Transgender 4 year old wanting to join girls only group

[Helpwithdivorce]

So I’ll preface this by saying im very much a live your life however you please as long as you’re not hurting anybody kind of person. However I run a group, which is just for girls aged 4-7.

I’ve had a request from a parent for their child to join. The child is 4 and the parent said they are transgender. Now here is my predicament, which may be rightly or wrongly.

Firstly I feel like this mother is just out to cause drama, there are other very similar mixed gender groups, there is no reason this child needs to join a group only for girls.

Secondly I simply do not believe that a 3/4 year old child knows that they are transgender. I feel this is being peddled by the mother, again feeding the drama.

What would you do? I really don’t want this mother in my group, but the group is ‘inclusive’ so I can’t say no you can’t join.
Currently I’ve just ignored the request.

If you advertise as a single sex space - for a legitimate aim - either the aim is legitimate or it is not.

If it is legitimate then yes you can exclude the opposite sex.

Girlguiding calls it single sex so that girls can thrive without the presence of boys due to sex and socialisation. It would be unlawful for them to then include boys because this misleads the parents of girls.

If girlguides wants to become mixed sex, they are welcome to. But they have to state they are a mixed sex organisation now.

Just ONE boy = mixed sex not single sex.

No you misunderstand.

The Equality Act says you cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of their protected characteristic. Sex is protected characteristic.

The Equality Act has many exemptions that do allow you to discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics one of these exemptions being the single sex exemptions. the SSE state that if there is a legitimate reason to exclude one of the sexes you can.

If Guides wishes to only admit girls it can only do so on the basis that it is applying the single sex exemptions. If it didn't apply these it would have to admit girls and boys. It cannot admit some boys and claim single sex exemptions.

The Supreme Court ruling confirmed that wherever man, women or sex was referred to in the Equality Act it meant biological sex not GRC.

It is you who has misunderstood, if a group wants to use the single sex exemption in the EA10 then it can only do so if it is actually single sex. Otherwise, any other males could bring a discrimination claim if they apply & are not admitted (if trans identified males are admitted).

You don’t have to run something for only girls or only boys (or men/women) but if you do it must be based on sex or you lose the protection of the EA10 exemption.

From that I'd either interpret:
Sophie likes trucks and has told mum she wants to be a boy and to be called Thomas. Maybe seeing that other girls like getting muddy and hitting things with sticks will help Sophie to come out of this phase.
Or
Thomas likes putting on tutus and mum has said "Oh Thomas do you want to be a girl, girls wear tutus" and Thomas once said "well maybe" and mum asked "so what's your girl name" and Thomas sensibly said "Thomas" and hasn't mentioned it since and will be very put out to be sent to Rainbows.

Now this has been clarified, I would suggest first a) not responding for a few weeks over the summer b) waiting for GG to get their backside into gear and if they do c) asking mum "do you know we only take biological girls", can I clarify if Thomas is your daughter's chosen name but she is a girl? If the answer is yes, I'd be inclined to take her into the unit when you have space.

I just wouldn’t reply tbh.

So much moaning about groups run by volunteers.

Yes it does.

it’s been shown that at single sex schools girls uproar of maths, science and other “male” subjects increases dramatically.

Anecdotal but I went from a girls primary where we all played all sports, took all subjects, and it never once occurred to any of us that our sex made us less able. To a mixed secondary where teachers and pupils alike reinforced the woodwork for boys, arts for girls message. I did take woodwork and later physics and was the only girl. It was fucking difficult to go against the grain and be stuck with 29 boys and a male teacher, all of whom seemed to think I was less capable purely because I was female.

it means at football girls get a fair shot of the ball and don’t defer to the physically stronger boys who perceive girls as weak or having a lesser ability.

single sex groups reinforce stereotypes if they are used to do so, with girl groups crafting while boys do adventure sports. But it can be enormously influential when you remove the social aspect and girls can try “boy” activities without the pressure and assumption that they can’t.

• *(xviii) We therefore conclude that the provisions of the EA 2010 which we have discussed are provisions to which section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 applies. The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex. Any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate (para 264).

Can you link to the part of the Equality Act where you believe it says single sex spaces can admit some people of the opposite sex, exclude others, and still be single sex?

If you don't believe me that you have misinterpreted the ruling, perhaps you'll take it from a former Supreme Court Judge:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lord-sumption-trans-biolgical-woman-supreme-court-b2735828.html

My 14 yo had a Disney princess phase when he was 4. Girls dressing up box is more fun, frozen was everywhere. Used to spend ages on the trampoline wearing an Elsa dress belting out that song. Unsurprisingly he grew out of it.

Much healthier to be told that’s boys can love all things sparkly or fluffy.

Genuinely, why do you think it's not necessary?

It's very clear, the op has said the 4 yo is a boy with a boys name.

@DeskJotter
Your interpretation of the SC ruling is one that briefly took hold just after the news broke. As far as I can tell this alternate version all stems from a retired SC judge who gave a radio interview immediately after the judgement when I assume he hadn't had time to digest it. I haven't seen him give further interviews or defend this position, nor seen any other legal authority agree. Even the GLP are against the ruling precisely because it does exclude trans males from women's spaces. I think it is clutching at straws by people who don't want the law to be as it is.

I'll preface my comments by saying a couple of things:

(1) No way can a 4 year old boy be transgender and in no meaningful way can they be said to be proposing to undergo or undergoing gender reassignment

(2) Boys shouldn't be allowed to join girls' groups

(3) The Girl Guides' position on this is daft.

However, to everybody blythely saying that the OP should just say "No - he can't join - I must follow the Supreme Court decision orI will be breaking the law", is it as straightforward as that?

My understanding is that it would only be breaking the law to allow a boy into the group if the existence of a girls only group was "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" in the first place.

The mere fact that a girls only group exists doesn't necessarily mean that that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitmate aim.

Is everybody here 100% confident that if the OP tells the 4 year old's mother to buzz off that she is acting wholly within the law?

Personally I think she would be as I think a girls only group is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, but several posters on here have already questioned what is wrong about allowing a 4 year old boy to join a girls group, and it would seem that the GGs see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to join either.

I feel great sympathy for the OP and I'm glad I'm not in her shoes.

I'm concerned for the OP that she is being set up by this mother for a fall. And I'm concerned that the GG organisation won't back her up and will throw her under a bus.

Having said that I think the OP's best course of action is to pass the buck up through the GG hierarchy for them to deal with. And if she's unhappy with their response, resign.

I suggest you look at the actual ruling rather than a Judge who did not even know the correct name of the act:

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2024-0042

Maybe the former judge should take it up with the five current judges who made the ruling

Well are you game for opening up a Squirrel Dray, if its so fucking annoying?

Squirrels were only started around 2021 post covid hence there are so few of them. Lots of Scout groups really struggled post covid, to get their existing sections back up and running.

I can't talk about England but Scotland indoor sports were allowed when groups weren't. Hence lots of kids moved on, lots of leaders left, groups merged, lots of shuffling and changing.
Lots of new leaders trying to step in (who are learning as they go along) Its not been an easy couple of years.

The thought of trying to get Squirrels up and running when the existing sections were struggling was the last thing on many people's minds.

The Independent was poor on this.

Better sources than that.

The former judge is criticising your understanding of the ruling, not the ruling itself.

“Thanks for your interest. Our Rainbows waitlist is is currently over one year. That is not a guaranteed duration as we have to balance the group for ages and abilities. Rainbows tends to be oversubscribed for the number of available leaders.
“Your nearest Squirrels/Beavers groups are x&y, who may be in a better position to offer Thomas a space.”

She needs reporting to social services, what is the world coming too

My understanding is that it would only be breaking the law to allow a boy into the group if the existence of a girls only group was "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

If it wasn’t a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim then girl guides would have to change their name to simply ‘guides’ and become a fully mixed sex organisation.

Then the mum wouldn’t want her son to join as it would no longer be sufficiently ‘affirming’

I guess your vast legal knowledge outweighs that of a former Supreme Court Judge.

I'd say that you need to take advice on this as you're unsure, and put her request in your "never to be opened" section of admin.

That poor child.

I don’t think it’s clear if the child is a biological female calling herself Thomas or a biological male, called Thomas, who “identifies” as a girl.

OP, do you actually know?

Lord Sumption is 76 , and retired as a judge in 2018. His opinion is frankly of no more significance than anyone else’s in legal terms, as he has no official position.