Why are women so complacent re. trans nonsense?

Of course i understand the issues with mixed sex dorms having worked in the sector for many years, but thank you for being patronising. The poster has said (unless I'm misunderstanding) that she left the organisation because she did her own personal risk assessment and decided it was best to leave than to work with a trans female child?? The only risk assessment i can think of where that might become a real issue is predominantly around residentials and spaces that are single sex only where children would be unsupervised etc which I've stated is easily managed by provision of a separate room which is what most trans children would want anyway. So to me, the decision to refuse to work with a trans female (or trans male child) is excluding them. They are applying to girl guiding because they are trans and as per the organisational stance fit the bill to be there as they are living their life as a female child. So refusing to work with them is because they are trans. They wouldn't be asking to use the service in the first place if they weren't.

Yes, I think this quiet retreat is happening everywhere. If it continues it will be a massive win for misogynists and a catastrophe for women and girls, for future generations.

Encountering an aggressive man wearing a dress in a women’s toilet made me less willing to go out. I realised I’d started calculating how long I could stay out without needing to pee, and avoiding events that would last too long.

I’m now making a conscious effort to stop this, and grab my life back. I refuse to have my life diminished by misogyny. But it’s difficult.

Of course they can be safely accommodated.

this isn’t about trans kids. It’s about the safeguarding ALL children

if you read my post. GGUK explicitly expects us to take sexually mature males and females away, sharing the same sleeping and washing facilities and we are not allowed to tell anyone.

GGUK don’t define trans as anything other than ‘anyone who says they are‘

if you can’t think through what problems might arise then you shouldn’t be doing youth work.

Even if you DGAF about the girls in that tent… what if that poor trans kid gets falsely accused of sexual assault or rape by some evil scheming teenage girl. We are told how vulnerable trans kids are. Doubt that’s going to help them.

or what if (and tbh, we were little shits, and we’d totally have done this) smuggling a boyfriend in under the guise of them having transitioned so we could have a week away with them. We were all New Romantics, so the boys had bigger hair and more eyeliner than the girls at that stage. Parents discover this, maybe a teenage pregnancy and I’m in thr shit for allowing it. Except I’m not allowed not to allow it.

im not prepared to,end up at the centre of a court case for a bloody voluntary organisation who have made it clear that if I raise ANY issues. I’m on my own.

i do technical risk assessment in my day job and risk being up in court having to defend decisions I’ve made. I know I can defend them. And my employer has my back.

The difference in position between anything involving gender and …. The rest of the world is stark. And I want no part of the harms that will be done.

But don't say they can't be safely accommodated.

which literally no one has said. What everyone has said is that a teenage boy identifying as a girl belongs in either the boys dorm or in their own room

Absolutely no one has said “ooooooh no all trans children must be excluded”

It's one thing to feel that a particular young person is a threat to others due to behaviour or past history, its another to exclude them because of how they present and because of their appearance and gender identity.

Nobody has said this, ever, as far as I'm aware. Concerns are based around mixed sex dorms, in this context.

Because you do understand the problems posed by having mixed sex dorms, I assume?

Well said, @wellies54. It’s also true of teachers, health professionals and anyone in contact with children.

I wish your statement could be displayed on the wall of every school and NHS building in the country.

"obviously it is the older, experienced thinkers and planners that are more likely to spot the looming issue and self select out of it" and this is the exact type of undermining, passive aggressive and insulting language that shuts other women down when they disagree with you.

I can assure you that I'm highly experienced in youth work and have been working full time in it for many, many years. I've had to navigate this as has everyone else in the field. Calling yourself an experienced thinker actually says a thought about what you think of women who either disagree with you or who are younger.

But excluding vulnerable children because you think they must be a threat if they're trans is not it.

It's not because they're "trans", it's because they're male. Please stop obfuscating and pretending it's some sort of prejudice against "trans" when it's actually about biological sex.

There are absolutely ways to accommodate trans young people safely and comfortably though. As a youth worker I regularly need to bring mixed groups away and we're just more careful with how we plan things like accommodation, sleeping arrangements, bathrooms etc to meet everyone's needs safely and appropriately. It's one thing to feel that a particular young person is a threat to others due to behaviour or past history, its another to exclude them because of how they present and because of their appearance and gender identity. Either the young person is known for harmful behaviour in which case you risk assess and either manage the risk or the trip is unsuitable for them to attend, or they've no history of harmful behaviour in which case there is no reason for them not to be considered safe to be on a trip. That's the risk assessment that happens for every residential, every day trip etc etc in every other school or youth service. Your assumption that because a young person is trans that they must be in some way harmful to the girls in your group is very unfair unless there's been past behaviour to make you think that way. And again, you'd only know this if the parents disclose the young person to be trans. If they don't 'pass' accordingly. So really that comes down to whether you feel risk planning within the guides is done properly or not. But excluding vulnerable children because you think they must be a threat if they're trans is not it. And just FYI not one of the trans young people I've ever worked with has felt remotely comfortable using the same dorms as non trans young people of the same bedroom. They wanted and needed privacy for changing etc and requested their own room which was easily enough catered for. If you're not comfortable working with trans young people then I agree you probably can't be in youth work at the moment since that's a huge part of many young people's narrative at the moment. But don't say they can't be safely accommodated.

Thank you @ArabellaScott

some of the falloff is probably post—covid inertia. But that would be easy enough to overcome with a bit of a push. If there were any leaders. But, obviously it is the older, experienced thinkers and planners that are more likely to spot the looming issue and self select out of it.

I have huge admiration for those leaders opting to stand and fight back. But I have too much going on, and guiding was a ‘nice to have‘ for us. I just don’t quite care enough about it for this one to be my particular hill. but I do have my hill picked out.

I have a trans identifying child and I am gearing up to fight tooth and nail that they get the same standard of evidence—led treatment that literally everyone else is entitled to expect.

Yep. I'd also say that women will withdraw from other things like:

Submitting work to certain outlets, applying for grants/funds/opportunities, applying for work at certain organisations.

Countering that, we may find women quietly volunteering in other areas where they are able to make an impact. And networking with other women. And setting up new organisations, groups, etc.

Women have always known how to organise, and resist.

This! There have been several threads from women who have stopped using their local gym because TW are using the women’s changing rooms & when they ask fir gym to do something they waffle, hand wave away and refuse. So those women just stopped going. Now how many women have just quietly self excluded?

how many women have quietly left women support groups on fb because TW have been admitted making it no longer for women?

how many women have quietly quit their women’s team because they’re now expected to play with & against TW?

Most women won’t make a fuss, they don’t complain to management, they don’t take up legal cases - they just quietly leave

I don't think calling a transperson by the gender they prefer is asking too much.

Twenty years ago I would not have thought this was a particularly contentious demand. Unfortunately these days such an apparent simple request is not a request but a demand, and a demand often loaded with an 'or else'.

Also I just realised I did a big rant upthread, apologies.

My point was that lots and lots of people avoid or are 'complacent' about politics and social issues.

Some people are willing to put in effort to try and improve society and change things, some don't have the resources, or time, or will. I wouldn't ever judge someone for not getting involved; god knows it would make for an easier life! I reserve judgement for those who actively work against women and children and fairness and safeguarding and equality.

Bolleauxxxx I'm really sorry to hear that. I know locally our Brownies and Guides have quietly folded. I wonder if it's related.

This is the silent effect that will be hard to quantify. How many women self exclude from services? How many groups will lose members and eventually quietly fold? How many people are withdrawing from certain situations, avoiding certain organisations, groups, places - just stopping?

What are women losing, do we even know?

So have I, most recently a few weeks ago. This was not someone weaker or more vulnerable than me.

For those who say that they, or those they know are unaffected….

i was very active in girl guiding. The rules changed — it isn’t single sex anymore. It is single gender. Been discussed ad infinitum in here. GGUK won’t tolerate dissent. Faced with the possibility I’d have to take a sexually mature male on a camp, to share with sexually mature females (guides and rangers) and would NOT be allowed to mention this to parents.

i did a personal risk assessment and thought…. Naaah. Fuck this. And just quietly stepped back. Citing personal reasons. I have a busy life like so many people do so no one questioned it. Three other long standing leaders in my district have similarly eased themselves out. For the same reason.

the rainbow, ranger and guide units all folded for lack of leaders. The brownie pack is in danger similarly. We’re rural, it’s a long drive to the nearest one now. So that’s perhaps 50 girls a year now NOT getting the benefits of guiding. No pack holidays, no camps. Us leaders were keen hikers. We used to teach the girls map reading, navigation, survival stuff, a huge range of genuinely useful outdoor safety skills.

you probably are affected … you just don’t know it. Yet.

(And I was also a referee for a contact sport that categorises by gender. Not sex. I still follow the refs Facebook groups. Matches are being cancelled due to lack of officials. But I can’t think why)

Women saying no to men is a hate crime.

But women on here saying 'erm, hang on, the single sex exemptions in the EQA 2010 are being disregarded by lobby groups giving incorrect advice and so women are self excluding from services they need, women in prison are being incarcerated with violent, male sex offenders on the behest of an official policy endorsed by the Scottish Government, and women's sporting records are being decimated by mediocre male athletes' is somehow the other end of that 'extremism'?

Yes. We often see people trying to claim that a woman on here 'misgendering' a man is the exact equivalent to, say, rape and death threats that women get.

Exactly.

If you've been watching this issue for a while you won't fail to see the political implications and entanglements.

For example in Scotland, we have a current Tribunal of a Rape Crisis Centre that previously had a Green MSP as CEO, discussing rape victims being gaslighted and lied to.

Yes, women have suffered because of these policies - women have been turned away from accessing support, excluded, smeared, labelled 'bigots', and a woman lost her job.

(Which is undeniably wrong and awful - hence the Rape Crisis Scotland statement that throws ERCC under the bus in a transparent attempt to evade responsibility.)

What is also concerning is how a cabal of people operate at the head of various government funded organisations, working closely with the Scotgov, acting as experts, responding officially to consultations, supporting/propping up policy, making statements in support of the government. How the police are involved, the judiciary, etc.

And one might note that journalist has been imprisoned for reporting on a Scotgov court case, for example. The Green MSP was found to have breached parliamentary rules for failing to declare her interests. Etc.

This is corrosive and damaging to our democratic institutions, it erodes trust in our society generally, imo it's a sign that politically things are very rotten and need to be exposed.

Then there's the organisations like LGBTYS, who are currently being investigated by Police Scotland for safeguarding breaches.

Etc. Etc. I could go on for hours.

Anyone who suggest that this is just a matter of 'be kind' or some very broad brush ideas about 'gender' is either woefully under informed or being incredibly naive, or both, I'm afraid.

I whole heartedly agree with you, and I say this as someone who probably on the other side of the fence than most here.

And attacking women (physically as well as verbally) at Speaker's Corner, LWS events

And blockading entrances to public buildings to stop women watching films (University of Edinburgh, 3 times)

And announcing to a cheering crowd that terfs 'deserve to be punched in the face' (Sarah Jane Baker)

And seen elected representatives standing smirking under a sign which said 'decapitate terfs' (Glasgow event)

And forced women out of employment (various ET's)

Surrounded venues and banged on windows and walls while women talked about women's issues, shouted abuse at attendees of a completely different event because it was in the same vicinity (various WP events)

And of course this - www.terfisaslur.com

Understanding that sex isn't an attitude, a feeling, a performance, a costume, or body parts repurposed or purchased à la carte and that it can't be changed doesn't make a person hateful, just sane and tethered to reality. Onnce we accept transgender ideology, the “logic” pushes it down a path where we have to reject child safeguarding, evidence-based medicine, biological reality, women’s rights, and LGB rights, in order to remain consistent.

This sums up the objections perfectly.

We are so used to people changing themselves; skin colour lighter darker, younger, older it’s hard to understand that biological sex is an actual immovable fact.

And that makes you lesbians. I'm a lesbian. I'm allowed to say this.

I ask you to stop colluding in the lie that tells butch and non-gender-conforming lesbians that they're men. They are not. You should be proud to be lesbians. If you aren't, you're homophobic.

Pretending that one of you is a man in order to reap the advantages of appearing to be straight is deeply offensive to all the lesbians fighting for lesbian existence, let alone rights. It's also the way they do things in Iran. Do you really think Iran is progressive?