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!

as a commissioner with a county and region role that I've held for many years

And you're still only in your early 20s according to the thread you started yesterday? Impressive! Or....

I'm giving the poster a wide berth now. I'm taking my safeguarding responsibilities seriously.

Yep. Started my division role at 16 as young leader advisor so say in on the execs. Then when I hit 18 I got my county role. 21 I became division commissioner and 22 I got my region role I'm 25 in a couple of weeks.
My mum was division commissioner from when I was 12 till 17 so she would hold the execs in our home. (Flat so pretty useless soundproofing) so you heard it all that way as well. She then held county commissioner.
Run a rainbow and brownie unit myself since the age of 18 and helped at a guide unit since I was 20.

Is that good enough for you?

Gosh, what another unusual yet convenient turn of events!

If that's true you've made it even easier to identify yourself haha

To be fair to Squid, it's not unusual, especially when guiding is in the family, for girls to do young leadership then train to be an adult leader ASAP once turned 18. Many areas don't have lots of volunteers to take on commissioner roles so and those that are tend to be older so young ones are snapped up.

@squidpid if, as you claim, you have permission to disclose details of abuse as part of safe space training or similar, then I should probably point out that Mumsnet is not a safeguarding training session. I'm sure whoever gave you permission didn't do so with the intention of it being used to score points on the internet.

And you still haven't addressed why some males are exempt from basic safeguarding measures, or why it's ok to exclude girls or remove their chance to experience residentials (a key part of Guiding and a big draw for most young members) rather than deal with safeguarding issues effectively.

@BatShite

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..

Devils advocate would state that if you have drunk the kool aid and you believe that Trans women are women and trans girls are girls you really have to believe that trans men are men and trans boys are boys.

So they shouldn't be there due to being boys.

Although it doesn't always seem to work that way.

Hence my reply of sexual things can and do happen in girl only spaces but you wouldn't expect to have to inform all the parents that girl A was a lesbian or that the leader is a lesbian. Therefore the argument that something sexual could happen is not relevant as it can happen anyway!

It's supremely relevant. Because 98% of sex crime is committed by males, not females, whatever their sexual orientation. And most of the males who commit sex crimes are heterosexual and most of their victims are female.

We also don't let minor children of the opposite sex share without a chaperone because there is a risk of the male child getting the female child pregnant.

Safeguarding training should be carried out by suitably qualified trainers. And no qualified trainer would ever ask an abused child or parent of abused child to share their story in training It doesn't happen and if this story is true then said adult should be removed from their post.
It's exploitative, abusive and grossly unprofessional.

To be fair to Squid, it's not unusual, especially when guiding is in the family, for girls to do young leadership then train to be an adult leader ASAP once turned 18. Many areas don't have lots of volunteers to take on commissioner roles so and those that are tend to be older so young ones are snapped up.

Bet they don't all describe themselves as having held the role for many years when they mean 4 or 5 max though. At very best, that was a tad bullshitty and frankly, combined with the other things she claims to have seen plus the inappropriate decision to disclose both the sexual abuse and enough information to potentially be identifying if it were real, I remain cynical.

Absolutely, Gilderoy. In other circumstances I'd write it off as youthful boasting or exaggeration to gain authority. But as you and others have said, it is extremely unprofessional to share details like Squid has on a public forum. IF specific examples were used in training (I never came across this in training, only hypothetical scenarios) they were never intended for public consumption.

GG does its own safeguarding training in-house, with commissioners and trainers receiving additional training to then train other leaders. I have my doubts about some of the quality and consistency of the training, not least because it's impossible to acknowledge the mixed sex environment and train the leaders how to manage that properly.

@squidpid

Yep. Started my division role at 16 as young leader advisor so say in on the execs. Then when I hit 18 I got my county role. 21 I became division commissioner and 22 I got my region role I'm 25 in a couple of weeks. My mum was division commissioner from when I was 12 till 17 so she would hold the execs in our home. (Flat so pretty useless soundproofing) so you heard it all that way as well. She then held county commissioner. Run a rainbow and brownie unit myself since the age of 18 and helped at a guide unit since I was 20.

Is that good enough for you?

You do know that you are very easily identifiable from all that, don't you?

To that end I reported the post about sexual abuse, as each of the potential explanations would mean it's not a great idea to leave it up. I've also reported my own quoting it.

Using real girls experience of abuse to score points on the internet.
Not ok.
Not safeguarding.
Thats actually quite sick.
All of that information makes you identifiable. Which makes those girls identifiable.
What bloody planet are you on?
You should not be anywhere near safeguarding young girls, your boundaries are fucked for a start which is always a bad sign.

Did your legal team say it was a good idea to open this thread? I can’t help but think it could impact your case. Usually ongoing trials aren’t publicly discussed like this, the other party could identify you and use this information against you.

Thanks @Hairthrowaway but I have excellent legal advice.

If GG want to run as a mixed sex org they should be honest about it.
Why any transwoman or girl would choose GG over the many mixed sex orgs, including scouts, that are available raises questions.
I hope the case goes well.
GirlGuiding should be ashamed of themselves. Idiots.

It isn't a trial and there's no jury.

Good luck Katie.

mad wish my daughter was in your group. Really awesome discussions there that are so relevant.

This really feels surreal that so many leaders and parents find the current policy fine. The 'don't tell' nature is so very, very wrong in my opinion. If children are going away and sharing accommodation and shower facilities, parents should know so they can make the decision. This really is imperative with girls who are csa victims.

And yes, to try to use the lesbian card as a gotcha is homophobic.

@Winesalot
So, in your eyes, it is OK to suggest that a transwoman is dangerous because they are trans, but it's homophobic to say that a lesbian is dangerous because they are a lesbian.

I disagree. I think both are wrong. I know that I'm unlikely to convince you or the many others who feel the same way.

Maybe the reason your post struck a chord with me is the common argument that "mumsnet isn't transphobic" and you've just used the perfect analogy to show why assuming that all trans women are a danger to women is, in fact, transphobic.

"transwoman is dangerous because they are trans,"
Nobody us saying this.
Transwomen might be dangerous in exactly the same way other men might be dangerous because they are men.
Lesbians are women, so they pose the same risk as other women, ie a negligible, not non existent one.
This is basic safeguarding.
We know that gg hasn't had an abuse problem, because the leaders are women and safegurding has been followed.
Scouts on the other hand has had massive amounts of abuse because men will do anything to get close to victims.
Transwomen pose the same risk as men. So they should go through the same safeguarding processes as men.
Come on its not hard.
And even if they're not abusers, which I would argue actually any man fighting his way into a girls safe space actually is an abuser, even if they're not going to physically molest girls, like what happened to hundreds or thousands of scouts, girls still have the right to privacy and dignity away from male bodies.
We dont actually need to be being raped before we can say no.

So, in your eyes, it is OK to suggest that a transwoman is dangerous because they are trans

Not what Winesalot said. Straw man.