To argue that this should is not a suitable topic for the Girl Guides

[MovedByFanciesThatAreCurled]

Girlguiding is for girls, aged 10-14. So why then do they feel the need to promote this on their social media?

This week is #AceWeek - a time to raise awareness and understanding of the asexual community. So here’s a shout-out to all of our asexual volunteers and members – thank you for everything you do in Girlguiding.

The reference to ‘members’ is quite clear. What on earth were they thinking in making reference to young girls’ sex lives (or lack of them according to the focus of the Tweet). How, as an organisation, have they strayed so far? I have two boys in the Scouts/Beavers and if this came up on either of their social media pages I would pull them out. Why is it seen to be an acceptable for Girlguiding?!!

@Enb76

Funnily enough it’s NEVER expected of heterosexuals.

It's really important for homosexuality to be talked about because it is discriminated against in lots of ways and in order to fight against discrimination you have to name the issues and the fight is far from over. It's a similar reason to why lots of women are fighting for the word woman. If we cannot name the reason for our oppression we cannot fight against it.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell us what GGUK have done to mark Lesbian Visibility Week. Lesbians have been the target of a lot of violence and prejudice so surely GGUK needs to be showing solidarity with them too?

Ok so it’s a long time since I was a GG. I do remember it as quite an innocent place, this was the late 80’s early 90’s so there was plenty of sex education, teen mags, late night TV etc. But it actually seemed like a bit of a break from that at the time. I’m really not sure how this is relevant to GG. Just let these girls go camping and earn badges. They have literally the rest of their lives to worry about sex.

@nolongersurprised

I'm a 43 year old virgin who has been single since one date at the age of 16

Which is I think how most people understand the concept of asexuality. So in a workplace environment it would be helpful to use that term to describe your perpetual single ness. In the same way Tom brings his boyfriend Mark to the Christmas work do, because Tom is gay.

But other posters saying that asexual people can be in loving relationships and have frequent, enjoyable sex yet still be asexual and their sexuality should be recognised as such in the workplace. The only way of them telling you this is by describing their desire, or lack of, to others. I don’t want to hear about my work colleagues’ sexual arousal.

By this logic you would say that bisexual people should only ever be recognised as straight or gay depending on the sex of the person they are in a relationship with and that they cannot openly say they are bisexual?

If an understanding of asexuality was more widespread then it wouldn’t be necessary for an asexual person, whether in or out of a relationship, to explain/ describe their desire or lack of to others. They could simply say ‘I’m asexual’ and others would understand that to mean they don’t typically feel sexual attraction to others. There’s no need to ask anything else about what their sex life does or doesn’t look like, just as you usually wouldn’t ask or know what the sex life of any gay/ straight/ bi etc colleagues looks like either.

I don’t think anybody is saying that asexual people need their sexuality to be openly discussed intricately in the workplace. More so that it would be reasonable for them to say during a discussion of, for example, which actors in a TV show different members of the team fancy ‘actually I don’t fancy any, I’m asexual’ regardless of their relationship status, just as a bisexual person might say ‘I like John and Jane’ regardless of theirs.

Exactly - I don't care whether Jane in Accounts is bisexual. She can talk about it if she likes. If she mentions her partner "Alice" or "Bob" she can freely talk about them. I don't need to know who she's attracted to.

If someone's asexual they can talk about it if they want. I just don't really see the need for anyone to know about anyone else's sexuality. If they're in/not in a relationship I don't need to know why because it's none of my business.

You mean, the asexual people on this thread are explaining what it means?

The asexual people here explaining what it means is the one positive thing about this thread. Awareness raising in action, shame it takes widespread panic to trigger it.

None of the explanations - either the helpful, sometimes very personal ones, or any of the more questionable interpretations / simplifications of those - have come from the Guides.

It was one tweet. One "hi to our asexual members" tweet.

I cannot see an issue here.

The Girl Guiding social media account is not aimed at young girls. Young girls should not be on social media anywa. I follow the account and have always been under the impression that it is for adult members of the organisation, such as leaders, volunteers and others involved with Guides.

And even so, what is the issue? Asexuality is a perfectly valid and real sexual orientation. I am sure that many people objecting would not have an issue with any organisation 'supporting' heterosexuality.

Acknowledging that people exist in all their different forms is not inherently problematic.

Of course, it isn't appropriate for Rainbows and Brownies to engage in deep conversations about sex, however an awareness of healthy relationships and human experience is not inappropriate for teenagers, some of whom may be questioning their own identity.

Acknowledging that something or someone exists does not, by default, change another's orientation.

This just seems hate-filled to me. They were simply acknowledging and thanking certain members of their adult community, which they do frequently throughout the year.

I don't see the issue.

@User527294627

Not so much uncomfortable, but why does anyone who is asexual want others to know or care?

This is such a bigoted attitude and it comes up on every single thread about sexuality. It’s the implication that you can be any sexuality you like as long as you don’t make it public in any way. It’s ‘be gay / lesbian / asexual if you like, but stay in the closet so I don’t have to think about it’.

Funnily enough it’s NEVER expected of heterosexuals. No heterosexual has ever wanted to talk about their relationship and been met with ‘why do you even want people to know you’re heterosexual?’ Or ‘it’s fine for you to love who you like but why is it so important to you that other people know who you want to sleep with?’.

DO BETTER. This is pure bigotry, thinly disguised as acceptance, and it’s shit.

It's really not . No one gives a shit about what you do.

a horny asexual person with a sex drive

We’re through the looking glass again, aren’t we?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell us what GGUK have done to mark Lesbian Visibility Week.
One injustice doesn’t justify others. Should they have mentioned Lesbian visibility week? Yes, and mentioning that is perfectly valid. Does that mean they should ignore other minorities? No. It just means they should step up inclusivity

This just seems hate-filled to me. They were simply acknowledging and thanking certain members of their adult community, which they do frequently throughout the year

I don't know if you are aware but if certain organisations are involved then the recognition of asexuality may not even be coming from the good place you think it is.

Those of you aware of the Bell vs Tavistock case may or may not be aware that the existence of asexual people was infact the defence for robbing children of their future sexual function by allowing them to take puberty blockers..aka very powerful drugs used to treat prostate cancer.

Anyone asexual on this thread shoukd be equally concerned that their sexuality is not potentially being " celebrated " in part, not because awareness needs raising, but because if we can normalise having sex without any feelings of desire then the children and young adults who tell them drugs will see they can still have sex even when they get nothing from it and thats perfectly fine.

@FlatCheese

Exactly - I don't care whether Jane in Accounts is bisexual. She can talk about it if she likes. If she mentions her partner "Alice" or "Bob" she can freely talk about them. I don't need to know who she's attracted to.

If someone's asexual they can talk about it if they want. I just don't really see the need for anyone to know about anyone else's sexuality. If they're in/not in a relationship I don't need to know why because it's none of my business.

I think though that what a lot of straight people don’t realise is how often in ordinary and day-to-day conversation topics come up which makes it hard not to either hide/ deny or to admit/ express your sexuality.

Topics I can think of from the top of my head that took place within my (female only) team at my workplace recently include whether a new male colleague is attractive, a game of ‘shag, marry, avoid,’ a discussion on weirdest first dates and a debate on who is the most attractive male actor in Emmerdale. None were explicit discussions about sex or anybody’s sex life but they all came from the assumption that each of us in the discussion was straight and felt sexual attraction towards others. Yes, sometimes it’s easy to bypass the conversations (Eg: I don’t watch Emmerdale so couldn’t have contributed regardless of my sexuality) but at other times I feel pressured to answer and so I end up giving answers as if I am straight. I feel then that I’m not being true to myself and also it brings up the feelings of shame and inadequacy that I don’t feel the same way as most people.

My colleagues know I am single but none know I am asexual, they assume I am straight and that prior to being single I have had ‘normal’ experiences of dating, healthy relationships, enjoyable sex etc and those assumptions seep into conversation. They also assume I want a partner and that my being single is temporary so of course they bring up things relating to that, suggesting people or dating apps etc to me. It would be easier in some ways to admit I was asexual than have to pretend to be straight but equally I don’t know how it would be received so I don’t feel able to do so.

I don’t want to discuss my sex live (or lack of) with anybody at work but equally conversations do sometimes arise where the implicit understanding is that everybody involved is straight, it’s maybe not done consciously but equally it does mean there are situations where it’s hard to join the conversation truthfully as an asexual person, because I don’t really have a frame of reference for topics such as fancying people, dating, past relationships etc. Sexuality doesn’t always just impact who you have sex with bit can shape other aspects of your life and identity too and that’s why people talk about being able to be ‘out,’ not so they can discuss their sex lives but so that they are met with some understanding that their interests or experiences may be different from those of a straight person.

Adults aren't children. An asexual adults' experience in the workplace is largely irrelevant.
Safeguarding isn't a value judgement. It's there for a reason and GG have ignored it in more than one area.
Confirmed with a year six safeguarding lead this morning that asexual is not included in the age appropriate vocabulary and topics for 10-11 year olds. And confirmed that vocabulary of love and relationships takes the place of sexualised language.

Those of you aware of the Bell vs Tavistock case may or may not be aware that the existence of asexual people was infact the defence for robbing children of their future sexual function by allowing them to take puberty blockers..aka very powerful drugs used to treat prostate cancer.
and we are back to transphobia. incredible how mumsnet always, always comes back to transphobia. and the above is blatantly untrue as well.

@Itsanewdah

I'm still waiting for someone to tell us what GGUK have done to mark Lesbian Visibility Week. One injustice doesn’t justify others. Should they have mentioned Lesbian visibility week? Yes, and mentioning that is perfectly valid. Does that mean they should ignore other minorities? No. It just means they should step up inclusivity

Bit ironic that it's always Lesbian Visibility week that gets forgotten though.

@Finknottlesnewt

How about ITS JUST NOT NECESSARY !!!

Can there be no place where kids can just be kids ? - away from stuff that - as kids they simply don't need to know. Not everyone has to be 'aware' of every sodding thing in life before they are adults .
Why not let girls go to rainbows/brownies and guides and enjoy those clubs without ANY reference to sexually.
As Rangers are in an older age group they would also have had more 'awareness' of whatever label they wish to subscribe to rammed down their throats at school/college and pretty much every media outlet aimed at them.
Just not necessary in girl guiding and people need to stop this nonsense.

100% agree!

It is not transphobic to be concerned about the impact of experimental drugs on the children who are taking them.

To me there's a big difference in ensuring an organisation's policies treat people the same regardless of their sexual orientation (e.g. pensions, healthcare etc.) and this kind of focus. Being asexual doesn't disadvantage you professionally, there isn't social or economic discrimination against people who don't have sex for whatever reason.

The whole thing is bonkers.

@RhymesWithOrange

To me there's a big difference in ensuring an organisation's policies treat people the same regardless of their sexual orientation (e.g. pensions, healthcare etc.) and this kind of focus. Being asexual doesn't disadvantage you professionally, there isn't social or economic discrimination against people who don't have sex for whatever reason.

The whole thing is bonkers.

No social discrimination against people who don't have sex for whatever reason? There have been whole films made to laugh at those who haven't had sex. Being a virgin is often seen as a bad thing after a certain age, and something to mock.

@Itsanewdah

Those of you aware of the Bell vs Tavistock case may or may not be aware that the existence of asexual people was infact the defence for robbing children of their future sexual function by allowing them to take puberty blockers..aka very powerful drugs used to treat prostate cancer. and we are back to transphobia. incredible how mumsnet always, always comes back to transphobia. and the above is blatantly untrue as well.

Hang on, a vulnerable adolescent was prescribed drugs which resulted in infertility and a loss of sex drive, something she regrets now that she is an adult, the lawyers tried to argue "it's OK, you might have been asexual anyway" even though they don't know that she would have been. And you're saying that being concerned about the side effects of medicine being prescribed to those too young to have informed consent is "transphobia"?

@Itsanewdah

Those of you aware of the Bell vs Tavistock case may or may not be aware that the existence of asexual people was infact the defence for robbing children of their future sexual function by allowing them to take puberty blockers..aka very powerful drugs used to treat prostate cancer. and we are back to transphobia. incredible how mumsnet always, always comes back to transphobia. and the above is blatantly untrue as well.

How is it untrue exactly? The defence in the Bell vs Tavistock case used the idea that some children will grow up to be asexual as a reason that we shouldn’t be too concerned about damaging these children’s potential for any sexual desire as adults. Doesn’t that worry you at all? Is it really transphobia to want to protect young children from this harm?

and we are back to transphobia. incredible how mumsnet always, always comes back to transphobia. and the above is blatantly untrue as well.

Which part is untrue, blatant or otherwise?

And where us the transphobia? Are asexual people trans? Is the trans umbrella that wide?

No social discrimination against people who don't have sex for whatever reason? There have been whole films made to laugh at those who haven't had sex. Being a virgin is often seen as a bad thing after a certain age, and something to mock.

Being mocked is not discrimination.

@MolkosTeenageAngst - I get that - I really do and it shouldn't be that you feel you need to hide how you feel. Genuinely though - if I was part of that group, it's fine to say you're not interested. I still really wouldn't think any less of you and I doubt anyone else would either. We all have our own experiences and thoughts.

@RhymesWithOrange

No social discrimination against people who don't have sex for whatever reason? There have been whole films made to laugh at those who haven't had sex. Being a virgin is often seen as a bad thing after a certain age, and something to mock.

Being mocked is not discrimination.

Legally, no. Socially, definitely, which is what you said.

I don't get the outrage at this and I'm quite conservative in my views on the whole.