Girl Guides are now GIRL ONLY!

[Iamwhoiamwhoareyou]

Following April's supreme court ruling, the Girl Guides have FINALLY made a statement and will remain GIRLS ONLY - Finally closing the door on admitting trans members or allowing BOYS to invade female only spaces/camp (which, would be done without informing parents that their daughter would be sharing a room with a biological male!) - I have a previous post in feminism chat for anyone wanting to read the previous thread on this

EMAIL RECEIVED HOT OFF THE PRESS 5 MIN AGO -

As the parent of a young member in Girlguiding, following April’s Supreme Court decision relating to sex and gender, we wanted to give you an update. Many organisations across the country have been facing complex decisions about what it means for girls and women and for the wider communities affected, including us.

Girlguiding’s governing charity documents set out that the membership and people who benefit from our organisation are girls and women. In April, the Supreme Court ruled that girls and women are defined in the Equality Act 2010 by their biological sex at birth.
Following detailed considerations, expert legal advice and input from senior members, young members and our Council, Girlguiding’s Board of Trustees has made the difficult decision that Girlguiding must change Girlguiding must change, following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

From today, 2 December, it is with a heavy heart that we are announcing trans girls and young women will no longer be able to join Girlguiding. This is a decision we would have preferred not to make, and we know that this may be upsetting for members of our community.

There will be no immediate changes for current young members but more information will be shared next week.

Most adult roles, including unit helpers, district helpers and administrative support, are already open to all, so we are confident that no volunteers will have to leave the organisation.

Girlguiding believes strongly in our value of inclusion, and we will continue to support young people and adults in marginalised groups. Over the next few months, we'll explore opportunities to champion this value and actively support young people who need us.

You can find our full statement and updated policy on our website.

We are proud to be the UK’s largest youth organisation dedicated to girls and is focused on creating an equal world for girls and young women. For over 100 years, we have been a welcoming space for all girls to have new experiences, support their communities, build friendships and grow their confidence.

While Girlguiding may feel a little different going forward, these core aims and principles will always be the same. We remain committed to treating everyone with dignity and respect, particularly those from marginalised groups that have felt the biggest impact of this decision.

If you have any immediate questions, we have our special support team in place, to give volunteers, parents and carers the best support we can. We are asking Girlguiding HQ, trading and country/region staff to refer any volunteer or parent who has questions about this announcement. Details below.

Contact [email protected] or 020 7532 3970
All calls/emails will be confidential, and the service will be open 24hrs, 7 days a week.
Find out more, including how this team will handle personal data.

Denise Wilson (Chair of Trustees), Felicity Oswald (CEO) and Tracy Foster (Chief Guide)

If you believe that women and girls should not be able to have single sex spaces, that is exactly what you are arguing. So please just own it. Otherwise, tell us exactly why you believe the female sex should not ever be able to have a space for ourselves?

To add: to talk about 'balancing needs' in this context does mean really starting from the view of 'how much do we take away from girls for this boy's sake?'

It starts from the girls losing. With a view point that this is right.

they have to exclude all men even the ones who think they are extra special

please leave your disdain for trans girls at the door.

You mean awful that an organisation has been forced to defend WOMENS RIGHTS?

Surely inclusiveness is about including everyone who meets the core criteria. So for GG to be truly inclusive it should welcome all females whether they be black, white, disabled, gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, whatever.

What it shouldn't do is include people who don't meet the main criteria (which is women and girls).

So in essence you can't answer.

Neither could I; it's not a defensible view point. The only option is to get angry and blame the other person for you running away and not replying.

Still no mention I see of what happens to the girls (and women) excluded from mixed sex spaces when the priority is the needs and feelings of the man to use those women and girls and the single sex space.

There never is.

Edited to add: I am enjoying the Bananarama defense - 'it's not what you said its the way that you said it'

Please leave your disdain for the rights of the female sex at the door.

What it shouldn't do is include people who don't meet the main criteria (which is women and girls)
i know, I know. You think you have a monopoly on deciding who is and isn't a girl.

Do you not think you have made a prejudiced judgement in your accusation that others are not working to provide safe spaces for girls? Or, you base your opinion on simply what you suspect is correct based on no evidence at all?

I base much of my views on the people who I know with transgender identities that are in my life, as well as reading very widely. Do you think that many of the people pointing out your misinterpreted take on the Yougov data, and pointing out the safeguarding issues do not also have just as much interaction with people with transgender identities as you do? Is this yet another prejudice and not an informed view?

Sure, the number of male children with a transgender identity accessing female only spaces is 'tiny'. So, can you tell us how many female children being harmed by just one male child accessing a provision that is intended to be only for female children is acceptable to you?

Or do you believe that no female child is harmed because a male child has been allowed to access a provision designed to provide robust safeguarding for female children? If so, why?

The Supreme Court decided who is and isn't a girl, or woman, or boy, or man, for the purposes of being able to have and protect single sex spaces.

You don't need to agree. But that is the law, because without those protections a lot of people suffer and lose facilities and equalities to benefit the wishes and beliefs of others.

I don't have a monopoly I have

1. the history of humans throughout the centuries
2. biology
3. the supreme court

So very much not a monopoly!

As the little boy on kindergarten cop says

Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina

Good news!

No, no.
It was awful that the dignity of girls was threatened by a piece of foolish ideology which was just a way for men to trample over women's rights.

BIOLOGY has that monopoly. There are two sexes; male, and female.

Is there something you don't understand about that? Were you never taught about the birds and the bees?

That is indeed an accurate portrayal of the sophistication of your (and much of mumset's) understanding of / insight into this subject.

Actually the Supreme Court decided

and that reflects the vast majority of society !!

Will girls now be banned from Boy Scouts?

The idea that people who accept absolute objective facts are monopolising something shows some absolute weapon level entitlement. We should all be allowed to force people to accept absurd falsehoods, they are monopolising something if they don't submit!

It's this kind of entitlement, that you think you have a right to bend reality itself or else you are being denied something that is your right, that shows you know who the women are.

Could you please provide that evidence that you have found that has formed your view that a male person with a transgender identity has less risk of harming a female person than the general UK male population?

Please be very specific and link it up because it seems to support your own views on safeguarding. So, therefore you must surely have read that evidence since you are arguing you either a) think that male people with transgender identities are less likely to harm female people therefore they should be included in female only provisions or b) you wrongly think that feminists who prioritise excluding male people with transgender identities, believe that 'all' male people with transgender identities are abusive.

I would like to know which of these is correct, or maybe both are, or neither.

Why would they be? It's a designated mixed sex organisation. It hasn't been Boy Scouts since the 90s, it's Scouting.

Nope because they are mixed sex HTH

No because the Uk no longer has an organisation called Boy Scouts. It’s just The Scouts which is a mixed sex youth organisation for pragmatic reasons rather than from ideology.

What's really awful is that a girls only charity had to be forced into obeying the law and follow the charitable objectives that they were set up to.
Boys should never have been allowed to join them.

No one gets to decide, it just is. Whether you like it or not. The majority of people who remain on sanity island know it too.