Girl guiding

Maybe if Girl Guiding are confident that their ‘inclusive’ policy of welcoming in boys to their organisation, and the Equality Act, and GG’s legal charitable aims to benefit ‘girls and women’ are all in alignment, then they could ask the EHRC and charity commission just to take a look at it and then confirm that this is indeed the case?

Photo didn't load.



As a reality-based parent with two DDs who would be at a good age to join GGs and who love outdoorsy activities, over the past few years I have been watching these events with disbelief. I salute all of the volunteers who have put in so much time and effort for the children. But my DDs will never join GGs.

There's a lot of pushback on the page, but equally quite a bit of support. 🤯

Well it’s clearly not rooted in the equality act, it’s rooted in the stonewall interpretation of the equality act. If they were truly following the equality act they’d still be a single sex organisation

That FB statement is really ill judged. It’s sparked a lot of local debate here and my WhatsApp is alive with women who hold the same view as me.

Which is in itself encouraging although i am aware of the danger of the echo chamber.

They've also posted this:

We would remind everyone commenting on here of our community guidelines bit.ly/3bAGYfs and to be respectful of each other. Anyone who does not follow these guidelines will have their comment hidden and could be blocked from our Facebook channel. We would also remind you of our digital safeguarding policy and volunteer code of conduct for volunteers bit.ly/3eXQfQJ . If you are a volunteer and are in breach of either of these you may be contacted by our safeguarding or compliance teams.

If you would like to contact us and discuss any feedback or concerns, please email [email protected], (whether you’re a volunteer or member of the public).

That statement's like a hostage letter!
If their policy is based on Stonewall advice (similar to the Essex University policies that have resulted in two public apologies) then according to the Independent review of the Essex debacle, Stonewall's advice is incorrect.

I noted earlier this evening that they've posted a statement on their Facebook page related to this...

"We've had some comments and queries about our trans inclusive Equality & Diversity policy we’d like to respond to.

We have a trans inclusive Equality & Diversity policy, which is grounded in the Equality Act 2010. This policy has not changed with the publication of our Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan. Simply being transgender does not make someone more of a safeguarding risk than any other person. We proudly remain trans inclusive."

I assume the Charity Commision was asked to look into this change of purpose?

DD is currently in Brownies, and I have no concerns with her unit atm. But, going forward I am worried about whether Guides will be the same female only environment it used to be. It's not even just about safe guarding for me, although this is a major concern with all the TWAW retoric. It's about girls being able to have a place, a club, a movement that's just for them. Where they don't have to worry about boys watching them and judging them, being faster, stronger, louder than them. It's looking like a slippery slope to end of those decades of sisterhood that Guiding was based on and gave so many girls the chance to shine

This whole debacle feels like a kick in the teeth for women like me who have poured hours and weeks and months into running excellent, varied and exciting units for the girls and young women who join them. It reads as GGUK standing up and telling the world we are rubbish. I have run my unit for nearly 21 years and I won't leave now, but I will say that I would have to think very carefully about whether I could carry on if I was put in the position of having to pretend that the new leader Pippa wasn't actually Phillip, or if I was asked by a parent about this issue directly. If a transgirl joined my unit and a parent came to me and says, Flossie won't be going on camp unless you can assure me that her safeguarding needs are met, she cannot share sleeping and washing facilities with males (for whatever reason), I won't be lying to them and saying that all the young people are female.

This with bells on.

I love it all and am committed to my girls and team to the extent that I can’t bring myself to walk away over the theoretical. But when/if it gets real that will be the end- and with me I’m certain would be at least 2/3rds of the women in my district.

So what or rather more interestingly who is left?

Absolutely, Girl Guiding are definitely believers in self ID Valancy. But don’t they have the law wrong? The category of ‘girls’ doesn't also include boys. There’s no GRC to change legal sex for kids- as much as some organisations have been lobbying for that. So no legal obligation on any female sex organisation to include boys.

I’m not a lawyer but surely legally registered charitable organisations can’t just decide that boys are girls and still keep the same legal aims. It raises serious governance questions to fundraise for one clearly stated thing and then use the money for something else, doesn’t it?

And it’s all been so poorly handled, leaving the volunteers and kids (female and male) in a really difficult position. If organisations want to make their single sex organisations into mixed sex- why do it so quietly?
Why not formally make the legal change and also change the charity’s name to ‘Feminine-Stereotyped Guiding’ if it’s no longer for girls?
Or ‘Self-identified Girls Guiding’? Or to be factual and crystal clear, ‘Girls and Boys Guiding’? Or just ‘Children’s Guiding’? Then the girls and parents and volunteers can clearly see what new policies mean for them and make their own choices about it.

It’s hard to imagine why Trustees of the Charity did not write to all of the members and volunteers, parents and older girls, offering an open web chat, members conference or whatever, at a very early proposal stage for this change.They could have openly set out all the reasons why the Trustees wanted this change of policy and then debated it, then adopted, adapted or rejected the proposed new policy.

This whole debacle feels like a kick in the teeth for women like me who have poured hours and weeks and months into running excellent, varied and exciting units for the girls and young women who join them. It reads as GGUK standing up and telling the world we are rubbish. I have run my unit for nearly 21 years and I won't leave now, but I will say that I would have to think very carefully about whether I could carry on if I was put in the position of having to pretend that the new leader Pippa wasn't actually Phillip, or if I was asked by a parent about this issue directly. If a transgirl joined my unit and a parent came to me and says, Flossie won't be going on camp unless you can assure me that her safeguarding needs are met, she cannot share sleeping and washing facilities with males (for whatever reason), I won't be lying to them and saying that all the young people are female.

You don't think that girls from races or religions where they cannot do things with males there feel excluded do you? Or if they have a disability where they need personal help but want it only from another female?

Gosh, how unexpected.

@SSwimCycle21

I’ve got two DDs, forgive my ignorance but does this mean anyone can ‘identify’ as a female and attend girl guide / brownie camps, sleep in same tents as girls, lead a female unit but be biological male? How is safeguarding upheld?!? My eldest DD is also active in competitive sport and already I’m SO so angry at what is happening in female sport being eroded by male rights over females when will it end

Yes, which is why I resigned from Guiding 18 months ago.
You're not even allowed to call out on a risk assessment that there is a person with a penis sharing washing and sleeping accommodation with the girls, or even helping the little ones go to toe toilet/get dressed on occasion.

Though if that person with a penis identifies as a man, then you do have to list it as a risk, organises separate sleeping space etc.
If the "penis haver" wears a skirt, it's all ok.

The description is still correct if you believe twaw, as Girl Guiding do.

Charities’ legal aims are publicly searchable on the Charity Commission register (this below is in England and Wales)

THE GUIDE ASSOCIATION

Charity number: 306016

‘TO PROMOTE THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS AND YOUNG WOMEN TO HELP THEM DEVELOP EMOTIONALLY, MENTALLY, PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO THEIR COMMUNITY AND THE WIDER WORLD.’

register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/306016/governing-document

Charities can’t normally have registered legal aims and then just decide to do something different with their resources?

There isn't going to be widespread resignations over this. Lots of the younger Leaders and volunteers will not see this as a problem in the first place.
Many of those who do will stay anyway as there is a lot of love and loyalty here and for most people, most of the time it will have little material impact.
There will have to be some serious traction behind any of this being changed.
I think while self ID is still being used as the defacto position for many organisations this will not change here either. Plus the prevailing attitude of affirmation for children.

I think the only way to change it would be all the guiders to un-volunteer. The organisation is nothing without the guiders putting in time and effort for free.

And just to be clear the board of girl guiding UK changed the organisation to be single gender, from single sex. Officially. But without consultation. So they absolutely can do this, as it's their rules. It's just unfortunately not rules that 99.99% of women and girls actually in guiding want.

The guider that discovered this new policy was kicked out by guiding. And is now being stonewalled by them (awful ironic turn of phrase there).
The more light this policy gets, the better.

And to answer a previous poster- the boy in the guide group will be treated as one of the girls for camping. And you as a parent have no right to officially know he is in the tent with your daughter. Your daughter has no right to only be with female campers.

As guiding is taking self ID to be law- it is not. And they are extending it to children. Which the law does not allow for.

This plus the complete and utter disregard for the safety and comfort of the girls in guiding is frankly appalling.

My daughter definitely will not be sharing a tent with a confused teenage boy. What could possibly go wrong eh?

Oh my. A big old loophole then. So previous history doesn't have to be disclosed if it is voluntary. Vetting is supposed to be for the protection of the children. No loopholes. We had very special people in Ireland too who had particular access to children in the last century. Hence the avalanche of child abuse cases which came to light.

Individuals who are transgender (or identify as such) don't have to have their previous names noted on their certificate. They are supposed to call the sensitive applications team who will review their application.

www.gov.uk/guidance/transgender-applications