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.

The assumption should be there will trans girls there.

Trans boys are not allowed however.

The TERFy transphobic cunts that they are .

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/policies/girlguiding-policies/equality-and-diversity-policy/transgender-gender-reassignment/

Not hard to find. 2 seconds

And by they, I mean girl guides obviously.

The guides exclude trans boys therefore a TERFs and transphobes. Oh but wait....people are only transphobic if they exclude trans girls. It is perfectly acceptable to exclude trans boys. There are no double standards here at all .

To be sure I understand. Your daughter would have to share a large sleeping area with many people and one might just maybe be trans? What is the threat exactly? Your daughter doesn't have to miss anything. You are choosing for her to not go, and to be honest I'm not sure why.

Not hard to find.
Tell me - I've asked this upthread - how did you know that GG takes boys except by reading threads like this on MN?
Were you perhaps told in a really clear email as a Guiding parent?
Did they announce it as a great leap forward in the press?
No? They didn't?
Do you have a clue why that is?

And if it's obvious there might be a trans girl there then parents are free to weigh up the risks and not allow their daughters to attend. Especially if their daughters are teenagers and there is a risk (no matter how small) of pregnancy.

You wouldn't judge the girls parents if they didn't allow her to have mixed sex sleepovers. In fact most people would say it's a sensible. Therefore it's also equally sensible to not allow their daughters to attend a residential where there might be boys sharing sleeping accommodation. How that boy may identify is irrelevant.

@7Pip and @MumUnderTheMoon you haven't read the OP's posts, now, have you? Admit it.

@7Pip if you read the whole thread, the OP stated:

There are many reasons why DD could need single sex accommodation. As mentioned, it could be for religion, it could be because she’s been a victim of sexual assault, it could be because she’s a foster daughter who has been told by the LA that she must always be in this accommodation, it could be because she just doesn’t feel comfortable. It is one of these reasons but I’m not going into it on a public forum

It's a pretty big deal if the LA is insisting on single sex accommodation, with huge implications for to her and her foster parents if they don't adhere to it. Or is that just being silly?

I'd love to live in your world where no harm ever befalls to a child, where no child has ever had to deal with such awful things, where no child has ever been embarrassed about their changing bodies.

As a long standing member of guiding, it's not that uncommon to meet brownies who've started their periods and want absolute discretion and absolutely no chance of a male being around. It's not uncommon to have girls in your unit who are under LA care and may have very specific needs. It takes my breath away that GG won't do everything possible to make those girls lives a bit easier.

I posted about this ages ago, but I was sexually assaulted on Scout camp by a (you won't be surprised to hear) male teenager, when I was also a teenager.
Camp is a very unregulated environment with lots of Scouts (or Guides if it's a Guide camp) able to roam around and nobody keeping check of where they are at any given moment.
In my case it was a "thought he was nice but turned out not to be" situation so I was voluntarily alone in a tent with him, in the daytime.
I can completely see this happening on a Guide camp with a Guide or Ranger who is "just trying to be nice" (because she's had it drummed into her) to the transgirl.

And given that Brownie age boys have raped and sexually assaulted Brownie age girls in school which is hopefully more supervised than a sleepover (what with the teachers being, you know, awake all the time), Brownies are free to get up and go to the loo on their own, may not go to sleep etc. etc... it's exactly like the camp I went on.

Not hard to find. 2 seconds
But if you dont know to actually look for a trans policy.
You go by the facing pages of their website, it's not in huge bold letters, its tucked away in policies and procedures, I bet there isn't a safeguarding policy for it. Or if there is it makes the real girl (the cunty type) be re educated and sent elsewhere to change if they dont like changing in front of trans girl

The problem GG has is that by saying trans women/girls cannot be rainbows/brownies/guides or leaders opens a while can of worms about discrimination. I wouldn't have a problem with my young DD going but she is a beaver not a brownie. I also have a sister (legally female) who started life as my brother. Where do you draw the line? You can only join GG if you were born female? My sister has always been more female than male. I know some people will abuse this but how can you judge everyone by the same standards?. I do think that GG should have been more open though.

Drsprouse
I have read ops posts actually. And while she may have a valid reason to prefer her child be in same sex accommodation these weren't raised in the initial post. She was focused predominantly on the concern that her daughter would be "forced to" share sleeping space with a trans woman/girl. And I merely suggested that that may not happen and that even if it did the fact that she would be in a large communal space should mitigate any risk, if indeed any such rick existed.

Its utterly shocking that guiding has gone mixed sex by stealth. If they were honest about it it would not annoy me so much, but they fluff about with 'single gender' and 'only girls' while knowing they are mixed sex.

YANBU, and hopefully this nonsense ends soon.

it's not that uncommon to meet brownies who've started their periods and want absolute discretion and absolutely no chance of a male being around.

That's the point I've been trying to make.

People keep saying but they're only young so there's no issues, blah blah blah.

A) The guides goes up to mid teens (I can't remember the exact age) so some of these residential will possibly have teenage girls and teenage boys sharing with parents not being informed.

B) Plenty of 9/10/11 year old girls have started puberty and might like to be guaranteed some privacy.

It has nothing to do with thinking the boys/men are a threat. I love and trust my father more than any man in the world but I still wouldn't want to get changed in front of him. I remember when I was a child there was a point when I stopped being comfortable with him bathing me or seeing me in any state of undress. It wasn't because I didn't trust him or thought he would do anything. I just wanted a bit of privacy and luckily because my dad is a nice guy he respected my feelings and my decisions.

When I was a pre-teen/teen and I was in the bath/shower I would always call for my mum. My dad would certainly not have taken it upon himself to come charging in because "not all men are a threat you know". Of course he stayed well back.

I also remember on a caravan holiday as a teenager, my younger cousin kept trying to come in the bathroom when I was trying to get changed. He was only about seven himself and I knew he wasn't a threat. I just didn't want him to see me in any state of undress and luckily my grandma agreed because she removed him and gave him a stern talking to about respecting other people's boundaries.

It baffles me how people are so willing to ignore girls privacy and right to personal boundaries. It's quite sickening really.

To all the people saying the risk is low, well yes, the risk of any random man/ child being a sex offender is low, but not eliminated. That is why we have single sex spaces in the first place. Safeguarding exists to protect from low risks. There is no real argument about the fact that single sex spaces are safer for women and girls than mixed sex spaces.

I also have a sister (legally female) who started life as my brother. Where do you draw the line? You can only join GG if you were born female? My sister has always been more female than male

Yes indeed. That is exactly where you draw the line. Nobody can be "more male than female". Nobody can be legally both male and female. You draw the line either at being born female or at being legally female. Those are the only two possible consistent stances for this policy.

GG have, actually, drawn the line at being born female for non-binary children (they can join if they were born female but not if they were born male).

Otherwise, how CAN you draw ANY line? If a boy comes along and says, well, I feel a bit female, but I'd rather you just carry on calling me Barry, but I still want to join - would you let him join? If not him, what about a child who has decided to be Bernadette but changed nothing else? A child who likes glitter but was born a boy and won't wear a dress? Or one who wears a dress but won't let you call them "she"? Who is the gatekeeper here? Because individual Guiders are certainly not qualified to do this.

The problem GG has is that by saying trans women/girls cannot be rainbows/brownies/guides or leaders opens a while can of worms about discrimination

Transwomen who have a GRC have been able to be leaders (well, since 2004) because they are legally female and have a female birth certificate. Children can not obtain a GRC so transgirls are legally Male with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. There's a case that the comparator class for those children is not females, but other males who do not have the PC of gender reassignment. Males who don't have that PC are not permitted to be members. So transgirls could be excluded too. Obviously that needs to be

You can only join GG if you were born female? My sister has always been more female than male. I know some people will abuse this but how can you judge everyone by the same standards?

Yes, that's been the whole point of guiding since 1910. It's open to everyone born female who wants to join. The fact that scouts is now mixed sex is a moot point: GG and Scouts are entirely separate entities. GG members have repeatedly said they want to stay Girl only (see GG website).

The only way to apply membership criteria fairly is to use an objective measure - like sex/birth certificate. Not how Male or female someone feels.

I do think that GG should have been more open though.

So do I.

But Stoney we live in an inclusive society. One should always assume trans people will be welcomed everywhere.

Most wont give a shit re trans kids at events. Seriously on my worry radar of having a teenage girl sharing space with a trans child really doesn’t figure. The phone she carries in her pocket worries me more ditto sleeping over at friends houses with adults I don’t know who won’t gave been CRB checked, travelling in cars driven by those I have no guarantee carry a clean license......Only those that are bigoted will worry about sharing spaces with trans children, as such it’s up to them to read policies. That said they should be aware that in an inclusive society they will always be similar to that held by GG.

The problem GG has is that by saying trans women/girls cannot be rainbows/brownies/guides or leaders

Guides have always accepted trans girls as members and transwomen as leaders. This is not a new thing.

There would have been arrangements made for things like sleeping accommodations and changing facilities whilst also not excluding girls who may need single sex spaces.

Everybody's needs would have been taken into consideration and a solution found which meant everybody could be included.

The problem is that now they aren't taking everybody into consideration and putting the rights and needs of the trans girls above everyone elses.

Then there is also the issue of self identification which means a man doesn't even need to have transitioned to be a transwoman. Admittedly this will be more of an issue for leaders than members.

The girl guides policy also excludes trans boys so it is not actually trans inclusive. That part always get swept under the rug though. Something can only be transphobic and trans exclusive if it excludes trans girls/transwomen. Excluding trans boys/trans men from things doesn't seem to get any backlash and is accepted as being okay.

One should always assume trans people will be welcomed everywhere.

Why?

This thread is real lesson in ignorance. And I mean that in the purist sense.

Lesbians are not generally predators. We don't segregate because men are men, we segregate because men commit 98% of all sexually violent crime.

According to recent research (upthread) one schoolgirl per school day is raped. In the uk. That's raped.

And yes, school girls are routinely made to feel scared and uncomfortable. The report publicises rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual innuendo and jokes, all things that girls are subjected to. And yes, the report talks about girls as young as seven.

That's why we sometimes have sex segregation. In terms of the likelihood, what difference does that make when you are referring to safeguarding????

We don't say the likelihood of a predator being there is so small, we won't bother risk assessing. (Or if you think that's a good idea, think of Jimmy Savile.)

But, even if the obvious projection to this, which is girl guides becoming thoroughly mixed sex, but pretending they're not, isn't enough, then surely the stereotyping of our girls is?

Girl guides is meant to be a progressive movement for girls. Not this regressive, Victorian nonsense.

That being a girl is constituted by liking 'girly stuff'? That a boy is viewed as a girl because he is, what, effeminate, likes being around girls, likes wearing florals, baking what?

What is it about that boy that tells him he's a girl? Because he quite clearly isn't.

And, of course, buying into this gender nonsense made girl guides catch a cold. Because if they believe it, then girls who identify as boys must be boys. And yes, girl guides said they should be managed out

We can't have non-conformity amongst our little misses. It was only with massive, sustained pushback from leaders that they finally relented and said gender nonconforming girls could stay!

And lastly, the people who are advising the girl guides are the people who are going into schools and telling children to choose their gender identity based on a 1950s jelly baby spectrum. With a Barbie at one end and a G I Joe at the other.

So the number of children showing up at gender clinics has increased by 4000%. Because of this.

And the same people are telling the girl guides that they must keep it a secret.

Allowing a single sex institution that promotes girls, to tell those same girls that boys can be girls based on their preferences, is shocking.

So all these sexist twits saying it's progressive, are wrong. It's about as regressive as it can ever get.

One should always assume trans people will be welcomed everywhere.

Again, the GG policy excludes trans boys. So it is not as trans inclusive as you seem to think it is.

Plenty of male only clubs are also happy to exclude transmen but nobody pulls them up on their TERFyness and transphobia. Funny that.

One should always assume trans people will be welcomed everywhere

In that case will someone please explain to me why, until there was a huge outcry late last year, GG excluded girls who identified as anything other than a girl, including non-binary? And why was that outcry coming from women like me and not you?

GG has backed down and amended its policy so that all children with a female birth certificate can stay. The fact that it took a story in the national press and a social media storm tells you exactly how inclusive GG really is.

Yes this thread is a lesson in ignorance.Boys and trans are not generally predators.