Girlguiding dilemma

Statement in full:

'We have been involved in a legal case with a former volunteer since 2018 and we have now reached a settlement. Please find our statement below.

Girlguiding's full statement regarding its legal case with Katie Alcock:

Girlguiding celebrates the ever-growing diversity of its membership. We are committed to balancing the views, needs and wants of all of our members in a complex and changing world. It’s important that we do this in a thoughtful and respectful way, reflecting our volunteer code of conduct. So we have a diversity and inclusion strategic plan which underpins our commitment to inclusion.

Girlguiding recognises that gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act and that there are girls and volunteers who hold gender critical beliefs within our membership. We respect and value their right to do so, and to express those beliefs. Girlguiding is also, and shall remain, a home for trans people. Whatever their protected characteristics, all our young members and adult volunteers are welcome within Girlguiding.

Girlguiding is pleased that it has reached an agreement with Katie Alcock. We always value the bravery of women speaking up, which is aligned with Girlguiding’s purpose in empowering girls and young women.

We wish to thank Katie for the passion and commitment she has given to Girlguiding which has included running a unit for over 100 girls over the course of 10 years, as well as mentoring young leaders and new Adult Leaders.

We also acknowledge, and are saddened by, the impact that not being part of Girlguiding has had on Katie’s personal and family life. We have extended an invitation to her to re-apply to join Girlguiding.

We have listened carefully to Katie’s concerns. We understand them and take them seriously. Whilst these are complex and evolving issues, we agree that sex and gender are different, and will reflect this in the language we use.

The safeguarding and wellbeing of girls has and will always be at the heart of everything we do. We constantly review and update all our policies in line with government guidance and the law. We welcome constructive feedback from all of our volunteers, which helps ensure we have robust procedures in place. It is testament to the support of dedicated and passionate volunteers that we are able to use their input to refine and enhance what we do.

Our priority is to ensure that we offer a safe space where all girls are welcome to have fun, learn, and grow, and feel that they can be who they truly are. So all adult members are required to follow the same policies and procedures, including our Equality and Diversity policy and the Safeguarding policy, under which volunteers must report all concerns, allegations and disclosures. We have a dedicated specialist safeguarding team who support volunteers with questions or concerns.

We balance the needs of all our members with our legal obligations, relevant guidance and best practice, and will continue to offer support and guidance to members as they need it, and respond to girls, parents and volunteers who may have questions or concerns.

Girlguiding has agreed with Katie that as part of Girlguiding’s diversity and inclusion strategic plan, we will engage with new members, volunteers, parents, carers and girls to ensure our inclusive policies and procedures, and what they mean in practice, are easy to understand.

To ensure best practice Girlguiding continually reviews its procedures and guidance. It also consults with a broad range of external organisations and will consider organisations recommended by Katie.

Girlguiding has evolved for 110 years and will continue to evolve to ensure that it remains a forward-thinking, inclusive and diverse organisation where all girls, young women and volunteers feel welcome and belong. Through the skills, experience, and time of its 81,000 volunteers, Girlguiding empowers girls to find their voice, discover the best in themselves and make a positive difference in their community. Girlguiding is proud to be an inclusive and diverse organisation and will always remain so.'

mobile.twitter.com/wontsomeonethi2/status/1516374537126002691?t=N6mKy04rpaiNyX9jmwKM6A&s=19

Here is Katie's tweet.

That is an encouraging read!

www.girlguiding.org.uk/about-us/press-releases/girlguiding-settlement-statement/

They have settled with Katie, this is their statement.

twitter.com/wontsomeonethi2/status/1516374537126002691/photo/2

I don't think GG does allow Leaders to share accomodation with children.
I'd be very interested to see what the outcome of this agreement with Katie Alcock is.

Just seen on Twitter that Dr Katie Alcock has tweeted that she will no longer be going ahead with litigation against the GG. Not sure what agreement they have come to but it appears that GG have recognised her concerns about single sex spaces. Not sure how to link to her tweet so maybe someone else can.

The biggest issue isn't children who are identifying as Girls. For me it's the leaders

GG allow adults to share the same sleeping space as minors. So two TIM could sleep in the same room as any of the age groups.

This does NOT happen within scouting.
Adults must have separate sleeping accommodation

Sittininafield I left, rather than wait to be chucked out. (I know you can't actually be "sacked" as it's voluntary, but couldn't think of another word to use).

I was the DC, and didn't want to be in a position where I approved a residential where I was putting girls at risk - knowingly, or unknowingly.

As for "My legal safeguarding responsibilities override gg policy by far!" - I'd argue that that's not correct.

Whether or not you agree with the policies (I don't), from GG's POV, they need to be able to demonstrate that all of their Leaders follow the prescribed safeguarding policies in order to validate their own insurance. They can't allow people to make their own minds up as to what is safe or not safe when it comes to anything, not just how to manage having trans people in the organisation. Otherwise, what's even the point of them having policies.

Welcome trans id male = piss off half the village, not welcome them = piss off the other half

How would you know, though? Do you ask on the forms that kids fill in when they join, whether their sex at birth is different from the sex they identify as now?

I only ask because I genuinely wouldn't have had a clue about the trans kids I know, had I not been told - in one case I'd known a child for the best part of 2 years before being told she was born a boy.

Justkeep - I’d rather be chucked out than knowingly allow mixed sex sleeping! I’m just a volunteer, it’s not like being sacked! My legal safeguarding responsibilities override gg policy by far! But as I said we probably just wouldn’t go, which as a pp said means girls would lose out. I’m just a volunteer and don’t need the stress! Don’t forget that gg is part of the community too, so in a small village if you do anything controversial everyone knows! Welcome trans id male = piss off half the village, not welcome them = piss off the other half. But as I said it’s all hypothetical at the moment.

OP you could volunteer to help at the sessions then you will have first hand experience of what dd is being exposed to. The leaders themselves are volunteers and in most cases are probably very grateful for an extra pair of hands!

so I would have to either say ‘no’ and go against hq or, more likely, we just wouldn’t go away

I understand those, but not going on residential because there's no possibility of an adequate risk assessment means that once again girls miss out because of the presence of a male.

Justkeep- how would I fill in a ren form for a residential if I had a trans identifying male in the unit? It hasn’t arisen, and we haven’t been away for 3 years (covid) but I will always put safeguarding first, that would mean I couldn’t allow a male to share sleeping accommodation with the girls so I would have to either say ‘no’ and go against hq or, more likely, we just wouldn’t go away

Would your DC sign this off? It's completely against GGs policy and could result in you both being chucked out.

I know the value too, first hand. Otherwise I wouldn't care so much about this insidious crap wrecking it for girls.

This thread makes me want to weep 😢

I both agree with the critical posters and know the initiative value of what I actually do on the ground. I’ve been a leader for over 20 years since I was technically still a child. It isn’t as simple as ‘just leave’.

Justkeep- how would I fill in a ren form for a residential if I had a trans identifying male in the unit? It hasn’t arisen, and we haven’t been away for 3 years (covid) but I will always put safeguarding first, that would mean I couldn’t allow a male to share sleeping accommodation with the girls so I would have to either say ‘no’ and go against hq or, more likely, we just wouldn’t go away.

I think some people are mistaking leaders saying that it isn’t a problem in their unit for people ‘putting their heads in the sand’. It is simply the case that it really isn’t a problem for most units, most leaders are very sensible and very aware of safeguarding- not least because we are very aware of our responsibilities and most units don’t have any trans members . You may not be aware that gg has several problems at the moment, we’ve lost about 1/3 of members recently while units weren’t operating during lockdown. Risk assessments and covid rules have been really onerous. GG also spent lots of money completely rewriting the program and changing all the badges with the end result that they’ve made an unbelievably boring and highly prescriptive, admin-heavy list of activities - as a result lots of leaders are leaving, as are girls. Any extra pressures (eg being told to ignore safeguarding) are likely to be the final straw for many leaders.

Mitigation of risk: pretending all members are the same sex and not letting anyone mention the reality that they are not

is probably not going to cut it at a serious case review, or when the parents sue.

Split post to make a point

That looked like a reasonable risk assessment document which covered all the bases.

Small problem with
1.1.1.a.1 Risk of pregnancy (ova occupants only)
and
1.1.1.a.2 Risk of pregnancy (sperm occupants only)

Both have an additional calculation

Key Risk factor:
No2:
control failure ova or sperm producing humans have access to sleeping accommodation.
Shared accomadation but risk factor is 1

Frequency of risk event:
No2:
ova or sperm producing humans have access to sleeping accommodation.
Shared accomadation so risk factor is 1

So each single sex accomadation has to be risk assessed on the basis of probability of risk calculated in 1.1.1.a.3 Risk of pregnancy (ova and sperm occupants)

Management of risk:
There is a risk
Mitigation of risk required
^Action required
• effective controls to keep space single sex
Additional actions due to possible control failure
•• re sex prevention strategies
•• re pregnancy prevention strategies
•• abortion strategies
•• parental involvement
•• ....
Further risk assessment needed

Policy required
Yes

So the document has to chage as the risks are identifed.

Pregnancy risk can only be risk assessed if GGHQ split members by sex and also examine how they are going to prevent sexual activity or pregnancy as a result of sexual activity

Beamur
Their policies at the moment are a well intentioned fudge. They will continue to draw fire until they realise this

It's not a fudge. They are not passive idiots. They are fully grown adults who are being entrusted with other people's children.

They have removed women for advocating on behalf of the children.

Each of the individuals involved made a choice approve policy, to not risk assess on a mixed sex basis.

Words are very important here.

Event risk occurs when a girl and girl engage in sexual activity

Event risk occurs when a girl and a girl engage in an act of sexual reproduction.

Event risk occurs when a ova producer (female) and a sperm producer (male) engage in an act of sexual reproduction.

Girl's who have not gone through puberty cant get pregnant.
Girl's can not get girl's pregnant.

In order to risk assess GG have to use sex words.
There has to be a classification of some type
Eg.
Girl Type A = pre puberty non-ova producer = female
Girl Type B = pre puberty non-sperm producer = male
Girl Type C = post puberty ova producer = female
Girl Type D = post puberty sperm producer = male

1.1.1.a Risk of pregnancy
Event risk occurs when a ova producer (female) person and a sperm producer (male) person engage in an act of sexual reproduction.

Key Risk factor:
Occupants may be either a ova or a sperm producing human and in sleeping accommodation.
Shared accomadation so risk factor is 1

Frequency of risk event:
ova or sperm producing humans have access to sleeping accommodation.
Shared accomadation so risk factor is 1

Probability of risk:
(Key risk factor × Frequency of event )
1 × 1 = 1
there is a risk of pregnancy resulting from accomadation provision.

Management of risk:
There is a risk
Mitigation of risk required
Action required as an occupant may be
• ova producer (female) or
• sperm producer (male)
Further risk assessment needed

Policy required
Yes

1.1.1.a.1 Risk of pregnancy (ova occupants only)
Event risk occurs when a ova producer (female) and a sperm producer (male) engage in an act of sexual reproduction.

Key Risk factor:
Sexual contact with sperm producing human in sleeping accommodation.
No shared accomadation but risk factor is 1

Frequency of risk event:
only ova producing humans have access to sleeping accommodation.
No shared accomadation and risk factor is 0

Probability of risk:
(Key risk factor × Frequency of event )
One × Zero = Zero
Zero risk of pregnancy resulting from accomadation provision.

Management of risk:
There is no risk
No mitigation of risk required
No action required

Policy required
No

1.1.1.a.2 Risk of pregnancy (sperm occupants only)
Event risk occurs when a ova producer (female) and a sperm producer (male) engage in an act of sexual reproduction.

Key Risk factor:
Sexual contact with ova producing human in sleeping accommodation.
No shared accomadation but risk factor is 1

Frequency of risk event:
only sperm producing humans have access to sleeping accommodation.
No shared accomadation and risk factor is 0

Probability of risk:
(Key risk factor × Frequency of event )
One × Zero = Zero
Zero risk of pregnancy resulting from accomadation provision.

Management of risk:
There is no risk
No mitigation of risk required
No action required

Policy required
No

1.1.1.a.3 Risk of pregnancy (ova and sperm occupants)
Event risk occurs when a ova producer (female) and a sperm producer (male) engage in an act of sexual reproduction.

Key Risk factor:
Sexual contact between ova producing human and sperm producing human in sleeping accommodation.
Shared accomadation so risk factor is 1

Frequency of risk event:
ova producing humans and sperm producing humans have access to sleeping accommodation.
Shared accomadation so risk factor is 1

Probability of risk:
(Key risk factor × Frequency of event )
^One × One = One
there is a risk of pregnancy resulting from accomadation provision.

Management of risk:
There is a risk
Mitigation of risk required
^Action required
• re sex prevention strategies
• re pregnancy prevention strategies
• abortion strategies
• parental involvement
• ....
Further risk assessment needed

Policy required
Yes

Leaders are going to end up having to do 1.1.1.a.2 and 1.1.1.a.3 because GGHQ policy is to ignore the need for this.

SolasAnla
Yes. I cannot see how a Leader could risk assess shared accommodation without saying there is a risk of pregnancy.
Even if they are obliged to keep with the fiction that everyone is a girl. There is still the 'female penis' to consider.
If I was in the position of being that Leader and told to deny or ignore that, I could not go with a clear conscience. I would refuse to go.
This is why I suspect that the dilemma simply hasn't presented itself yet in sufficient boldness for a rethink by HQ. They've been advised poorly and have responded to criticism by doubling down. But longer term this just isn't a sustainable position. They will at some point have to rethink admitting males or be more like Scouts in their approach. I do think that GG have been targeted because they are/have been single sex - both by the genderists and also people (like me) keen to see organisations respecting the difference between sex and gender.
Their policies at the moment are a well intentioned fudge. They will continue to draw fire until they realise this.

We don't have any boys/men in any of the units in our district so it isn't something that has affected us yet

If by boys/men you mean trans girls (which I'm guessing you do?) then how do you know?
If a parent registers their child under a "female" name for Rainbows or Brownies or Guides or whatever , then presumably you would take it that the child was born a girl?
Speaking from personal experience, I've known trans children for significant periods of time before realising they were trans; and then only because someone who knew them "before" has told me. Yes, it's usually much more obvious in people who have been through male puberty, but in very small children? Not so much

Look at the model of the NHS situation.

A woman was raped on a women's hospital ward by a male identifying into that space as a woman.

The hospital denied for a year that the rape had happened, on the grounds that no male was on the ward.

CCTV and witnesses have eventually forced them to admit to reality, it's a case Baroness Nicholson is working on and has mentioned in the HoL.

Policy is that you just deny. And deny. And insist reality is what you say it is. And when females are hurt in the process, you deny that too. This is what GG has signed up to.