To ask if you are OK with your daughter's subs being spent on this?

[KatieAlcock]

I've just come to update you on my case against Girlguiding, where they expelled me for raising safeguarding concerns and for asking why we had to believe in inner gender identity to be a leader.
Girlguiding have spent AT LEAST £35,000 and probably more like £100,000 of the subs you pay for your daughter to go to Rainbows, Brownies or Guides, on defending a case against me, a committed leader who wants to make sure girls are safe and leaders have freedom of expression.

Full text of my update in the next post so as not to bore you to death!

And here is someone clearly using the law to get access to women. www.womenarehuman.com/transgender-perv-spied-on-young-girls-then-demanded-access-to-womens-prison-marie-dean-nee-gary-dean-marie/

To make matters worse when the Guardian reported on this story they only referenced his history of burglary not sex offending. That’s a national newspaper deliberately misleading its readers about this poor trans person who only wants to be in prison alongside women because they were sad and gender dysphoric. Not because they are actually a raging paedophile and sex offender. Why would the Guardian mislead you like this ? If you didn’t know about this how many other stories don’t you know about ?

the trouble is as always that what GG sets out is circular

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/running-your-unit/including-all/supporting-trans-members/supporting-trans-volunteers/

"Some Girlguiding roles are only held by women - such as unit leader. These roles are open to all women, including trans women and non-binary members who were recorded as female at birth, who can make their Girlguiding Promise"

so they are open to all women and men who say they are women

"You should not ask if a volunteer is trans and it may be unlawful to do so"

and so i presume you could not tell any parents if a guide leader was trans

I mean if GG said "look we're mixed sex now" that would be honest but they're not, they're saying they're single sex

Why are there two threads on this? So tedious.

The guides need to make clear what their policy is. If parents aren't happy then they should withdraw their children. If the guides are operating within the law then I don't see why they should be sued.

But they aren't operating with in the law.

Self identification is not law. And legally a child cannot have a grc so are legally their birth sex.

That’s why they are being taken to court. The plaintiff argues they are not operating within the law. Stonewall law is not the law of the land thankfully.

Thanks for posting the link to the UK Feminista/Warwick University study ErrolTheDragon.

@Binterested

That’s why they are being taken to court. The plaintiff argues they are not operating within the law. Stonewall law is not the law of the land thankfully.

Yes, this is rather the point, is it not?

www.boltburdonkemp.co.uk/abuse-claims/where-does-abuse-happen/scouts/scouts-abuse-map/

Scouts does have a problem with pedophiles infiltrating their service on occasions this map proves it.
When you google abuse in girl guides you get 0.
If guides allow self ID men who identify as women that is 300,000 of the UK .
A small % are bound to be pedophiles because male pattern offending doesn’t change due to transition and there is bound to be an overlap.
I can’t see why they are being wilfully blind to this.

Just don't send your child to an organisation or volunteer for an organisation whose policies you don't agree with.

This is missing the point I'm afraid. The point is that every single female only organisation has been targeted to become mixed sex by a political lobby, with those organisations entering into denial on basic safeguarding, and this is not ok. If there were some female only organisations left intact for girls then it would be less of a problem, but there isn't. What happens to the girls who cannot attend mixed sex organisations I wonder? Could it be they just get excluded from everything? Is that an improvement in social progress?

The safeguarding thing is very simple, and reframing it as transphobic helps no one.

Male helpers, male children of guide leaders etc are all fine to go to overnights and camps etc within clear safeguarding guidelines that mean they cannot share some spaces with female children in GG's care during this time.

Standard safeguarding.

If one of those males however self identifies as a girl or woman, those safeguarding boundaries cease to exist.

What has actually changed in terms of safeguarding? What is the difference?

Is it the case that when a male self identifies as a girl/woman, that all safeguarding risks are immediately vanished?

The policy also states that parents should not be told if a male child will be sharing these facilities with their daughter. Which throws up safeguarding issues against normal policy there too, not to mention an interesting question as to why this should be seen as desirable, since it prevents the parents making risk assessments for their children, or informed choices in the normal way organisations usually respect parental responsibility.

Katie, I think I know the policy here too, but how should girls uncomfortable and unwilling to share a sleeping space or shower space with someone they perceive as male be handled? Is it equal in the care, consideration, respect for bodily autonomy and feelings as to the care to be extended to the male person?

Bambini, calling a woman you don't know a hateful bigot for stating a neutral fact demonstrates everything that is wrong with the GG - and some other women/girls' organisation - stance on this.

You don't win the argument, or protect trans kids, by pronouncing everyone you disagree with a bigot.

"Trans girls are girls" is a meaningless platitude, designed to stop critical thinking (that and the verbal abuse).

A trans girl is biologically and legally Male. That is a neutral fact. Not a value judgement.

Why are some males treated differently to other males on the basis of their personal beliefs or identities? Is that a good basis for safeguarding (and by safeguarding I also mean bodily autonomy, privacy, comfort), that some males are excused from usual safeguarding protocols?

I have very little tolerance for this sort of nonsense. Everyone should be subject to the same procedures - all adults must have a DBS check (no one is saying that all adults are a threat by insisting on this), all males should have separate sleeping/changing/washing facilities. No exceptions.

I appreciate that this might distress a trans girl but it can be handled sensitively and within the law as laid out in the Equality Act. What people like you never seem to consider is the feelings of the other children who are impacted by this. A girl may like her trans friend very much. They may be best friends. Lovely. If they knew each other pre transition, it would be entirely understandable that the girl doesn't want to change her clothes in front of the trans girl, especially once puberty starts. Girlguiding's current position is that the girl either removes herself (and risks being called a hateful bigot) or, more likely, she just doesn't go on residentials. Excluded by her own movement. How progressive.

@FredVonRad

Why are there two threads on this? So tedious.

Not compulsory to read or comment on any thread y'know...

@Michelleoftheresistance The policy also states that parents should not be told if a male child will be sharing these facilities with their daughter. Which throws up safeguarding issues against normal policy there too, not to mention an interesting question as to why this should be seen as desirable, since it prevents the parents making risk assessments for their children, or informed choices in the normal way organisations usually respect parental responsibility.

^ although we can't tell parents you will find an awful awful lot of work, planning etc goes into this. Our constant constant thoughts are for safeguarding etc. We don't just ignore it.
9/10 times you will find that the girls are fully aware of a member is transgender due to the nature of the safe space the organisation creates.

Please don't be so silly to suggest that leader don't understand safeguarding concerns and we can still act within the guidelines that we are provided

Oh, I see the offensive post was deleted.

This is Katie's post and I don't want to derail it (this is Helen, by the way) but I do want ton say this. I didn't know Katie until all this started. I have got to know her a little, and met her family. She is a kind and dedicated woman and as far from hateful as anyone can be. She is committed to child welfare, and her professional background in child psychology gives her an additional insight into these issues.

Good luck, Katie

@squidpid would you be able to share your Region guidance - perhaps remove the Region name first if you're worried?
The guidance from HQ as @Kit19 says is that no trans member should have their trans status revealed. So, if you are asked to do separate safeguarding for men who identify as women, that makes me very happy (because male people should all be subject to the same safeguarding no matter how they identify), but I suspect either you have the wrong end of the stick or your Region is more cautious than HQ (and a volunteer who followed Region guidance could potentially get in trouble).

[quote squidpid]**@Michelleoftheresistance* The policy also states that parents should not be told if a male child will be sharing these facilities with their daughter. Which throws up safeguarding issues against normal policy there too, not to mention an interesting question as to why this should be seen as desirable, since it prevents the parents making risk assessments for their children, or informed choices in the normal way organisations usually respect parental responsibility.*

^ although we can't tell parents you will find an awful awful lot of work, planning etc goes into this. Our constant constant thoughts are for safeguarding etc. We don't just ignore it.
9/10 times you will find that the girls are fully aware of a member is transgender due to the nature of the safe space the organisation creates.

Please don't be so silly to suggest that leader don't understand safeguarding concerns and we can still act within the guidelines that we are provided [/quote]
What about when they go on campus with multiple packs? They may know everyone in their own pack but they are unlikely to know others.

In one of these threads there was someone who fostered a girl who had been a victim of sexual assault. She had to take her out of GG/Brownies because of this policy. (As I recall she was told to though not sure by whom). So that is a girl who desperately needed this taken out to suit men.

Our constant constant thoughts are for safeguarding etc. We don't just ignore it.
Oh, absolutely, and I have lots of good friends who continue in Guiding and who I know will be doing this.
But there are points at which your personal safeguarding meets GG policy and one must budge. That's why I was removed.
If you have a girl in your unit who's been sexually abused by a male child and her parents need to know if there will be a male child on the next residential.
And you are going on a joint residential and you are not allowed to ask the other leaders if they have a transgirl in their unit.
You are stuffed and cannot promise that parent that their daughter will feel safe.

If you are joining with another unit for a church hall sleepover (I used to do this kind of thing quite often as I ran a small joint unit so would have e.g. 5 Rainbows) and you will be sharing sleeping space with the girls and you personally do not want to share with a transwoman. You aren't allowed to ask.

If you have a Muslim Rainbow whose parent would never in a million years allow her to share sleeping space with a male adult she isn't related to. You can't ask.

If a transwoman wants to join as a unit helper, you know they are male because you have eyes, and the girls ask why this man is called Amy and wants to be referred to as "she" and the girls keep calling her "he". You aren't allowed to say anything (except suggest the girls need re-education). If the parents haven't met her, the girls may well just say "I don't like Amy" but not why (particularly younger ones - Amy may be perfectly nice and really good with the girls but the girls may just be confused and feel gaslighted).

@KatieAlcock think you've got the wrong end of the stick.
I said that the members themselves talk and 9/10 times the transgender member reveals this to their peers. Lots of members also attend the same schools etc so are well aware of the situation.

Secondly the leaders are aware that the member is transgender and the safeguarding issues that surround this. We never ever discriminate but a lot of planning goes on when thinking about camps etc. As I say most situations the girls and parents have been aware anyway as they all talk etc.

You don't need to reveal to parents to plan safeguarding measures.

I'd be very interested to know what age you are. We did a lot of work within our region when this was first announced and found (from our region only so not representative of all) that those who did not agree with the inclusive policy were 50+ whereas those under the age of 40 were unanimously for the policy and had no issues at all.

Would you expect parents to be told if a guide was a lesbian?

Lesbians aren’t a threat to girls. Men are.

"Would you expect parents to be told if a guide was a lesbian?"

That didn't take long, did it? Sorry for butting in Katie, but really @squidpid can you hear yourself?

This is not about sex or sexuality. It about consent and privacy and bodily autonomy for female people. Including lesbians.

You seem to have a problem with both lesbians and older women. How progressive of you.

FredVonRad, the other thread says it was created because this thread was taken offline by Mumsnet. Mumsnet forums are moderated and some posts, like Bambini’s just now are removed. And we all know sometimes whole threads are deleted.
The rules aren’t always obvious, even to Mumsnet employees as new banned words and concepts are added. Mumsnet has lost advertising for permitting us to discuss this at all so it’s understandable that mods are nervous.
In this case Mumsnet decided on balance in favour of women talking freely and brought the first thread back. So two threads, this one the first, and another, perhaps with more cautious language.
Anyone can ignore both!

@AgnesBadenPowell The point has been brought up about sharing accommodation in a sleepover/camp/pack holiday situation. Therefore if people are that scared that something sexual would go on then that can also happen with girls 🤷🏼‍♀️

@KatieAlcock sorry missed your second bit.

Personally we don't have a church hall that accommodates an overnight stay however whenever we have done a division wife sleepover/camp/pack holiday event we have always kept sleeping arrangements separated into your own units.
The questions around Muslim girls we have provisions put into place for them anyway as our girls have very strict needs that they must follow. If I knew it was a issue to share with a transgender member I wouldn't put them in the same accommodation it's as simple as that.
If you know things like this apply you as a leader plan accordingly. We simply wouldn't go to a big church hall if it was available to us but rather go somewhere that the sleeping quarters are separated.

Serious issues are discussed over on “Feminist chat” but there is a very active thread at the moment covering everything from space hoppers to seals and orca.
This is some of the roolz but other roolz seem to appear based on complainats, usually not from actual active users, and often not made to Mumsnet, but instead to advertisers... www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy