Girl Guiding can’t explain why girls and boys should sleep separately

The Equality Act permits associations (which would include the GG) to restrict membership to persons “who share a protected characteristic”. The protected characteristics include sex and gender reassignment.

The Gender Recognition Act requires male persons with a gender recognition certificate to be treated as members of the female sex but those without a GRC are not considered members of the female sex for legal purposes.

Gender reassignment means a person who “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”.

The GG allows members who have the following characteristics:

• Category A: female children who do not identify as male; and

• Category B: male children who identify as female but it does not require those members to satisfy the definition of “gender reassignment” under the EA.

The GG position is problematic because:

1. The text of the EA seems to refer persons who share a single protected characteristic. The GG accepts members who share the protected characteristic of female sex but not all members with that protected characteristic AND it accepts members who share the protected characteristic of male sex some of whom might also meet the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but some of whom do not. This means that GG accepts people from more than one protected characteristic but also male children who do not meet the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” while excluding some girls who may or may not meet the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment.

1. The text may be interpreted as allowing associations to restrict membership to persons who share more than one protected characteristic. This might be, for example, a group of Catholic women (two protected characteristics) or disabled, married, black, Muslim, disabled, lesbian pensioners undergoing gender reassignment (all 8 protected characteristics). Those situations would be consistent with the objectives of the Equality Act where the protected characteristics are shared by all members. If a group restricts membership to people who have either of two protected characteristics (e.g. Catholic or over 50), Catholics under 50 and non-Catholics over 50 would not be permitted to be members and therefore are discriminated against. This does not seem consistent with the text of the EA nor its objectives.

GG are permitting membership for the following protected characteristics:

SEX:

• children of the female sex but discriminating against children of the female sex who identify as boys (some of whom will meet the definition of “gender reassignment”)
• some children of the male sex who do not meet the definition of the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”

GENDER REASSIGNMENT

• all children of the male sex who do meet the definition of “gender reassignment” but no children of the female sex who meet the definition of “gender reassignment”

In my view, this is contrary to the Equality Act as GG’s membership cannot be said to share a protected characteristic.

The equalities act allows single sex private clubs. Otherwise, all the golf clubs, cricket clubs, private members' clubs wouldn't be able to continue.

Maintaining a “fun environment” could not be a justification under the EA for discriminating against boys regarding membership of GG.

Yes Flora - I think this is an important point. GG is allowed to only accept girls as a reasonable accommodation to a protected class - is it reasonable to maintain a 'fun environment'? Is that enough of a reason? Given that privacy and dignity of women apparently isn't enough for us to be allowed to maintain single sex spaces which are protected by law, I would be surprised if 'fun environment' is a good enough reason to protect a 'single gender' space, which has no such legal protection.

Noting for my gra consultation response - hope no one minds if I use some of your very powerful words and if not do you want to be credited?

LemonJello excellent work on these questions. I wonder what they would say if you asked them for the justification for not permitting boys to become members of GG as permitted by the EA.

I was about to say what @WomaninBoots just said - that part of the reason we have separate sex accomodation post-puberty is because teenage hormones run rampant, and while we know they're likely to have sex at some point, we don't necessarily want to giftwrap them a golden opportunity.

The first Girl Guide to get pregnant after camp could have been having entirely consensual sex with her trans "girlfriend".

I wish I'd heard "just because you're upset doesn't mean anyone has done anything wrong" a few years ago when I was being pissed around by a personality disordered individual. It's so true. But if you are trying to be kind you end up completely dancing to their tune and feeling guilty all the time for upsetting them anyway. Ha! Thinking about it that person probably also identifies as non-binary or some such... or at least they would if it helped them manipulate. Speculation but I would not be surprised.

Back to GG... I don't even think a transgirl has to be faking it or have malicious intent to be a safeguarding threat. Pre-teens and teens do what pre-teens and teens do, experiment with little thought to risk basically, and just having a functioning penis presents a risk, especially if they all have some odd ideas about Lady Penises and their lacking virility. Even if both parties (transgirl and natal girl) are "consenting" the risk is still to the girl and the GG leader is culpable for their safeguarding error for allowing them the space to do it.

If I was a GG volunteer I would carry on if I could for the girls sakes up until the point where I was asked to supervise an overnight trip with mixed sex accommodation then I would quit on the basis that the safeguarding risk was too great a responsibility for a volunteer.

Lemonjello I’ve kept up with your threads on this and you’re an absolute star for politely persisting and insisting they answer your questions. Thank you for that, the time, effort and general head fuckery which I imagine comes from dealing with such utterly craven shitehawks must be incredibly wearing.

YY to the poster who said Just because you’re upset doesn’t mean anyone has done anything wrong this is such a great comment. It really is a beautiful response to the whole shitty entitled movement.

I'd be interested in what they would say if you introduced at 12/13 year old trans girl who identifies as a lesbian.

SMC guides

If GG had said "look, we took advice from Gendered Intelligence and they told us this was what we had to do to be in compliance with the law, and assured us that there would be no problems, and we believed them, but now we see that maybe that was a bad call and it's time to reassess" then they'd have been flooded with support.

And respect. I respect someone who makes a good-faith mistake and corrects it when it's pointed out. This is not what GG are doing.

YY to PPs saying that the unit leaders will carry the can legally when something happens. Here's how it will happen:

1. A male child, admitted as a transgirl, will sexually molest or rape a girl. Her parents will complain. Whether the male child experiences gender dysphoria or has a feminine sense of self is irrelevant here.
2. The male child will promptly be denounced as insincere, a "fake" transgirl by TRAs.
3. The unit leader will be blamed by GGUK HQ for not spotting the "fake" transgirl because some TRAs claim that you can tell the difference between a real transwoman/transgirl and a fake one and will offer to train you how to tell the difference. The trained professionals of the Prison Service got this wrong when deciding where to remand Karen White, so I have doubts the size of a continent as to the ability of anyone to tell the difference between a man or boy trying their luck and a transwoman or transgirl.
4. GGUKHQ will use the argument that leaders can spot "fake" transgirls to wash their hands of all responsibility, leaving the unit leader to carry the can even though said leader followed the policy diktats to the letter.

If I were a unit leader right now, I would walk out for my own protection. I know many of you stay because you want to keep providing a Guiding experience for the girls, but you need to think of yourselves as well. When the HQ that sets the rules expels leaders who ask questions and publicise the already-published rules, and stonewalls parents who ask questions and passes the buck for impossible questions to you (eg OP), that HQ is not supporting you now and they will not support you when a incident occurs. You can't be expected to volunteer under that risk.

There is currently no law in the United Kingdom about children of different genders sharing a bedroom

That isn't strictly true. There are rules under housing legislation in relation to over-crowding where the age and sex of persons who share sleeping accommodation are pertinent.

They do not impose criminal liability on the families but in certain circumstances breaching those rules can result in criminal liability on the landlord (certainly in Scotland- I think there is an English equivalent)

Knicknack I have to go now.

However, in response to your post.

It wasn't just the parents though.

It was doctors, paediatricians, teachers, social workers, religious leaders (in the case of Victoria).

Message to GG. When you've cocked up, fess up and do a mea culpa. It's not the mistake that scuppers you it's the cover up

PR for beginners.

I've been involved with 2 serious case reviews and each time there were two consistent outcomes.

1. Some professional around the child failing to share relevant information (Working Together)
2. Some professionals allying too closely with the abuser's perspective and failing to hold the child's needs at the centre.

I'd put money on it that these issues are replicated in the majority of cases. It's also worth remembering what happened to Child J where adults failed to protect him from abuse:

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2430.html

If you haven't got time to read the whole thing, I'll just leave the judge's comments at para 75 here:
Transgender equality has received a great deal of attention in recent times. I believe that in this case the profile and sensitivity of the matters raised by the mother blinded a number of professionals from applying their training, skills and, it has to be said, common sense. They failed properly to investigate M's assertions, in part I suspect, because they did not wish to appear to be challenging an emerging orthodoxy in such a high profile issue

you being upset doesn't mean anyone has done anything wrong

oh this

if girls not wanting to shower and share a bedroom with boys upsets you, then the problem is yours, not the girls

well done on your persistence OP

Placemats I've seen papers discussing what to do about it, as the Baby P case was almost a straight replica of failings as Victoria Climbie.

It's about professionals having the best intentions but often wanting to stay in with challenging adults because they're tricky and upsetting to deal with when they kick off and then dominate your time hassling you (and it can get very nasty), often too much sympathy and politically correct misassumptions about the adults, too willing to believe and not picking up on manipulative or grooming behaviours...

And not a lot of support for taking a firm line and saying 'you being upset doesn't mean anyone has done anything wrong'. The media for example loving a bit of sad face, and logged complaints being a problem.

Not sure whether it's on this thread or elsewhere but please everyone, a reminder to back up everything and keep all details of every email, letter, policy, twitter comment from all officials, trainers, advisers, organisations or dangerous woke fools who are advocating undermining safeguarding.

When the inevitable happens (which it will), let's make sure that the individuals / women / families who have been negatively affected have full details of all the officials complicit in undermining safety and safeguarding. It makes accountability so much more straightforward. I'm sure that the GG, NSPCC, DfE, YHA, Police, Schools and of course the very wealthy organisations promoting this crap will have extensive public liability insurance.

I’m furious OP I am that local leader who they think can just bang out an answer to this for you when they- the people who are meant to do the heavy lifting on behalf of volunteers like me find the area confusing.

FFS!

As usual I agree with Datun. If GG had said "look, we took advice from Gendered Intelligence and they told us this was what we had to do to be in compliance with the law, and assured us that there would be no problems, and we believed them, but now we see that maybe that was a bad call and it's time to reassess" then they'd have been flooded with support.

Instead they chose option B.

I agree with the above post.

How many serious case reviews are needed to keep children safe?

And what comes up in every serious case review? That professionals were afraid to ask the difficult questions out loud, to challenge people as they should have done, and focused on keeping difficult, challenging adults on side and keeping things 'nice' over and above the interests of the child

THIS

I recall a serious case review I was asked to attend concerning a 17 year old girl who had been abused by her grandfather since she was 5 - she disclosed at school aged 15. Social services allowed the child to remain in the family home (two terraced houses linked together inside) at which grandfather continued to live on the grounds that the family said they didn't want grandad forced out and he 'promised' to stay in the grandparents' side.

Girl then attempted suicide. You couldn't fucking make it up.

Thank you for taking the time to do this.

I really applaud your questions. You have exposed the Achilles heel in this shambles regarding safeguarding.

The answers are clearly a fudge.

Bravo

They know boys are a threat. Their own survey is incorporated in a government report about sexual harassment/assault of girls in school. Ffs.

The lesson they need to learn is when you're banged to rights, bloody fess up, say you're sorry, tie a knot and carry on.

The huge, mammoth mistake is the doubling down.

Because the further they double down, the deeper the shit they are putting their 'advisors' into. And the more complicit/cowardly they look.