To ask you to see who girl guides support.

[RedCarpetRebellion]

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10235539/amp/Girlguides-launch-probe-trans-Commissioner-58-saucy-dominatrix-style-picture.html

A woman sacked for speaking up for girls safety was replaced by this person.

Girl guides are not safe for girls. AIBU?

1. GG should not be in the business of dishing out contraception
2. It is alarming that GG think that the age of consent is 13, not 16.

GG should not be placing the guides in a position where contraception might be necessary on a residential

1. I would be very surprised if parents knew that this was what was set out in the guidelines

Girls aged under 13 should not be given contraception as they are not legally deemed to be capable of consenting to sexual activity
Girls 13-16 also not deemed to be capable of consenting. This makes it sound like they legally can consent. I'm shocked. This almost encourages interest from people who are attracted to teenage girls.

As a parent as well, you might make a different decision about sending your daughter in GG camp if you thought it was an opportunity for underage sex. I think this is absolutely outrageous

[quote RedCarpetRebellion]@Genderless

The risk of rape needs emphasised again.

99%+ of all sexual assault is committed by males. Only 0.9% by females.

Yes in theory girls might be having sex on camps, but the likelihood of any girl or woman sexually assaulting posters dds is very very low. Add in males and that’s a very real risk. Especially when the risk assessment won’t have taken into account their maleness or safeguarded against the risk that indicates.[/quote]
Yes I agree. Thanks for expanding on what I was trying to say. I'd add pregnancy to that too - girls don't get each other pregnant.

And it goes without saying that aside from falling foul of an organisation’s social media policies, or bringing them into disrepute, any adult responsible for children should be very careful about their social media activity, as the children they look after are likely to google them.

@Mummyoflittledragon

I’d just like to add the fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/ pronouns are like rohypnol link. That means we read she and automatically think that person is most likely weaker and safe. Unfortunately we have fallen under this spell. I have to check myself too.

@brighousepres I get it. Fast moving thread plus frustration… just wanted to erase the rohypnol.

Fair Play For Women is a great place to start for anyone who wants to get more information about self-id and consider for themselves the potential impact on women and girls.

This is also a really interesting read and shows how it is not just an issue in GG but in any area where there are vulnerable women/girls: Why do men with questionable histories want to work with vulnerable women?

Can we please just pause and consider this phrase "girls with penises"? Say it out loud to yourself. Hear the inherent absurdity, the absolute denial of reality.

As @Ionlydomassiveones posted earlier
Gender dysmorphia is a condition that needs psychological treatment. Or people need to chill out about what clothes people wear. It does not need society to be turned upside down and laws to be changed to appease those who would deny reality.

Gender ideology is incredibly harmful at best, systemic misogyny in disguise.

@lifeturnsonadime

How interesting that what a man who claims to be a woman does in their free time is irrelevant even when it is a major safeguarding red flag.

But a woman who holds the belief that a person cannot change sex is anti trans and must be hounded out of her job or threatened in her home.

Double standards.

This needs to be said over and over again!!

@AdamRyan

Girls aged under 13 should not be given contraception as they are not legally deemed to be capable of consenting to sexual activity Girls 13-16 also not deemed to be capable of consenting. This makes it sound like they legally can consent. I'm shocked. This almost encourages interest from people who are attracted to teenage girls.

As a parent as well, you might make a different decision about sending your daughter in GG camp if you thought it was an opportunity for underage sex. I think this is absolutely outrageous

Not quite.

The age of consent is 16.

The age under which it is deemed in law that you cannot consent to sex is 13.

These are two different things and GG is not wrong.

Two 14 or 15 year olds having sex, whilst not being over the age of consent, will not fall foul of the law. It would be in no-one's interest to prosecute them.

I don't feel as though I'm being transphobic (although trans people would certainly disagree) I'm just thinking "better safe than sorry".

We don't need these safeguarding measures because they're trans, we need them because they're male. It's no more an insult than when these measures are applied to any other male bodied person. My husband is no risk to women, but he goes into the men's changing room when we all go swimming because it's a general, obvious, sex-related safeguarding measure. It's not an insult to him or any of the other men and it's not misandristic.

I'm.intrigued by the 9 percent who think yabu op

I would like them to explain why they don't consider trans people to be capable of following social media policies and being a positive influence on the people they meet like everyone else has to be in the same positions.

These low behaviour expectations, the insinuation it needs to be allowed so that GG are inclusive enough, well its all awfully transphobic tbh

@EverNapping

YABU - go back to the Feminism boards, that's what it's for

BULLSHIT that this is anything other than a bloody massive safeguarding concern that is horribly relevant to ANYONE with a female child.

The veil is being lifted on this crap and thank god for that, thank god for information and posts like this that can alert parents to the kind of misogynistic, harmful, anti-safeguarding agenda that the TRAs are pushing.

Nothing to do with feminism any more. EVERYTHING to do with parenting.

Anyone who volunteers/works with GG should also seriously consider how this will reflect on their current or future employment prospects.

I image in the past volunteering for GG is the kind of thing all GG leaders would be proud to put on their CV or talk about at an interview.

However, anyone who works in fields that directly relate to safeguarding children should seriously think about how employers will view this now this is getting more day light now. You are working for an organisation that has actively put very poor safeguarding policies in place and sacked women who have brought up valid safeguarding concerns. It’s not like their safeguarding failures are from not enough time or money and policies that aren’t robust enough due to this. It’s not as if when raised they take it seriously and try to properly safeguard girls.

They spent time, money and effort putting together policies that allow males in the same tents, showers and toilets as girls. And policies that advocate teaching children to keep secrets with adults and to give 13 years contraception behind their parents backs.

Regardless of whether or not this directly impacts the division you are responsible for, if you’ve remained loyal to GG during this then employers will think very poorly of that and it could well mean the won’t consider you suitable for a safeguarding role. Even if you don’t put it on a CV they likely will find out when they do the basic social media check all employers conduct these days.

Personally I’d be thinking very seriously about that at present if I was a GG leader.

@WholeClassKeptIn

It makes me sad too. I loved guiding as a movement and put my girls into it originally. But I think whereas transactivists will move onto the "next thing" to destroy that leaves so much damage and so many wjth a history to the movement. Its women that suffer of course :(

Its from the top down, the management is intentionally using guides to carry out its ageda which angers me. It isn't from the ranks of local guiders that have served for years.

@WholeClassKeptIn I saw your post on a thread a few years ago when someone was asking if they should whistleblow. You said you saw someone made out to be the problem when they raised a concern.

I'm a leader who also has concerns (don't loads of us - although these particular concerns are not about the trans issue). Could I possibly find out exactly what happened?

Thanks so much

Yes. Why did 9% YABU? I'd be interested in knowing because it owuld be really informative.

Misunderstanding?
Totally dfferent take on the issues involved?
Not really thought it through?
Just assumes it's 'anti trans' and obejcts?
Has an insight not yet voiced?

I'd like to discuss any and all of those, and any other reasons.

How do you raise safeguarding when the next layer up has a vested interest and the HQ do not recognise that concern?

It is easy to get into the bottom rung of a struggling organisation and work your way up the ranks at rocket speed (we saw that with the Green Party).

The answer is not to change your policies from the top down so that you cannot see the risks.

This is just a warning shot. If GG just change their social media policies, and manage a few individuals, so that this stuff can no longer be seen and pointed out to them, the organisation will continue down this route.

They need to put the needs of the young girls in their organisation first.

If the Masons can do it, so can they.

She was one of 2,000 signatories on a letter written by Challenor. Hardly a connection.
And yet the other 67,218,000 people in the UK didn't sign said letter. So I don't view it as a coincidence that one of the tiny minority who did sign in support of a person with dubious links also has dubious views.

Hi Eggy. I'm not sure exactly what I said then but.

• Helen Watts and Katie Alcock have both been removed from guiding for whistleblowing as you can see from mutliple threads, and they were right 😔.

• I entered into an attempt at email correspondence ages ago when I didn't realise how entrenched all this is. I pointed out safeguarding concerns around male bodies in guides, overnights, secrecy aeound safeguarding and just got generic mass emails back. Nothing that addressed my concerns at all. I emailed back etc but still generic emails not addressing any of my points. I think we were all just written off as "wrong." I havent a problem with people being trans, or girl bodies in guides who might be questioning (indeed a safe place to so) etc it just seems guides is no longer safe.

I haven't got a specific local example as we removed ours from guiding for various reasons and I was only involved as a helper (after coming through gg myself.)

@Eggybrains - you have concerns beside ditching girls rights? Please tell us what they are. GG aren’t going to tell us!

The GG policies are resulting in reducing the safety of girls in its care. I have a 10 year old and I’d like to know more please.

Clearly GG aren’t advertising their shitty policies and plus they allow all kinds of questionable behaviour from its leaders as evidenced by the sexual and gun social media.

My old Brown Owl would be FURIOUS with this. She didn’t take shit from anyone.

Eggy ive sent a pm. Sorry Ive actually sent lots as couldnt see that it had been "sent." 🤦🏼‍♀️.

I'd be curious to know about other concerns too.

Two 14 or 15 year olds having sex, whilst not being over the age of consent, will not fall foul of the law. It would be in no-one's interest to prosecute them.
That's decriminalisation. It's still not legal - by law they can't consent.
I'm very suspicious of someone/organisations who takes the decriminalisation position and uses it to imply 13-16 year olds can consent and therefore should be supplied contraceptives without parents being aware (with the exception of health are professionals).
It's a massive safeguarding risk. Especially when adults over the age of 18 with penises are in a position where they have access to underage females.

@Shedmistress

Presumably all safeguarding checks have been done on this person.

Risk assessments done on this person will be completed as if they are a female, not a male. Because trans women are women.

So the higher risk factors that are accounted for in risk assessing a male, are not accounted for here.

That is the point that Katie and Helen were trying to make and they got booted out for it.

You cannot presume anything once you subscribe to the ideology. Because people are what they say they are and nobody is allowed to question it.

Can I add it's the social media content that's highly fucking inappropriate too. Call me a facist if you will but I do not want ANYONE near my child who openly posts sexualised content about their fetish or asks admirers if they would like to see more body parts, on SM. It matters not who you identify as if you advertise this side of you then you shouldn't be allowed unsupervised access to kids especially if you may be in close quarters.

@Magicpaintbrush

Sex education is already happening in schools, so why GG feel the need to get involved in this side of things at all is beyond me. I think when most parents sign their girls up to GG they envision a wholesome and nurturing space where girls can make friends, be creative and learn skills, run by women who can be trusted to keep their daughters safe. Wholesome is the furthest thing from what I have been reading about GG this week, they have absolutely lost their way. They are so busy virtue signalling and making sure the world knows how woke and inclusive they are that they are compromising the safety of the girls in their care and throwing under the bus those leaders who have dared to object or highlight these issues by kicking them out of the organisation - the very people who, it seems to me, care the most about the safety and well being of these children. It feels like children are being subjected to an endless deluge of talk about sex, whether it's the act of sex or the nature of a person's sexual orientation, like there is literally nothing else worth discussing in life, as though it's the only thing of importance, shoving it down their throats constantly. Kids are all talking about this stuff on a daily basis now because it's all they are bloody well being exposed to. There is no balance any more. Sex is a part of life, but it's not the only thing in life - but somehow at the moment it really feels like the opposite is true. And it's all very handy for sexual predators that confused and impressionable kids across the country are being prepped like this.

Completely agree. Since when did sex become the sole subject in life for pretty much all ages? It's really sad. Would hate to be a young person growing up today. Normal activities are now deemed "sensible" or "wholesome" or even introverted... because it's just always contrasted with the main seedy topic.

I.e. on a guide camp.
Honestly. I was abused on a children's camp at 11 in the 80s, so much work has been done about grooming and how abusers work to get access to victims that I thought children were safer in these scenarios.
This makes me think again.
Because of my experience, I would never ever send my children somewhere where there was a risk of them being alone with a penis owner I didn't know well. I've been called oversensitive for that. But now penis owners with malign intent can camouflage themselves like this under the guise of "being a woman" and it terrifies me.