AIBU to be sad that my DD can’t go on a brownie sleepover?

[Only13percentleft]

NC’d for this as it is identifying.

My DD is a Brownie and loves going each week with her friends. Her Brown Owl has asked if the girls would like to go on a region organised sleepover where lots of Brownies sleepover at a theme park and then have a fun day on the rides together.

A bit of back history first. After receiving the Girlguiding email in September (about the inclusion of trans women/girls in the organisation) I wrote to Girlguiding asking if they would still be offering single sex sleeping arrangements (as they are now a single gender organisation) as I didn’t want my DD to be sharing with the opposite sex on residentials. They ‘reassured’ me that they would look to accommodate any request that helps a girl feel more comfortable saying that ‘this has included organising separate facilities for anyone who needs them.’

Fast forward to this sleepover, only 4 months later. I aske d Brown Owl if she could guarantee single sex sleeping accommodation for my DD. She contacted Girlguiding who are organising the sleepover. It has taken them nearly 6 weeks to come back to her but the long and short of it is that they can’t guarantee single sex sleeping accommodation. They’re going to be sleeping in large marquees with lots of different people from different units.

I’m really sad for my DD who now cannot attend this event. She needs to be in single sex sleeping accommodation and this can’t be guaranteed.

And if anyone asks why I’m posting this now, it is to make other people aware of this situation, especially as sleepovers are being organised for the summer. Girlguiding do not make it explicitly clear that single sex sleeping accommodation is not their default position. They do not say on their permission forms that you may be sleeping in the same space as someone of the opposite sex. Leaders are also not allowed to tell you if this is/is not the case.

Good grief! You are STILL MISSING THE POINT!

Why so hung up on young people and sex?

That is only one of a myriad of issues with this.

In England and Wales in 2017, over 13,000 people were convicted of sexual offences.

120 of them were female (this would also include trans women btw) which by my reckoning leaves over 12,800 who weren't female.

But aye, let's keep going with this PC pish eh?

But women still do commit crimes which is why exactly the same safeguarding procedures apply to them as they do men.

No. 98% of sex crimes are committed by men.

There will be plenty of lesbian girls in the GG movement.

So? Women are much much less violent than men. It's the risk of sexual abuse by transwomen (who are as violent as men) that is the issue here.

But if you're worried, just go with her as a volunteer and then she won't miss out Read OPS earliest posts.... she has a specific reason why her DD cannot go... it is not wholly OPs decision!

Lesbians aren't men without a dick and they do not behave like men just because they are attracted to women.

Ffs

The point here is the safeguarding procedures have been ripped up in order to appease pressure groups!

Why aren't people more suspicious of groups that directly contravene safeguarding procedures for their own gain?

It's so obvious, and yet.....

Oh for fucks sake. Lesbians are women!

@N0rdicStar for the millionth time, this isn't just about sex, consensual or otherwise.

And yes, safeguarding procedures do apply to everyone equally. But I thought we didn't need them because anyone with a clear DBS poses no risk at all? Make your mind up!

There will be plenty of lesbian girls in the GG movement. Are you suggesting they’ll all be at it when the lights go out?

Like I said before, unless you have any evidence that lesbians are more likely to commit sexual assault than heterosexual women are then this is both a pointless statement to make and a homophobic one.

Lesbians are women therefore commit sexual offences and violent offences at the rate as heterosexual women do (aka, rarely).

Why people always insist on having to specify that the hypothetical predatory women in these scenarios is a lesbian is beyond me. It is nothing but thinly disguised homophobia.

You’re being very patient, Agnes, but I think looking for logic or coherence from that particular source is going to be fruitless

Lesbians are women therefore commit sexual offences and violent offences at the rate as heterosexual women do

I think it might be less actually, as alot of women convicted of sex offences were doing it under control from men in various different ways. I'm on the hoof today but there is a study which shows why women are in prison and it is mostly because they committed offences due to mental health problems, drug problems, prostitution and other reasons mainly under the control of men in some way. boyfriends/pimps/etc.

You're right Donald. I don't think Nordic is arguing in good faith. Best ignored.

I am constantly flabbergasted at mental gymnastics people with perform to avoid the obvious - that trans girls and women are Male. We've had a full house: women are violent too, what about lesbians (relying on that hideous stereotype of lesbians being sexually aggressive), insisting that everyone accepts gender identity as fact but making no allowances for anyone else's strongly held beliefs (how tolerant! How inclusive!), DBS check are the panacea of safeguarding, deciding on behalf of children that privacy and dignity don't matter.

I'm not a mother. I don't think for a second that the male children in my family are threats and I love them very much. It's still not appropriate for them to share mixed sex tents/loos/changing rooms, at least without all parents knowing and consenting. gender identity is irrelevant in this context and children need to understand that other people have needs too. Sometimes those needs conflict and a balance must be found.

The rate of crimes may be less but women still do commit crimes hence the same safeguarding procedures towards women as men. Schools don’t say oh I’ll Google a study and not bother CRB checking all the women staff. They are checked because they are still a potential risk. And a woman who wanted to commit such a crime would as attracted to GG as much as a man would. Ie all women adults are still a risk albeit a small one.I thought going by some on here a risk however small was still a risk.

Oh and do give over with your homophobic accusations. Simply pointing out that if you are insisting trans children are going to be attracted to girls enough to cause a pregnancy due to being attracted to girls( big assumption) then surely you can apply that argument to girls attracted to girls. You don’t like that? It’s just young boys and trans you think it’s ok to accuse of sexual aggression?Then you’re guilty of hypocrisy.

I think that GG has been clear that it is a trans-inclusive group
Nope, I just looked at the gg pages. No where in any obvious place is the fact that trans girls or trans women are actively welcomed and included.
Possibly in the tiny print somewhere.
Who reads all that guff?

120 females Vs 12,800 + males convicted of sex offences in one year.

Tell me again how it's women?

Also, if you can't see that men have already used trans rights in order to gain access to victims then that's your own fault for not doing your research.

Because the information is all there.

You're so determined to be "woke" you're half asleep!

Simply pointing out that if you are insisting trans children are going to be attracted to girls enough to cause a pregnancy due to being attracted to girls( big assumption) then surely you can apply that argument to girls attracted to girls.

You do understand how babies are made, right?

It's long been accepted in Guiding that girls who fancy girls may have or start a relationship on a residential. GG has suggestions about how to talk to girls about it.
Difference is, the parents of both girls know that there are girls on the residential.

It's also long been accepted that girls on an openly mixed sex residential (e.g. Guides attending a Scout Jamboree) may require contraception and/or a talk about contraception. Again, the difference is, the leaders know there are boys there, and so do the parents.

I never said the pregnancy would be a result of sexual aggression either. In fact I made it quite clear that the pregnancy would most likely be a result of consensual sex. And if a teenage girl did fall pregnant on a guides trip after they allowed a boy (and legally and biologically trans girls are boys at this age) then I do hope they're ready to deal with the backlash.

Since girls can't get each other pregnant then comparing it to two lesbian girls having sex is moronic.

I think you're being silly, but if you want to take a political stand at the expense of your dd, that's your lookout!

Gg stance on trans guides has been widely reported. The assumption should be there will trans girls there. Not hard.

*That should say, after they allowed a boy to share a room with the girl.

Nordic, your remarks about lesbians were based on the premise that they are more likely to offend against children than other women. I’ll be charitable and accept, as seems likely, that hasn’t completely dawned on you. But it’s still untrue an homophobic.
You’ll have to work a bit harder for those women cookies, eh?