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 you've just used the perfect analogy

Which analogy is that?

Word twisting and lies as usual.
Nobody is saying transwomen are a risk because they are trans..
Its because they are men.
And if you dont know that men in general are a risk to women and children, you shouldn't be involved in safeguarding.
If you want to pretend that men wont go to extreme lengths, including becoming teachers, scout leaders, sports coaches, clergy, doctors, to have access to victims then you're fucking deluded and should be no Where near safeguarding children.
They'll do any fucking thing.
Nothing is too much including 7 years at uni.
Mary mother of the baby Jesus this is not hard.
Keeping secrets is not safeguarding.
Its not up to guide leaders, who yes are trusted adults, but they are only seeing girls 2 hours a week, there is all sorts of things going on that you won't know about, its not up to you decide a families religious beliefs and values or whos been abused enough to warrant extra safe guarding.
All girls should be given privacy and dignity whether theyve been abused or not.
I wasn't sexually abused or scared of men, my mother was, and she would have been horrified at me sharing sleeping space with males at 11 years old and i wouldnt have been allowed to guide camps under those conditions.
Leaders wouldn't know about that, she only disclosed her abuse a year ago at 54 years old.
You're taking mothers choices away with this policy and thats wrong and its against safe guarding.
Mothers have the right to safeguard their children and by withholding vital information you are preventing them from doing that. Its not a good look.
Be a mixed sex org. Fine. But don't fucking lie to parents about it.

But all men are not a threat to women.The vast majority are of no threat at all. No adult pedalling all men are threats should be given authority of girls or boys. I would frankly not want either my daughter or son in that kind of environment.

Saying all trans women are a risk and a part of the tiny percentage of men that are predatory paedophiles by default is transphobic.

Frankly I think switching GG to including boys the way Scouts have included girls is the way to go. Trans women are protected and rightly so. That isn’t going to change.GG was formed because girls were excluded from scouts. That is no longer an issue.The world has moved on. I don’t think we should have state single schools either.

But then having mixed GG would stop some from having an excuse to peddle their transphobia.

Again nobody is saying what you think you are arguing.
Nobody is saying all men are a risk.
But enough are and unfortunately we cant tell the safe men from the rapists just by looking at them.
If you can tell the safe men from the rapists and paedophiles please tell us the answer because it would make our lives, and the lives of our daughters and younger sister so much safer and easier to navigate.
The vast majority are no threat, does that mean we give all men free access to our children with no safeguarding?
Obviously not.
Its the same for trans women.
Nobody is saying an individual transwoman poses an inherent risk by being trans or even by being a male, but they are of a class that does pose more of a risk.
Anyone who doesnt want to go through safeguarding procedures for any reason is a risk. That's a red flag.
As is any male forcing themselves into single sex female spaces when there are mixed sex orgs there to accommodate them.
If girl guiding wants to become mixed sex and they think thats the way to go as scouts did, fine, the problem, and the reason for the court case is that they are not being honest about this.
They are presenting themselves as being one thing, while actually being another thing.
Kind of ironic when you think about it.
They are taking away my ability as a parent to give informed consent or to safeguard my child in the way I see fit.

I certainly have not said that transwomen are dangerous because they are transwomen.

As at least one study has shown and there is no evidence to oppose this, they do follow the propensity to commit sex crimes at the male rate.

Or have you come across research or evidence to disprove this? I can certainly understand some confusion because at the moment their sex crimes are being recorded as female sex crimes.

Ridiculous 🙄 Mumsnet seems to be a strange place but then lots of what I read is transphobic it's laughable that you call a pp a homophobe for applying the same logic as you are. I think Girl guiding will be better off without the OPs views

The complete misunderstanding of what safeguarding is by some on this thread is deeply concerning.

If GG want to be mixed sex, that is their prerogative. But they need to be very clear that that is the case.

why would anyone create loopholes to allow abusers to have access to their victims? And that includes people who will self ID as women to do so.

If this is all that is needed, to say you are a woman and not even have to present as a woman, it is not an arduous task to do so. I have known abusers who have done so much more to be in positions of authority. Including my pervert primary school teacher who liked touching prepubescent girls inappropriately.

To ignore this is wrong.

Please report any transphobia that you see on these threads. You can be well assured that they are very well moderated by MN team and well monitored by readers searching for just that.

It is not transphobic to discuss issues around safeguarding and girl’s safety and their privacy. Particularly those that are very vulnerable and have already experienced abuse.

And I repeat. Transwomen are NOT a risk because they are transwomen.

There are already cases of men, who we are told by activists are not trans, who are using this to get access to victims. This is happening.

So let’s be clear. Men at a population level do not pose risks to children ie trans women don’t.

Men work in schools and other venues with children. They are not classed as a risk.

All adults men and women are checked for past crimes as a small number of men and women do commit crimes against children. I believe the reason settings have restrictions on phones is due to crimes committed by a woman in a nursery. Highly publicised. These men and women aren’t given access to children.

Men and women who do work with children follow procedures for their own protection as well as their charges. My dc have never slept with adults in the same room on any trip including guiding.Intimate care is carried out by two..... Re trans children the vast majority

As such the risk from a trans woman is minute. The scaremongering and whipping up if fear against the trans community is transphobic.

Do share your published evidence against the trans community Winesalot.

@raspberrydream

Ridiculous 🙄 Mumsnet seems to be a strange place but then lots of what I read is transphobic it's laughable that you call a pp a homophobe for applying the same logic as you are. I think Girl guiding will be better off without the OPs views

I would say it's laughable that you think it's the same logic, except rank homophobia isn't actually funny.

So once again for the people at the back, which evidently includes smallsc00p too after that bed shitter of a post: it cannot be transphobia to point out that one biological sex presents a statistically higher risk than the other when they both contain trans people, and there's no suggestion that the trans people in either sex class are more of a risk than those in the same sex class who aren't trans.

Execept you’re missing out the fact that the vast maj of both sexes don’t pose a threat and many of those that do will be excluded from working with children. Throw in the fact that trans women form a tiny part of the population and the numbers wanting to be GG volunteers will be even more minuscule you get almost zero threat from the GGing policy which should be applauded.

Whipping up a “your child is at huge risk from the trans community“ thread is transphobic and malicious.

@SmallSc00p in schools, boys have their own toilets, changing rooms and bedrooms on residentials. Male teachers wouldn't go into any such spaces for girls either. That's called safeguarding (but also privacy).
GG has stopped doing that for some men, but not told parents.
If GG wants to be entirely mixed, it's not what girls need in today's society, try reading the whole thread, but if it's what they want to do, it would be legal, and they should carry out the same procedures as good schools do for safeguarding and privacy.

I have read this study.

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

In the conclusion is this: ‘This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality.’ As I have said. I am very happy if you have evidence or a study that refutes this.

@smallsc00p I think the issue most people have is the lack of safeguarding. The fact is that trans girls will have a fully functioning penis that could impregnate a girl. Trans women are male, the vast majority keep their penis and there is no evidence that their crime rate is any different to that of other males and therefore you need to risk assess and safeguard against this - gg aren't doing this.

Just because your children have not slept in accommodation with leaders, others as the OP explained have and safeguarding needs to be in place for this. I'm not sure what is hard to grasp about this? Safeguarding is there to prevent abuse it isn't saying that trans women as a whole are predators or unsafe.

Why does it always come down to risk management discussions and saying males as a class are a higher risk to girls than females as a class, regardless of how they identify? It is about the fact GG lies about being single sex to parents. It is about girls having a place without boys as we all know boys change the dynamics. But no, girls should never be able to exclude boys. Biys matter more apparantly.

@SmallSc00p

Execept you’re missing out the fact that the vast maj of both sexes don’t pose a threat and many of those that do will be excluded from working with children. Throw in the fact that trans women form a tiny part of the population and the numbers wanting to be GG volunteers will be even more minuscule you get almost zero threat from the GGing policy which should be applauded.

Whipping up a “your child is at huge risk from the trans community“ thread is transphobic and malicious.

It isn't missing it out, it's understanding that it's a stupid, anti-safeguarding argument. The vast majority of both sexes don't pose a threat but we don't take that as an excuse not to safeguard at all because hey, most people are fine. And if you really thought males at a population level posed no risk and there was no benefit in single sex spaces for females, you'd be advocating for fully mixed everything always. You'd choose the mixed sex organisation, Scouts, over Guides. You'd want all hospital wards, toilets, changing rooms, prisons, all of that to be fully unisex.

And once again, it cannot be transphobia when there is no suggestion that any trans person poses more of a threat than the rest of their biological sex, and when there are trans people in both sex classes. This is basic logic, and unaffected by offended people putting their fingers in their ears. Though it's never a great surprise to see TRA ideology types centre the males over the females even within the trans category they claim to want to protect, so I can't say I'm shocked.

@sanluca

Why does it always come down to risk management discussions and saying males as a class are a higher risk to girls than females as a class, regardless of how they identify? It is about the fact GG lies about being single sex to parents. It is about girls having a place without boys as we all know boys change the dynamics. But no, girls should never be able to exclude boys. Biys matter more apparantly.

That's also a vital point and I'm glad you made it.

Men work in schools and other venues with children. They are not classed as a risk.

Have you even read what Katie’s case is about? It is about GG allowing transwomen and transgirls to be accommodated (where no other alternative is available) with girls and it is considered a breach of policy to inform parents that this may happen.

It isn’t about not allowing transwomen to participate nor is it about not allowing men to participate in helping.

Pushing aside the fact the “study” is not a highly regarded peer reviewed study but something on a site for authors who wish their work to be read I found nothing of note other than the increased risk of suicide for trans people(not surprising seeing the bigotry on here)

I take it you are referring to this-

Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls.

No mention of sex crimes or numbers. Ie you are trying to stir up hate against a section of the population.

Bring on mixed sex GG. Trans girls and women are not going to be excluded.

I’d like to see government guidelines re gender of adults on trips as regards safeguarding.

Third fiddle how about trans women knowing they pose no risk and wanting to volunteer, enjoying their guiding community the same as anybody else.

Do we have figures for the hoards of trans women lining up to snatch guiding roles for their own selfish means?