Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

64 replies

LemonJello · 09/10/2018 14:05

This is a record of correspondence I have had with Girl Guiding.

I’ll do my emails in italics and their replies in bold.

I just had a question about one of your policies.

You say here ^www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/running-your-unit/events-and-going-away/going-on-residentials/^

“If male volunteers or male children are present, there must be separate sleeping and bathroom facilities for them.”

Can you tell me why? What is the reasoning behind this policy?

In response to your enquiry, our guidance is in place to maintain our girl only space. Please be advised that this isn’t a policy but is best practice guidance that we have in place.

When girls are at a residential, the time with other girls is extended to their sleeping arrangements so that they can continue to have the fun, girl only experience that Girlguiding offers.

So can I ask, if guide leaders bring their boy children on a residential, are these boys forbidden to take part in the actuvities as well, in order to maintain this girl only space?

In order for us to answer your queries as effectively as possible and ensure that we don’t provide you with any inaccurate information please can you provide us with the full details of the situation you are querying?

Sure. I would like to know if the only reason for separating boys and girls sleeping accommodation is to preserve “the fun, girl only experience” or if there are any other reasons behind this.

I’d also like to kmow, if the aim is to preserve the fun, girl only experience, whether boys are permitted to take part in any activities, or if its just the sleeping accommodation that needs to be fun and girl only. If so, why?

Please be advised that the primary reason for having separate accommodation for boys on trips and residentials is because the boys concerned would not be members of Girlguiding.

We appreciate that there are a number of different reasons why a volunteer would need to take their child on a residential even though they are not a part of Girlguiding and we would expect any such situation to be discussed locally with the local commissioner well in advance of any residential taking place.

The parent of the non-member would also be responsible for them on the trip and would not be counted in the adult child ratios.

Children that are not part of Girlguiding are also able to take part in activities if this has been agreed in advance with the leadership team and the commissioner. However this must be managed appropriately. In such situations the parent of the visiting child would be responsible for supervising their child at all times.

I’m sorry I still dont quite understand.

On your website it says:

“If male volunteers or male children are present, there must be separate sleeping and bathroom facilities for them.”

If the reason for separate sleeping accommodation is because they are not members of girl guiding, why single out male children here? Would this policy not also apply to female children of guide leaders?

So to recap, so far you have said that the reason for separate sleeping accommodation is to protect the fun, girl only environment, but also because boys are not members of girl guiding.

If you allow male children to take part in activities, but one of the reasons they are not to share sleeping accommodation is to protect the fun, girl only environment, why is this environment only important when children are undressing or sleeping?
Are you happy to state finally that the only reasons Girl Guiding have for separating male and female children in sleeping accommodation are to protect the fun, girl only environment and because boys wouldnt be members of Girll Guiding? Or is there anything more ypu can add to help explain this policy?

I also see that you include male children in your risk assesmemt for residentials.

The reasons you have given to me so far dont present any risk, so could you expand on why you specifically include males on your risk assessments?

I appreciate that this can be a confusing area and I’m sorry that I haven’t been able to answer all of your questions regarding this situation.

I would encourage you to speak to your daughter’s unit leader or local commissioner about your outstanding concerns as local guiding will be able to provide you with detailed information about our usual processes for non members attending residentials.

Thank you for contacting Girlguiding and I hope that your remaining questions can be fully answered locally.

The End.

OP posts:
Knicknackpaddyflak · 09/10/2018 17:53

decades of evidence of what happens when you let political correctness dominate safeguarding

This. Fear of upsetting and offending difficult or popular people.

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.

Fear of standing up to tantrums and sticking to your guns despite shouting, tantrums, threats, swearing, intimidating behaviour, pester power, accusations and general toy out of pram chucking is rife amongst people who need to find their guts. Possibly this is why MN has managed to stay a bastion of sanity.

Badstyley · 09/10/2018 17:31

I might email saying DS Is really desperate to join GG. He generally presents as male but he’s willing to put on a dress and go by a girl’s name for the duration, so can I go ahead and bring him along to the next meeting? Oh and he really wants to come on camp, but he doesn’t like being excluded so he wants to bunk in with the girls. He’ll be wearing girl clothes and be called Lucinda so that should be fine right?

AngryAttackKittens · 09/10/2018 17:29

Just had a horrible thought. Are they actually hoping that an incident will happen so they have an excuse for changing this incredibly stupid and unpopular policy?

Mumfun · 09/10/2018 17:25

I am going to be so angry when,and it is when,decent long term guide leaders who know the policy is dangerous are faced with an incident. And as was said previously the local leaders are thrown to the wolves by the two faced doublethink Guide Leadership. (no longer calling them Girl Guides as they are not.) I think in this day of names and pronouns being important everyone should make a point of calling them Guides (without the Girl!)

WomaninBoots · 09/10/2018 17:09

Wow. They know. They really do know. As someone said above if they actually thought trans girls were girls and sharing was of no risk they'd have just said "because boys present a risk when the girls are vulnerable" or similar. Because they know they are lying and putting girls at risk they have to waffle around not saying anything. Then have the cheek for the patronising "confusing area" comment. What rubbish! It's not really that confusing to keep penises and vaginas in separate rooms. Teenagers are ridiculous at times and need protecting from themselves... I wouldn't be surprised to hear "I didn't think I would get pregnant because she's a girl" in the not so distant future... if teenagers can get pregnant because using a condom is a "double sin" then I am pretty sure that they can think sex with a transgirl is pregnancy risk free.

hackmum · 09/10/2018 16:09

What a pathetic shower. Too frightened to say: "We don't allow boys to share tents with girls because they might sexually abuse them." Because they know what your next question would be.

"I appreciate that this can be a confusing area" is especially enraging. Oh, do fuck off.

scepticalwoman · 09/10/2018 16:07

That's a great response to have elicited LemonJello. Well done.

We really must keep pressing these negligent fools about their catastrophic safeguarding fails. Every time I read some of this stuff (and I've spent decades working in safeguarding) I think about all the abused and murdered children whose experiences we have used to create our (previously) rigorous safeguarding policies.

And then I look at these organisations choosing to listen to 'special interest' groups and busily rolling back their safeguarding policies on the say so of those with evidently zero knowledge. I am aghast at how easy it has been for them to be persuaded by 'political correctness. Savile, Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale, Derby - decades of evidence of what happens when you let political correctness dominate safeguarding - yet it's as if that never happened. Angry

Original poster
LemonJello · 09/10/2018 16:05

That has taken since 23rd August.

I find the deliberate obfuscation breathtaking. How can they justify this to themselves? They know that their policy is preventing them from addressing safeguarding issues yet they keep blindly ploughing forward nonetheless.

It’s that which imo solidifies the fact that they are an untrustworthy and irresponsible organisation which does not have the best interests of girls as their primary consideration.

Fair enough to develop an incoherent and reckless policy. Everyone makes mistakes and if they were advised by who we think they were advised by, they have been groomed.

But to double down when the flaws have been pointed out is indefensible. I consider them utterly unfit for purpose and think the whole governing and management team needs to be dismissed.

OP posts:
AngryAttackKittens · 09/10/2018 15:55

I'd love to know how much their email volume has increased since this story broke.

scrappydappydoo · 09/10/2018 15:51

I’m impressed you got a reply - I’m still waiting for mine. The automated reply said 5 days over two weeks ago...

Knicknackpaddyflak · 09/10/2018 15:43

They'll just say 'oh but he's not a Guide'.

This won't end until a very bloody court case where they have to admit that not only do they not believe in fairies but that they knew full well despite all their frantic clapping, that Tinkerbell was fictional to start with, and a girl paid the price for it. And I hope the book is thrown at them.

titchy · 09/10/2018 15:40

Someone who is a local leader should email Guides HQ and say their teenage son unexpectedly has to come on the next camping trip and they thought they’d put him in the girls’ tents with them to sleep, but not bother telling the parents. But just wanted to check there’s no safeguarding issues, can HQ confirm?

Then once they've got the email back saying 'Oh no that goes against our policies', get back in touch stating that your son currently identifies as a girl, so does that make it ok?

Knicknackpaddyflak · 09/10/2018 15:39

Precisely. The minute they admit that the separation of showers, toilets and sleeping arrangements for male and female children is about safeguarding, privacy and dignity, because sexed bodies are different and it presents a risk of sexually inappropriate behaviour, they're done. And they know it.

Because no child or adult stops being a sexed body with the same safeguarding requirements and the exact same effect on others' awareness of their body that they had before the second they self defined as trans. There is no transubstantiation, there is no fairy dust.

If you see that, you have to see that it is appallingly sexist and unfair to expect girls to hide their humiliation and abandon their privacy and to abnegate your responsibilities of safeguarding towards children based on the subjective feeling of a male person and a hell of a lot of hope.

RepealtheGRA · 09/10/2018 15:21

I think GG may have just inadvertently confirmed they know damn well ‘transgirls’ are boys. If they didn’t know that, there would be no need to dodge the question about boys. Muppets.

Annandale · 09/10/2018 15:10

Jeez Louise. If a penis is in the same tent as a vagina, and their owners are under the age of consent, what risks are you actually concerned about? And which risks are the parents concerned about, or would be, if you told them? How difficult can it be?

[different moany voice] oh annnannnddaaaale, you're just reducing people to their genitaaaals again

VickyEadie · 09/10/2018 15:02

Someone who is a local leader should email Guides HQ and say their teenage son unexpectedly has to come on the next camping trip and they thought they’d put him in the girls’ tents with them to sleep, but not bother telling the parents. But just wanted to check there’s no safeguarding issues, can HQ confirm?

Do this!

Redkeyboard · 09/10/2018 14:59

Someone who is a local leader should email Guides HQ and say their teenage son unexpectedly has to come on the next camping trip and they thought they’d put him in the girls’ tents with them to sleep, but not bother telling the parents. But just wanted to check there’s no safeguarding issues, can HQ confirm?

gendercritter · 09/10/2018 14:53

I'm so embarrassed for them.

It's not a hard answer GG. Do you really not want to acknowledge the fact that some girls get attacked by some boys? Because the world is getting pretty pissed off with boys and men getting away with so much shit.

averylongtimeago · 09/10/2018 14:38

Well done for getting a reply though!

averylongtimeago · 09/10/2018 14:37

Looks like the buck is going to stop with the local leaders then.

It doesn't take Mystic Meg to foresee an unfortunate incident followed by a lawsuit directed at Brown Owl (or guide/ranger leader) when GGHQ blame it all on her for getting her risk assessments wrong or not following policy.

poshme · 09/10/2018 14:34

FFS

littlbrowndog · 09/10/2018 14:33

So it’s a confusing “area” and they are the leadership and it’s confusing them
Erm if you have a policy then it shouldn’t be confusing to the policy makers
How are volunteers able to understand the confusing area if leadership can’t

deepwatersolo · 09/10/2018 14:31

But, LemonJello, at least NSPCC pin it down on sex. Maybe someone should ask GG, if their requirement to exclude accompanying boys from sleeping arrangements is the NSPCC recommendation. And if and how GG believe children can change sex.

AngryAttackKittens · 09/10/2018 14:28

I'm getting "let's run this past the legal team so it can't be used against us later" vibes.

You need new lawyers, GG.

Gileswithachainsaw · 09/10/2018 14:28

Thing is there's really only the two reasons boys and girls are kept separate at school on trips . Three if you count false allegations. Which is why male teachers only knock they don't enter (and of they do they announce /warn/ check everyone decent) in the girls dorms/rooms.

Without using thise reasons you are going to sound like bumbling idiots

As they have done

Swipe left for the next trending thread