This puts me off Girl Guides.

[NormaStanleyFletcher]

I always expected Girl Guides to be a fully female environment. And WTF about not telling parents if it isn't?

"Thanks for your email, and taking the time to read our updated equality and diversity policy. If an adult self-identifies as a woman then they are able to undertake all adult roles in guiding including becoming a Leader. This means that they may also, if they wish, make their Promise.

With regards to sleeping arrangements at residential events, it is important to work with the trans individual when organising accommodation rather than making assumptions or arrangements without consulting them. Some people may not feel comfortable sharing accommodation so in this case an alternative option should be provided. As membership of Girlguiding is decided based on gender identity (the way a person self-identifies their gender identity), there is no requirement to provide any documentation to evidence their transition. Please also be advised that it is not best practice to tell parents that a trans person will be attending a residential event.

You may find our Let’s Talk about Gender and Gender Identity resources helpful to support any conversations around this topic, should the need arise. At the back of each document, there are also some links to recommended external sources which will also provide some helpful advice on this.

I hope this is of help, but if you have any further queries, please don’t hesitate to get in touch."

One is admitting transgenderism is bollocks.

The other is laying claim to being a woman when they have no such right or experience which justifies it.

I'd have thought the difference was fairly obvious tbh.

I'm not sure why someone being trans would affect your DDs safety?

Clearly it wont after reading some of the pp's, who are actually in GG's, posts but that wouldnt help the hyperbole that the transphobic FWR board use as a dogma almost

To the pp who said her view of trans issues had changed since reading some of the threads on here I concur and as usual after reading loads of threads and learning that a man/trans if they have a penis are defacto predators stating anything different receives the 'can you point me to a specific comment' posts

Ah yes, hyperbole. Daft women getting their knickers in a twist as usual.

Why shouldn't we be allowed to choose to have time where there are only members of our own sex there? Surely that's reasonable?

You can. Just invite some of your friends to your house and shut the door.

Leaving aside the 'risk' arguments for a moment.
And leaving aside the gender identity debate.

Who here truly, honestly supports the idea that people of the female sex should be PREVENTED, using legal sanctions if necessary, from EVER being allowed to experience a female sex environment?

Who here is prepared to advocate that women and girls MUST BE COMPELLED BY LAW to be in the presence of biologically male people whenever a male person demands it?

Either you take the position of "I'm not bothered about single sex environments myself, but I don't support the legal enforcement of males upon women who don't want this"

Or you take the position

"It should be illegal for the female sex to ever refuse a male person from any female group. Women or girls meeting together for any reason should be prevented entirely".

You don't have to understand why girls and women may wish to preserve single sex environments. Their reasons may be enigma to you. That is not the point.

The point is this: do you want society and the law to prohibit ALL women and girls environments without exception.

And what punishment would you like to see for women and girls who insist on grouping by sex and continue to reject gender identity for themselves?

Why are women and girls suddenly not allowed spaces without biological men and boys in? Why shouldn't we be allowed to choose to have time where there are only members of our own sex there? Surely that's reasonable?

THIS is the key thing, I think.

You can argue till kingdom come over who might or might not be a predator, or behave inappropriately.

The point is that some women and girls feel strongly about being able to spend time in groups with people of their own biological sex. That doesn't make them man-haters, or paranoid, bigots. It just makes them people who value being able to spend time with other biological women.

Yet that wish is not just being denied, it's somehow being spun so that anyone expressing that opinion is denounced as a bigoted transphobic hater.

Yy Bibble and then that man can put his case as to why the GGs should let him in, and they can decide.

Redefining female to include males and imposing this new definition on orgs like GG is completely different.

Bibblewanda - OK - I apologise if this is seen as a derail, I don't mean it to be. It is related to Guides. I'm trying to think and type at the same time.

If you would be happy with the scenario I have suggested, as opposed to a man becoming a transwoman/boy becoming a transgirl, why is there still this insistence that boys are not allowed to join Guides?

Surely that in itself is playing in to what you would call gender bollocks and reinforcing it?

Boys and men cannot access their interests without identifying as female and becoming transwomen.

There seems to be a desire to have it both ways. Gender is bollocks, but boys cannot pursue female interests as they must be kept away from girls and girls must have their own space. Would it not be better to welcome them with open arms and educate them on equality in the process?

MissSlighcarp: But what gives them the right to designate charitable organisations as 'female only' spaces?

Trifleorbust I think it's important that women and girls should have the right/choice to meet together without men or boys being present, if they so desire, for whatever reason. Not allowing this is a massive curtailment of women's human rights and freedom of choice.

Why are women and girls suddenly not allowed spaces without biological men and boys in? Why shouldn't we be allowed to choose to have time where there are only members of our own sex there? Surely that's reasonable?

A few people I've met in RL that have that opinion also seem to go along with the 'why should that just be a mens space' guess its all about them.

OK ageingrunner so set up a group that provides that rather than try and force another volunteer run group to provide it when they have chosen not to. The world's your oyster.

OP I find it incredibly sad that GG are now basing their definition of women and girls on sexist stereotypes.

This is what I don't like.

GG was set up as a single sex organisation, not a single gender organisation. Gender is about presentation, not biology; just a lot of stereotypes about women.

If GG is going to be single gender rather than single sex then they may as well cut out all the 'empowering girls and women stuff' and go mixed. It's the biology that means girls are not empowered, not the presentation.

I'm happy for men and women to present however they wish and I'd be happy for my children to spend time with transwomen/girls and transmen/boys in an activity group like this. But I may as well send them to scouts then if GG is about the sexual stereotypes rather than the biology.

I wonder if the fact that GG being an all girls thing is 'part of the problem'.

It is setting itself up as a place for girls to belong. A place for girls - and as such, reinforcing differences between boys and girls - for understandable reasons.

But at the same time, a trans girl (or a boy) may see themselves as belonging to that group, as identifying with people in that group and then that reinforces the notion in their heads that they are different and that they should belong in that group - therefore that makes them a girl.

Having separate spaces and treating girls as different to boys- although needed - can possibly reinforce the notion in children's heads that they should be a girl or a boy because that's where they feel comfortable and fit in. If a boy feels comfortable playing and hanging with girls and sees there is club only for girls, that's going to reinforce the view in his head that he is a girl.

I'd be a bit suspect about the intentions of a TW who chose (what has been a long standing famous female organisation) to become a member of - knowing that many of the women and girls involved might have issues with it.

And not necessarily for deviant sexual reasons but just that they were possibly making a stand politically in breaking down female organisations or groups which would exclude males who think they are women. Or just for complete validation that they are completely female. I think soneone who insists on access to an all female group is probably a bit selfish and a narcissist. I'd question their reasons.

ageingrunner: Sure, but not whenever and wherever they want when the organisation in question has a different policy. If they want to be outside the company of men they can do this, but in spaces they own, not public and quasi public spaces.

In both cases the girl's feelings appear to be irrelevant and they only get what they really want when it happens to coincide with what the male wants.

Not really. The boy in your first example might feel perfectly comfortable changing in front of the girl, the girls feelings take precedence. The transgirl in your second example may feel uncomfortable, but having identified as a girl may need to just get over it too.

Gender is bollocks, but boys cannot pursue female interests as they must be kept away from girls and girls must have their own space.

What are female interests?

I'll throw that right back atcha Barbarian and say that trans women who want to run groups for teenage girls are free to set their own up, without hijacking a long established organisation for their own validation. I wonder how popular that would be among parents though? 🤔

Another Guide leader here. Just because a person identifies as another sex doesn't make them any more of a sexual predator than anyone else on here. Some of you may have had children so you have someone to abuse? Don't like that? No. Of course not.
Guides Leaders are never allowed to be with the girls on their own, never share sleeping rooms or tents and never share showers with the girls.

I'm proud to volunteer for an organisation which is progressive enough to include people who identify as women. Identifying as a woman isn't as simple as turning up in a dress and saying "I'm a woman now", there's loads of psychologist appointments before you can even get that far.
Your children are in no more danger than they are if they go to cubs/scouts.
Children are very accepting of situations and it's usually the prejudice passed from adults which causes problems. We have male helpers in our unit and no-one seems concerned that they wanted to get involved in an all female movement.
What's the problem? Trans does not mean sexual predator - be a bit more inclusive and open minded.
I can understand why some of you are concerned, it's fear of the unknown and worry that something will happen to your kids, but try to educate yourself about what it all means and then base your arguments on fact rather than fear.

ageingrunner Thu 19-Jan-17 10:03:06
"I always laugh at the idea that men won't bother putting a dress on in order to get easier access to women or girls. Lots of paedophiles base their whole career choice around being in contact with children! Ffs putting a dress on is a lot easier and quicker! What makes people think they won't do it?!"

But seeing that (as mentioned by experienced Girl Guiders), Girl Guiding already involves male helpers, takes place at camp sites which also contain male groups, children do not share tents with adults, adults are never alone with children- why would anyone go to the bother of spending 5 quid on a Primark dress? What will it get them in the Girl Guide movement?

Basically, this has never been an all-female environment, any more than a school is. So why haven't women been campaigning all along for special female camp sites, no male helpers, schools without male teachers etc etc?

base your arguments on fact rather than fear.

My argument is based on:

1. Transwomen are men
2. Men are statistically a lot more likely than women to assault young girls.

Fact.

Identifying as a woman isn't as simple as turning up in a dress and saying "I'm a woman now", there's loads of psychologist appointments before you can even get that far.

But yes it is. You don't need any psychologist appointments.

See GG policy above:

As membership of Girlguiding is decided based on gender identity (the way a person self-identifies their gender identity), there is no requirement to provide any documentation to evidence their transition.

Leaving aside the 'risk' arguments for a moment.
And leaving aside the gender identity debate.

Who here truly, honestly supports the idea that people of the female sex should be PREVENTED, using legal sanctions if necessary, from EVER being allowed to experience a female sex environment?

Who here is prepared to advocate that women and girls MUST BE COMPELLED BY LAW to be in the presence of biologically male people whenever a male person demands it?

Either you take the position of "I'm not bothered about single sex environments myself, but I don't support the legal enforcement of males upon women who don't want this"

Or you take the position

"It should be illegal for the female sex to ever refuse a male person from any female group. Women or girls meeting together for any reason should be prevented entirely".

You don't have to understand why girls and women may wish to preserve single sex environments. Their reasons may be enigma to you. That is not the point.

The point is this: do you want society and the law to prohibit ALL women and girls environments without exception.

And what punishment would you like to see for women and girls who insist on grouping by sex and continue to reject gender identity for themselves?

^^This

I really don't understand how people cannot see this happening. Whether you think men are predatory or not. Predatory men go out of their way, taking extraordinary risks, to pursue their victims. They risk prison every time. If people think that they won't merely don a dress, they are naive.

Whether you agree with that or not is immaterial. Women are being told it will be against the law to gather together.