Girl guides are not safe. Parents beware!

Not for a while yet. this was to be expected. True believers and those who have supported or propped it all up are playing for time. They need to save face. Some of them could face legal consequences and they know it.

Presumably the GG or maybe the WI will have to be one of the organisations challenged in court? The GG with their promotion of some deeply unsuitable men to be working with girls would hopefully be a priority? They managed to piss off and alienate so many women that I'm sure the funding will be swiftly available for them to explain why their desperation to centre men takes priority over the law and safeguarding?

I don’t have twitter so went on the website to find the latest news posted. Nothing under ‘news’ and I can’t find anything to do with the what was posted as shown by @averylongtimeago (or they’ve hidden it well).

Methinks I could be sending an email.

For God's sake. Will this ever end.

I was not surprised to read this from Girlguiding yesterday evening. Basically they are going to ignore the law for as long as possible.

I agree, it does take a bit off searching, and if I didn’t know, I would assume the ‘supporting LGBT etc ‘ bit, was referring to supporting lesbians etc, not admitting boys to the movement.

I saw some of the very intense comments reacting to the TACs announcement and was surprised people were posting such things in public under their full names.

Lots of us have been saying this for a long time about the code of conduct. You only have to look at any of the comms around the activity centres or the closure of guiding overseas. It seems that HQ don't seem to bother enforcing the CoC anymore.

It's in their Equality and diversity policy too. https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/information-for-volunteers/policies/equality-and-diversity-policy/

What's sad is that none of the decision-makers managed to recognise the cognitive dissonance of imposing gender ideology on a previously female single sex organisation, whilst publishing mission statements such as:

"Girls face pressures and expectations in every area of their lives. They’re limited by gender stereotypes and face barriers to accessing things they need to feel happy. They tell us they don’t feel safe in their daily lives.

In our relaxed and welcoming all-girl spaces, every girl can be herself and feel at home. No pressure, no judgement – just fun and learning with other girls, guided by our inspiring volunteers.

We won't tell them an activity is 'for boys'. Our girls score tries at rugby, go bouldering or simply play the games that they enjoy most.

We give girls somewhere they can talk openly about what affects them and get support from other girls." [Emphasis added]

I had to look hard just now through pages of mentioning ''girls' to find this: Supporting trans members | Girlguiding
You have to look for it. It isn't clear on e.g. the Mission page Our mission | Girlguiding

@countrysidedeficit I am agreeing with you!

Yes I am aware of the issues and history, hence my choice of punctuation.

I am not going to attempt using their muddled meaningless terminology when I am commenting on sex as a protected characteristic.

Guiding was created as a single sex organisation. Many members and non-members are still of that view and don't appreciate the significance of them tweaking their phrasing. Lots of people still think "gender" is nothing more than a prudish way to refer to "sex", so won't realise the implications.

Ultimately the organisation has been misapplying the EA and its stance is unlawful, so it doesn't matter what linguistic gymnastics they've been trying to use to justify that up until now.

There's no exemption in the Equality Acct for "single gender" associations though, so they are breaking the law.

@TimeFlysWhenYoureHavingRum

Who says the whistle blower is a man? The X account is a man's account but it says 'a whistle blower from GG has been in touch' no mention of their sex.

As a charity, their entire purpose is about providing a girl-only space. That USP is the only thing that allowed the organisation to survive this long.

The organisation is already teetering for survival since the pandemic. Membership dropped off a cliff and hasn't recovered, they had to make 30% of their employees redundant, and they've had to sell off properties.

If they tried to go mixed sex, they'd fold. There'd be no point to the organisation anymore and no way they could compete with Scouts without their "girl-only" status.

How they respond to this judgment is going to be existential.

Membership is 'single gender'.
They changed the wording.
Then the meaning of the wording.

The EHRC can take enforcement action.

Their employees are mixed sex. It's the membership that's "single sex".

Sounds like some of the FB posters need to be reminded of the code of conduct.

I’m guessing they have men working at hq .

If they are a single sex charity (albeit "trans inclusive") why is this "whistle-blower" an actual man?

I think there are two key differences between Scouts and Guides on this right now. Scouts recognise that there are two sexes and Guides don't. Scouts have long needed to figure out how to accommodate those two sexes and Guides haven't.

However, both are similar in that individual leaders are the ones making the granular decisions you're thinking about e.g. whether Blue should share with Freya or Fred. In either organisation, it's possible that a captured leader could create a mixed-sex sleeping arrangement without telling anyone. Or that a captured parent could put a child into a group without declaring their true sex.

I'm a Scout leader for ages 10-17 and, in my county, I think it's extremely unlikely to be happening. Safeguarding policies keep adults (age 18+) and children (age 17 or younger) strictly separate. Anyone in a position of power (e.g. a young leader working with younger kids, like a 16 year old working with Scouts aged 10-14) must have separate accommodation from the kids they're working with.

As I said up-thread, Scouting is a welcoming home to young people who don't fit into other places. Some of these young people have blue hair and pronoun badges, and rather rigid thinking about rules: I get the impression that they take their Scouting and safeguarding responsibilities seriously - and that they are keeping themselves and others safe by maintaining sex-separated sleeping arrangements for themselves. I can't be sure - noone can, while so many people are still confused the difference between sex and gender - but that's what I think is happening.

Good question. I'm not entirely sure - probably depends on what kind of organisation you are. Government bodies must comply - it will be a requirement in their legal framework. Either explicit or implicit.
For example where I work, we are occasionally directed by another Govt body to do certain things. We know there's no teeth to the request but we try very hard to meet those requirements.
Otherwise I imagine it's going to be directed by Court action. If someone feels that they're being discriminated against they can follow whatever complaints processes exist and if that fails they can take it to court.
Risks being if a body is found to have been discriminating they will be fined - plus reputational damage.

Are there any consequences for being in breach of the Equality Act?

To my mind, the GG mandate was for a girls only organisation. The SC have deemed that means biology. GG cannot admit trans girls and women without opening themselves up to discrimination claims from men.
It's going to be a painful and embarrassing climb down but equally I think cooler heads will breathe a sigh or relief.
The vitriol on the FB page was not surprising but TWAW just doesn't cut it now. The GG must cede to the SC ruling.

Th comments on the GG Facebook are wild!! They are nearly all ‘we must be trans inclusive’ and a couple of very gentle pushbacks - just stating what the law is, so they’ve turned off comments so that no-one feels ‘unsafe’. Never mind the girls that might feel unsafe about being tricked into mixed sex situations without their consent or knowledge! They don’t seem to realise that saying that ‘trans women and girls’ are male is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Some of them want the people who’ve tried to explain the law to be ‘investigated’. And I’m ashamed that I’m not brave enough to say it. I did not think it’s sunk in yet that if they admit some males that have to admit all of them, however they identify.