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!

Why do people continue to attempt to conflate the safeguarding risk that males present to girls with homosexual relationships? It’s deeply homophobic.

Indeed.

As usual its not the 'trans' part thats the issue here anyway. Its the MALE part. I still find it shocking that they would try to 'manage out' any girl who started identifying as a boy..despite them still being girls..

@Whatisthisfuckery

So Katie is bringing the case because:

GG have changed their policies to allow the admittance of male children and leaders into their single-sex organisation as long as they say they identify as female.

Because GG have a policy that any male, child or adult, who says they identify as female, is allowed to share intimate spaces such as sleeping arrangements and showering facilities with its biologically female members.

Because GG have a policy whereby biologically male adults who identify as female are permitted to provide intimate care to female children.

because GG have a policy whereby they do not and will not inform parents of any of the above when it applies where their children are in the care of GG.

Because GG are allowing admittance of males who identify as female to their organisation, but have a policy of disallowing females who identify as male.

Because GG have a policy of zero tolerance towards anybody raising concerns abut all the above, ad have, and will continue to dismiss anybody who does so.

Because GG, a charitable organisation who function as a result of donations from members of the public are using vast amounts of money defending the above, and in order to do so they are spending vast sums of money requesting extra hearings and paying a very expensive legal team to argue bitty little points in order to intimidate the other party and increase her costs in the eventuality that she loses.

YANBU OP, and quite honestly anybody who thinks otherwise is either naive, malicious or willfully ignorant.

Absolutely agree with this and Kate

@compulsivesnacker

Why do people continue to attempt to conflate the safeguarding risk that males present to girls with homosexual relationships? It’s deeply homophobic. There are loads of lesbian and bisexual guiders and youth members. No one gives a shit. It’s really fucking irritating. Lesbians are not a threat. Men are. Ffs. Attempting to correlate the two is pretty desperate.

There are two possibilities. They have failed to understand how homophobic that is, or they know and are fine with it.

Would you expect parents to be told If a guide was a lesbian

Would you ? If so, why? Has someone here said that?

I mean, the whole lesbian comments are utterly homophobic but to answer your points as others have said women pose a significant less risk than males. Also, you know, the threat of pregnancy is also a little bit of a concern surely?

@GabriellaMontez already addressed this a couple of posts down

@KatieAlcock 100% behind you with this. Teacher here who runs residentials & understands effective safeguarding.

& I'm from the dark side - was a keen BP Scout back in the day - they were a breakaway from Scouting Association that has always been mixed. Our particular Guide troop in the 80s was a bit too much baking & sewing for me, whereas BPS was all about bivvying in bin bags!

From all I hear GG had moved on enormously from 'girly' stereotypes in recent years. This is such a regressive nonsense. Happy to do a bit of digging!

I wonder why I or any girl would have to disclose a history of sexual abuse by a male (or extremely unlikely) a female, to be given adequact safe-guarding in a organisation and group I should be safe-guarded in anyway and is understood to be single SEX. Honestly, some of the points on this thread make me despair that there is any understanding of safe-guarding or female trauma at all.
Katie, again I thank you for taking this on.

@squidpid

Let's also not forget that there is nothing that says you HAVE to go on residentials with your units. If you are unable to find a working solution to your particular needs then you simply do day trips instead. It's not hard.

So, once again, females have to kiss out on opportunities.... Great 👌

Miss out*

So let me get this straight. Saying women can abuse is homophobic but saying all men are a threat by default ergo all trans women are a threat isn’t transphobic or highly offensive🤔

Let's just fucking close all the female only spaces....

Bye bye girl guiding... No need for female spaces...

Bye bye single sex schools... Obviously they're outdated and trans-exclusionary.

Bye bye your sports teams...there's no such thing as female sports now, I wonder whether males or females are faster and stronger... I wonder if you're be happy knowing that a female could never be able to compete at the top of women's game... 👍

Bye bye abuse shelters ... Naturally males should be allowed in there. Because obviously to allow a sage space for victims of abuse is trans-exclusionary, so forbidden. And that abused females should just accept that makes should be present, no matter how terrified they might be about that, or knowing there's a male means they won't use that shelter 👍👍

Bye bye female only wards... obviously you don't care that you're surrounded by males on a ward, you won't feel at all bothered by having to share toilets with them...

Bye bye sex distinct bathrooms... Presumably you all send your kids into male toilets and male changing rooms with no worries or concerns...

@D1shUp

So let me get this straight. Saying women can abuse is homophobic but saying all men are a threat by default ergo all trans women are a threat isn’t transphobic or highly offensive🤔

Nobody is saying that being trans in of itself is a threat.

People are saying that WITHOUT PROPER SAFEGUARDING, males through self ID, could access female spaces and go on to abuse...

Fucks sake.

Wanting a SAFE female only space is NOT TRANSPHOBIC

Men have a sexual crime rate 100 times that of women. That’s why these are not comparable scenarios. But then I think you know that.

How ridiculous. I don’t know about your units but so much thought and effort goes into planning and upholding safeguarding no matter if there is a trans girl or not. It’s stupid to presume otherwise. Leaders are not stupid and can and do handle a situation should one occur.
The idea that because you have a trans girl you are facing abuse is ridiculous and transphobic

Saying women can abuse is homophobic but saying all men are a threat by default ergo all trans women are a threat isn’t transphobic or highly offensive

There isn't a need to make it complicated.

If safeguarding policy is that all males and all female children must be provided with separate facilities in this situation, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with sex separated spaces politically.

The issue is that when a male, excluded by safeguarding, says they identify as a girl/woman - what has actually changed that justifies removing that safeguarding barrier?

I understand the ideological desire - it's to respect the person's choice and sense of self, it's to provide them with the identical recognition you would give to a female person.

But the person has not changed sex. The reasons for sex segregation have not changed.

Should safeguarding for girls be put aside in order to prioritise showing respect of a male's identity?

Should safeguarding have included in it, clauses that to protect some male people's feelings loopholes will be open and everyone will rely on the good chap principle and cross their fingers that no female person will end up with a life impacting trauma as a result, that could have been avoided had standard safeguarding policy been applied?

And as we're talking as if increased, known risks and embarassment, lack of privacy etc for female people are just collateral damage to higher social progress for male people and this is somehow fair and ok....? Is it fair that all female children should lose all female only, sex based opportunities across the board so that a male child never has to encounter any boundaries to their personal choice of identity? Even though there are plenty of mixed sex opportunities available to that male child, and some of those female children will not be able to access anything at all if female only options are removed from them to benefit males?

Why is it that female children are just so unimportant compared to the male ones??

@D1shUp

So let me get this straight. Saying women can abuse is homophobic but saying all men are a threat by default ergo all trans women are a threat isn’t transphobic or highly offensive🤔

No.

Conflating the threat posed by a biological male to that posed by a lesbian is homophobic. Stating that the threat from biological males as a cohort is higher than that posed by biological females can't possibly be transphobic, because trans people exist in both groups and aren't being claimed to be a higher threat than others of their biological sex.

As for offensive, it's up to you whether you're upset by reality or not, but it makes not two shits of difference.

@decisionsdecision

How ridiculous. I don’t know about your units but so much thought and effort goes into planning and upholding safeguarding no matter if there is a trans girl or not. It’s stupid to presume otherwise. Leaders are not stupid and can and do handle a situation should one occur. The idea that because you have a trans girl you are facing abuse is ridiculous and transphobic

have you even read the thread?

it;s not about trans ...it;s about MALES accessing FEMALE spaces, and the LACK OF SAFEGUARDING measures to protect young members.

and about females having to lose out on safe spaces because a male wants to access them.

it;s a slow and gradual erosion.

Given that any one of us on here could be outed, hacked or doxxed, and/or our names looked up by, say, an intern, I think it is incredibly irresponsible for a poster on here who says they're in a position of responsibility in GG to give out private, personal and confidential details of girls' abuse. And yes, against safeguarding regulations.

You don't talk about actual girls and abuse they've suffered, even on an anonymous forum, if you've had safeguarding training for your role.

I'm beginning to conclude that something's not right here.

@JamieLeeCurtains not if it's already being used for training purposes by the region in question in order to explain to units how you move forward with an issue such as this. Not if parents have given permission for it to be used to educate fellow leaders.
And not if you tie it to a personal email address with all your information which for a forum like this is a bad idea

I share Jamie's concerns. I've been dipping in and out all day and something is off. Squidpid has divulged far more personal and sensitive information about various children than could ever be considered good practice.

It's just sheer coincidence that every scenario that's been raised where sex matters, Squid has been in that positions and everything was fine.

There are so many bad actors in this debate.

It's so thoroughly depressing to see people twisting themselves into knots to avoid the core issue: that Girlguiding choses to place the feelings of males (who aren't entitled to be there in the first place) above the privacy, consent, and safety of girls, then has the nerve to tell girls it might give them the privacy they need but only if they disclose abuse/religious requirements/health concerns but there's no guarantee and they might be called a bigot and a leader might share it over the internet.

@AgnesBadenPowell @GilderoyLockdown as a commissioner with a county and region role that I've held for many years. I have seen a lot and heard a lot. We have permission from parents who's examples will help leaders in training and refreshers for other leaders to divulge anonymously the situations provided.
Unfortunately the scenarios are not as uncommon as people may think and it is important that members are kept up to date at all times in terms of training.
Even when you have your face to face safeguarding training you are told the examples used have all happened this is not unusual practice.