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.

They had their own space, that girls then took over.

But the whole groups would have just ended if they did not admit girls. They didn't admit them because girls started moaning about boys having boy only space. It was because not enough boys wanted to join/not enough male leaders.

I do think boys should have space away from girls too if they chose, however the situations are different.

Girl guides blatantly refusing to admit that they are now mixed sex is ridiculous. And very wrong.

Safety and privacy can’t be guaranteed but steps can be taken to provide them to the greatest extent possible. That’s a simple concept and I’m not sure why you’re struggling with it.

Because, if you read back, you'll see the arguments put forward by other posters as to why trans girls shouldn't be included - it was safety, which was then backed away from, to be replaced by privacy because girls are ok to change in front of other girls but not in front of trans girls (who may or may not even be there).

No one says one aspect of privacy is that girls might not want to change in front of a trans girl.

The implication is that the only issue to make girls feel uncomfortable when getting changed would be the presence of a trans girl. But that isn't the case. Yes, some girls might be uncomfortable. And some will be uncomfortable regardless. But their feelings will be ignored because it's all enforced "all girls together" and no recognition that a lot of girls aren't comfortable.

But no. The only legitimate reason for feeling uncomfortable or for wanting privacy is in order to exclude trans girls.

No one says one aspect of privacy is that girls might not want to change in front of a trans girl

Yes we have, repeatedly.

Again, not our fault you can't understand.

weetabix the thing is your arguments haven’t engaged with what we are talking about. We are talking about an ostensibly single sex provider allowing trans girls but not keeping parents informed.

Except parents do know. It was everywhere in the media and isn't in the GG policies?

What parents won't be told are individual names.

They won't be told anything at all. Nor will risk assessments be done (why are trans girls exempt?), nor will the choices of anyone but the trans person be considered.

10IAR

Some posters finally agreed about privacy only after I brought it up.

You however told me that I was lying and imagining changing rooms in schools and classrooms that don't have cubicles. It was only when other posters backed me up that you changed your tune.

So no, you haven't considered other aspects of privacy for girls that aren't associated with trans girls or boys.

But the whole groups would have just ended if they did not admit girls. They didn't admit them because girls started moaning about boys having boy only space.

See scout leaders that I know tell it slightly differently. Yes numbers were down but also girls were approaching scouts asking to join because the activities appealed to them more than those on offer at guides.

I dealt several pages ago with your suggestion our arguments have changed. They haven’t.

The particular feature of their privacy we are talking about in this thread is the sharing of a tent or whatever with a trans girl. I don’t think anyone ever claimed this thread was dealing with every issue facing girls.

And don’t forget people like us campaigned to ensure trans boys could be included in guides - initially guides said they couldn’t. Somewhat goes against your implication we just don’t like trans people.

So no, you haven't considered other aspects of privacy for girls that aren't associated with trans girls or boys

You haven't considered that inserting males without consent or consideration into female spaces is a gross violation of a right enshrined in law.

You can't see past your own spiteful and misogynistic views, and are determined that males are being oppressed by females.

I haven't changed my tune at all, you have a spectacular talent for misunderstanding basic explanations.

The simple fact is, that trans rights are eroding the rights of women and girls.

And you're helping.

You also denied the existence of cubicles which was very funny and also ridiculous. You also denied that schools are compelled by law to provide a cubicle for a girl if she requests it.

So tell me, given that you deny reality, don't understand legislation, and think that men are being dominated by women, how the fuck is anyone supposed to have a sensible conversation with you?

As the saying goes, you cannot enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

The particular feature of their privacy we are talking about in this thread is the sharing of a tent or whatever with a trans girl.

But this trans girl may or may not even exist. So you can all argue about privacy issues around a person that may not even be there meanwhile ignoring an issue that absolutely will be occuring - girls being made to change in front of other girls with no accommodation being made.

It's only you saying that accomodating wishes of girls requiring more privacy from other girls doesn't happen.

Because it's against the law and cannot happen if specifically requested.

You also denied the existence of cubicles which was very funny and also ridiculous. You also denied that schools are compelled by law to provide a cubicle for a girl if she requests it.

I denied the existence of changing cubicles yes. Because you insisted that all changing rooms have them. Which they don't. As supported by other posters too.

No idea if, by law, schools have to supply a cubicle. Never heard it before and no idea, in the schools that I know, how that could be achieved. If all of the girls asked the entire lesson would consist of the girls queueing for the 2 toilets to change and change back again.

Maybe that's what they bank on. Making it too difficult to ask for it because it's "all girls together" so you're expected to accept it.

ignoring an issue that absolutely will be occuring - girls being made to change in front of other girls with no accommodation being made

I’ll try one more time. That issue is not what the thread is about.

If someone had started a thread about concern about privacy from other girls and individual changing, and we were talking about trans girls and communal changing, fair point. That isn’t what happened. That isn’t what the OP asked.

As the saying goes, you cannot enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Hhmm. Nice disabilist attitude there.

Ok lets go over this again.

If I am a 7 year old boy who wants to do "girlie" things, the Guides won't have me.

If I am a 7 year old boy who says I am a girl, the Guides will have me.

If I am a 7 year old girl who says I am a boy, the Guides won't have me.

I am struggling to see the rationale.

Because you insisted that all changing rooms have them

No I didn't, I said there would be cubicles within the establishment. Not my fault you didn't understand.

No idea if, by law, schools have to supply a cubicle

Fucking Google it then instead of arguing back with people who actually know what they're talking about.

Making it too difficult to ask for it because it's "all girls together" so you're expected to accept it

No, again, there is legal provision for this if it is requested.

So you see, there is legal provision to enshrine the rights of girls to have privacy. Which GG and all the other organisations that have drunk the kool aid about self ID have trampled all over arbitrarily.

I'm stunned that you claim your DD suffered so dreadfully but did nothing to help her find out what her rights were and how to use them.

A tad remiss no?

McTufty

So people objected to the possibility of a trans girl being present and the issues around safeguarding and privacy that this may present.

But no one is allowed to say that actually the same issues remain, whether a trans girl is there or not?

Nice disabilist attitude there

I said you were witless, not disabled. Given that I myself am disabled, as are my children, that isn't something I engage in.

Do try harder eh?

See scout leaders that I know tell it slightly differently. Yes numbers were down but also girls were approaching scouts asking to join because the activities appealed to them more than those on offer at guides.

Did they now?

And could the Scout Leaders not have said 'nope, sorry, Scouts is for boys only' and left it at that?

Or did those evil bitch girls bully the Scout Leaders into letting them join in so that they could first take over Scouts and then THE WOOOOORRLLLLDDD

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Actually, linking lack of intelligence to disability is disablist in itself come to think about it.

But really it boils down to resentment I think.

Nobody spoke up for you or your DD, so you resent parents who do.

That's the crux of your entire argument.

Oh God, I was selecting and copying comment after comment from Weetabix, to respond to. But having to delete the first one, in order to copy the next.

But then this one came up

As the saying goes, you cannot enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

"Hhmm. Nice disabilist attitude there."

I'm going to have to ask, Weetabix, is English is not your first language?

Talking about an opponent who is unarmed, is not talking about their arms...

Your post 10IAR.

So there are no cubicles anywhere in your imaginary changing rooms?

You're grasping at some fairly flimsy straws now. The two situations are entirely different, and you know it.

Nobody is telling girls they can't have privacy from other girls, in fact, that's why cubicles exist. So we can have privacy even within SINGLE SEX spaces.

Because you insisted that all changing rooms have them

No I didn't, I said there would be cubicles within the establishment. Not my fault you didn't understand.

I don't think it was me that misunderstood.

I said you were witless, not disabled. Given that I myself am disabled, as are my children, that isn't something I engage in.

Yeah, you can be disabled and still have disabalist attitudes. You're comment was an attempt to mock. Ie don't enter a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.

My medical condition affects my ability to process. So thanks for mocking.

My medical condition affects my ability to process. So thanks for mocking.

Well perhaps you should have said that.

Your utter inability to follow the argument, but project all your personal problems onto it, is not something that people should have to engage with.

Yeah, you can be disabled and still have disabalist attitudes. You're comment was an attempt to mock. Ie don't enter a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent

ODFOD. You have repeatedly denied the truth, actual facts and dislike being told you're wrong.

My medical condition affects my ability to process. So thanks for mocking

Uh huh. Mine means I find liars and bullshitters intolerable.

So who trumps who?

Talking about an opponent who is unarmed, is not talking about their arms...
Yes thank you. I do understand. I was talking about the reference to "wit" which refers to intelligence and quick understanding. There are disabilities that affect processing and language. Maybe you should consider that before mocking people for being witless or speaking English as a second language (!)