A boy in dd’s Guides Unit

A girl has just joined my son’s Boys Brigade group as she identifies as a boy. She’s in the 5 to 8 year old section but her older brother (10yo) has been asked to accompany her to the sessions and stay with her throughout for some reason. It’s run by a group of ladies in their 70’s and they have no idea what to make of it, neither do I, really. It was nice to have a boys only thing but hey Ho. Hopefully she’ll grow out of it.

RE TedImgoingmad Wed 07-Jul-21 do you knw of any examples of 10-14 year old Guides who have been made to share a tent with a biological (and biologically intact) boy of the same age?

It's a point worth it's own discussion.
My point isn't a million miles from yours, but much less detailed. If you want to talk about the subtleties of male violence then go ahead and start a new thread.

I've always felt it an odd point to make when people say "yes, but it was a man who attacked him", as if it neutralises the argument about men being less safe walking around.

But maybe what posters are saying is that it's not down to women, which is a fair point. That said, I'm not saying it is any responsibility/culpability for women. I'm just challenging the common assertion that men don't have to look over their shoulder when walking alone at night.

I think part of this is down to how people view it as female/male rather than attacker/victim. If you look at things like the George Floyd case it's more aspects like race, socio economics, positions of power/authority that come into play. Their shared sex is still outweighed by the many other differing variables.

So, if a young gay male is killed in a homophobic attack I don't think you can just say "meh, male violence" as that's far too reductive and missing the nuances. The young gay man has no power over his attacker's sex/gender, so pointing out that the victim shared the sex of his attacker is a little like pointing out that a rape victim wore a short skirt. Sex is useful for wider analysis purposes but it's not a gotcha which dismisses the risk faced by individual non violent males from violent criminal men IMO.

But this is probably a discussion for a separate thread.

But this thread is about having male people in Brownies and Guides.

Exactly. Moreover, it's about having male people as guides and leaders, pretending they are female and drawing up safeguarding policies which take no account of the fact that these people are male.

I think you've misunderstood my point.
Men are also attacked. But it's mostly by other men, not women. So yes, men can be unsafe too. Which is the point you make in your other post.
I'm not victim blaming anyone.
But this thread is about having male people in Brownies and Guides.

* I feel most would change their minds pretty quickly the first time a chav threatened to stab them for 'looking at them funny'.*

Funny how it doesn't stop men going out on their own at night.

I feel most would change their minds pretty quickly the first time a chav threatened to stab them for 'looking at them funny'.

That kind of 'men are unsafe too' is half right. But who are they being attacked by? (Clue: in the main, it's not women)

Not to derail thread, but isn't this a form of victim blaming? A grievous assault isn't lessened by the victim sharing his sex with his attacker, surely.

The most shocking thing, to me at least, is that this wasn't considered as an implication. Or if it was, it was dismissed.

It's the first bloody thing I'd think of.

Why might a sex offender decide to use a new name not linked with their offences and not disclose the name they are known to the police as when applying for a role involving access to children? 🤔 No, can't think of any reason they would do that. 🙄

Cross post

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/af26ad76-e4b6-11eb-a821-58982b1c936d?shareToken=d6a2ac79b2570e069cbd82633e9de831

Sex offenders changing names to avoid scrutiny.

Could they circumvent DBS checks this way?

self declared

Certainly if you change your name by deed poll, you can disguise your past.

As many sex offenders have already done.

I'm pretty certain it works the same with a GRC too. It's my understanding that you have to volunteer the information about your past name, if you don't, then no one knows about it.

I mean for God sake, how difficult is it to get two databases talking to each other.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/af26ad76-e4b6-11eb-a821-58982b1c936d?shareToken=add47972c90d4100cb9566f56f1d4f3c

If that's the case then that's good, for both the organisation and the volunteer.

My understanding is it would show up any convictions but not the name/sex attached to them.

So the person could do a DBS under that route, not disclosing their previous name to
(Eg.) Guiding, but the DBS would still show up any convictions obtained under the previous name? Or would it just not show up anything from before the name change so their new employer wouldn't be aware of their past?

Here
www.gov.uk/guidance/transgender-applications

If I'm totally honest I'm not sure. There was talk about it being possible some time ago, and I am not certain if it was ever confirmed as possible.

I think actually there's a confidential route people can take so their former name isn't mentioned to their employer. Though I don't know how anyone would know if they didn't.

Is it actually a thing where people aren't required to put all the names that they have been known as on their DBS? Although thinking about it, I'm certain it is a requirement, but there's a massive problem if people can actually get away with not doing so.

My assistant Leader is a self-ID trans woman. They have been DBS checked, but in their new name, not their 'dead name'.

That's very concerning. Why wouldn't they provide all the names they had been known as on their dbs application. One could be accused of having something to hide otherwise. Massive red flag.

My assistant Leader is a self-ID trans woman. They have been DBS checked, but in their new name, not their 'dead name'.

Wow. If that is so, Brownies don't give a shit about safeguarding or the safety of children. Anyone can adopt a new moniker and shed a 'problematic' past. How wonderful of Brownies (and/or the state) to enable that.

I think it's because they apply it to their experience and aren't reply aware of how men are challenged and targeted by each other.

I think the majority here recognise that male violence is a problem. To women. And to eachother. This is however the feminist board. Where we centre women and children. There is however another section that centres men in their feminism. But this isn't it.