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.

*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.*

But it has repeatedly been pointed out that either they are not accessible whilst changing as they may be located in a different part ogf the building or that the children are not allowed to use them.

Not relevant personal problems, but ones that are totally unrelated to this issue.

I've seen you derail a number of threads in this way, Weetabix. It's really quite rude and arrogant.

Regardless of the reasons for the Scots becoming mixed sex, the point is that they did not pretend that they were remaining a single sex organisation.

That is what the GG's are doing, and that is the problem as it permits no discussions around the needs of girls, legal rights, safeguarding etc etc.

But it has repeatedly been pointed out that either they are not accessible whilst changing as they may be located in a different part ogf the building or that the children are not allowed to use them.*

For the last time, it is illegal to deny a child the right to change in a cubicle (no matter the location of the cubicle) if it is requested.

There is already legislation to cover that.
Legal requirements, enshrined in law.

10IAR

You are wrong.

There are disabilities that affect processing and language

There are indeed.

You have no difficulty arguing, or indeed being offensive, nor in understanding some points but not others.

Selective. You understand the points you agree with, but not the ones you don't.

Weetabix, the reason why I thought English might be your second language, is because there is a well known saying about you cannot enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

It means the person you are speaking to does not have a credible argument, despite thinking they do.

Your derailing, projection, and misogyny is not a credible argument as to why parents should know if the guides are mixed sex.

Hence the saying.

You taking it as an indictment on your medical condition, is weird, since no one knows about that.

If your inability to debate this rationally is because of a mental condition, you should say so.

You are wrong.

Prove it then.

I've been waiting for about 16 pages.

Oh and I'm not wrong.

If your inability to debate this rationally is because of a mental condition, you should say so.

Really? I didn't realise that we had to declare medical history in order to post on here. And I don't have a mental condition (wtf) thank you. I take high dose anti epileptic drugs for a medical condition. They slow my processing ability down so that I find it hard to keep track. Is that ok? Do you have enough information now?

You are the one saying it is law, you point us to the relevant legislation.

I am a licensed theatre chaperone. I look after up to 12 children at any one time. Children are segregated from the age of 5. I am not allowed to allow an unaccompanied child to the toilet. If someone needs to go, we all have to go. Thats just one example in child performance regulations. Most dressing rooms don't have internal toilets.

Most schools restrict access to toilets for supervision reasons.

But only to keep track of the things you disagree with?

Yup got it.

Comefromaway RTFT I have already. Two separate acts, one UK one UN.

No idea about child performance, not what's being discussed. School was specifically what was being discussed in that instance.

But only to keep track of the things you disagree with?

No not at all. I can't keep track with multiple posts, especially when they straddle two pages, or when several different points are raised.

But you know, keep going. Keep taking the mickey. If it makes you feel like the bigger person by mocking me, rather than actually answering questions that people have asked.

They slow my processing ability down so that I find it hard to keep track. Is that ok? Do you have enough information now?

Are you serious? You've been talking absolute bollocks on this thread in post after post. Projection, making stuff up, blaming girl children for the scouts failing, an absolute pathological refusal to understand it's an informed consent issue, and derailing it as a platform on which to beat your 'girls should have individual privacy' drum.

If you are taking medication that can explain some, or all of that, you absolutely should say so.

Otherwise people will just think you're an idiot.

Weetabix, you've had your questions answered, many times, by many different posters.

You choose to attack and belittle, yet hide behind medication when you're called out?

It's not on.

As I said, you have had questions answered. You just didn't like the answers and now you're actually being quite offensive by playing the victim.

Yes, you either join in the discussion, which is robust on this stuff because a lot of people see it as very important, and put your point across without dropping in after 30 pages that you have processing issues, or you don't.

You don't get to post the guff you have, some of which is really quite offensive and untrue towards girls, let people waste their energy engaging for 800 posts and then once you have run out of arguments say 'oh but I have processing issues'.

I get the feeling you are rather enjoying this. Grim.

Well I've searched and searched and can only find the School Premises Regulations 2012 Act that says suitable changing accommmodation and showers should be provided for pupils aged 11 years or over at the start of the school year. Nowhere (even in the best practice guidance) does it say there must be indivividual cubicles available for changing.

Not my question, the question about the law around changing cubicles.

And if anyone is being offensive it's you.

I haven't insulted you or your parenting - as you have mine.

Projection, making stuff up, blaming girl children for the scouts failing, an absolute pathological refusal to understand it's an informed consent issue, and derailing it as a platform on which to beat your 'girls should have individual privacy' drum.

I'm sorry if you don't agree. These are my views. I've not blamed girls for scouts failing - where did I say that? I said it wasn't right that girls joined a boys group when they already had a group of their own.

And where have I made stuff up?

As for girls needing privacy - I stand by that. My dd stopped eating at school because other girls made fun of her because of her changing body shape. This was when she was 9. There was no privacy other than separating the girls from the boys. I don't think that is enough. And the justification used was the arguments that I see time and again on these threads - that as long as girls are separated from boys that's all that matters. It isn't all that matters and by reducing a privacy argument to just sex it lets organisations off the hook.

But to me the crux of the matter is that Girl Guides (which claims to be a single sex organisation) is being secretive and not open about its policies, unlike the scouts where although mixed sleeping accmmodation is permitted (I bet its not mixed changing though) they clearly take the views of the young people and parents into account and risk assess each situation.

Openess is the cornerstone of all safeguarding. And the GG are not being open about these matters.

Yes, you either join in the discussion, which is robust on this stuff because a lot of people see it as very important, and put your point across without dropping in after 30 pages that you have processing issues, or you don't.

And I haven't done that. I have put my points across. I called someone out when they thought they'd be clever by posting a mocking comment. Closely followed by another poster asking if English is second language. I answered those comments.

The issue is that no one is allowed to disagree on these boards. There is only one voice allowed to speak. Hence why it is called an echo chamber on these matters. You say that you are bothered about the well being of the children. That is only around one very specific point though.

Some posters finally agreed about privacy only after I brought it up But but but... you told me it wasn't you that brought it up!

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

"Hhmm. Nice disabilist attitude there."

Oh! oh... please make it stop, I have the giggles now!

I'm not comfortable changing infront of anyone, but infront of a male person would be a hell of a lot worse than a female one. I don't see why a discussion about males in female spaces has become 'some women abuse too' and 'girls might not be comfortable in female spaces'. Both are true but kind of, nothing to do with the topic at hand? There are many problems with many things, but it does seem only in discussions around girls/womens rights are we expected to do the whole 'NAMALT' type dance.

Also I have both a son and a daughter, and I do not take any of the '98% of sex offenses are committed by males' or discussion of rape stats at primary schools as an attack on my son.

NAMALT the things never tend to make sense to me as a defence. Because basically, if you are not like that, hen its not about you anyway and noone claims all males are dangerous, just that the huge majority of dangerous people are male.

And its not always about danger, its just privacy tbh too. Yes some girls don't like changing infront of anyone but that doesn't mean we should make it worse for those girls and others by allowing a free for all.

The amount of people who think this is a problem with 'trans kids' is astounding. Nope, the trans part is not an issue. Would be happy with transboys, who are female. Its the male part thats the problem, and the lying and covering up by GG also. I acdtually emailed them about this a while back and they assured me when I asked about it being single sex that it was 'single gender'. I said I don't care about gender and they kept waffling about gender and 'girls only'. If they really believe mixed sex is the way to go, why hide this?

Now now, MN posters. No sense of humour please and for fuck's sake, polish your crystal balls!

The Echo Chamber demands it, thou shalt obey!

There are many problems with many things, but it does seem only in discussions around girls/womens rights are we expected to do the whole 'NAMALT' type dance.

I'm not trying to make it the NAMALT argument. The OP refers to a hypothetical situation. There might be a trans girl present which could, if they are present, create a privacy issue.

However, there definitely will be lots of other girls there who will be expected to get dressed and undressed in front of each other because it is expected. It takes too much time to let them go and change in the toilets and so the expectation is that they have to go along with it. And it is more of a pressure when you are told that you are being silly, we're all girls.

I don't see why it is so controversial to say this?