoming a regressive, man-pleasing, no-boundaries or safety allowed for girls and women, GNC girls not welcome, women’s spaces not valued, anti-girl type of set up.

It says terrible things about the Chief Exec, and Trustees that they made changes like this, without consulting members, parents, or getting proper legal advice or changing their legal charitable objects, and that no one was informed enough about safeguarding to point out the obvious problems... but a change of Chief Executive always marks a time of change and reprioritisation in any charity.

However entrenched and beleaguered the GGUK exec and Trustees are at the moment, this is could be a life line for the Girl Guides.

There is no good reason that I can think of to segregate by gender identity. Especially for something like the Guides, that in many ways exists to push back against the enforcement of gender roles.

If you want a space that's focused on femininity go to Sephora. That not what single sex organizations are for.