Girl Guides are now GIRL ONLY! - Thread 2

[CohensDiamondTeeth]

I hope no one minds me starting thread 2, I clicked post on my last reply but the thread had filled up.

There was some interesting discussion had, and on the last page @LostMySocks posted that she was thinking of sending a positive email to HQ, which I think sounds like a great idea. Maybe those who support this move could do the same? It would show Girl Guides that people are paying attention.

Link to the first thread here: Girl Guides are now GIRL ONLY! | Mumsnet

The first post of the thread was so good I'm just going to copy and paste it here too. Girl Guides statement is incredibly begrudging in tone.

@Iamwhoiamwhoareyou · Yesterday 14:41

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)

Ah... but see... this is the 2nd thread. Most of us went through that in the first thread so we already had a head start to reach that point. 😁

I see a lot of traction on Facebook with people signing this who have nothing to do with Guiding or young people. It just feels like an internet pile on by a lot of men wanting to erase the rights of women and girls.

Are you kidding me? The patriarchy is worse for men than for women! How absolutely dare you! I thought you were a feminist. Apparently that’s another word you have your own definition of.

All this talk of kids pointing to pictures bring this to mind...,

Remember when this was used by Mermaids?

It is ALL about gender stereotypes.

Oh it is did we ever get a definition of woman that includes males?

"It's posters like this one, more than gender critical posters themselves, that have solidified my concerns."

It is also discussions with people with transgender identities themselves (which apparently we don't have in our lives despite many of us saying clearly that we do last time on either this or the previous thread we were accused on not knowing).

It wasn't until I engaged in on line discussions with adult male people who declared they were women (and some who had done since childhood) that my concerns were really solidified, to use your term. Those discussions clarified my thinking.

The points they used are similar enough to the points and pivots of Solid's. It is almost like a script these days.

I'm having an epic fail uploading that image with Barbie at one end of the scale and GI Joe at the other!

No I still haven't been told what my daughter has in common with @SolidMam's son which makes them both girls.

I am fairly certain that I know the reason for this.

I'm wondering if, back in the pre-verbal child days, @SolidMam watched something like this and thought "Aha!".

I'm also concerned (again if this is real), that there is an autistic (says solid), possibly gay boy there who is not "boy-ing" properly as far as some people are concerned, so he must be made a "girl" to account for the liking pink and not wanting to rough and tumble with the more boisterous boys.

I think it is always dangerous to retro fit something a pre-verbal or toddler child does to fit and justify a decision that is based on philosophical belief rather than something that can be medically diagnosed with biological markers.

It is a setting up a confirmation bias.

Yes.

I hadn't considered that angle, but that's an incredibly good point!

Perhaps if that is what has happened, and if she is able to really do the introspection necessary to figure out if that is what happened, my bullet points in reply to @Catiette might be useful to her.

In terms of commonality I would say they are both girls because they know they are - though I don't want to presume that of your GNC child.

What did your child say to the CAMHS professional?

But obviously, I have different definitions of terms.

Woman = females (born female) + transwomen (born male) + (presumably, I'm still waiting for clarification when it comes to sex-based rights?) intersex people

Men = males (born male) + trans men (born female) + intersex people

As for characteristics, well that could be practically anything...does yours like football? Mine does. Maybe they could have a kick about.

And why have so many middle class, educated women fallen for this nonsense and are seeking to affirm it? That’s what I find odd. Surely it’s the educated, middle class mums who usually run in horror from the stereotypical pink and blue outfits for babies? Why have they fallen for the tosh that if you like dolls and pink you must be a trans girl, rather than a boy who likes dolls and pink?

So what is the definition of a transwoman? What do a woman and a male with a trans identity have in common that make them both women? And don’t even drag “feelings” into it. That’s the most sexist drivel ever.

In terms of commonality I would say they are both girls because they know they are

How do they know they are?

I know I'm a woman because of my biological reality. How does a man know he's a woman?

That's not a definition. You clearly cannot define the words you are abusing, but at least you are peaking people along the way.

On the other hand, pretending that your son is a girl is the literal definition of "living a lie".

As for your offensive comments about intersex people. I'm not dignifying that with a response. I would expect someone who thinks they're so much better informed than everyone else to be aware of how ignorant and offensive those comments are and that intersex people have repeatedly asked for TRAs to stop abusing them as some kind of "gotcha".

@SolidMam Are you actually reading the posts replying to you on "intersex"? STOP being offensive to people with DSD!

"What personal experience have people had here of a transwoman or transgirl in a single sex space that has had detrimental results?"

Here are some more experiences from the female perspective.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4281706-pushback-at-wi-spa-in-los-angeles

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3534134-This-never-happens-again

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4807291-sorority-house-inevitable

https://www.independentwomen.com/2023/06/21/paula-scanlan-a-upenn-swimmer-speaks-out-about-the-truth-of-sex-differences/

Even when it comes to employment issues:

www.feministcurrent.com/2022/12/21/whats-current-canadian-female-prison-guard-forced-to-monitor-trans-identified-male-develops-ptsd/

I mean, @SolidMam , how many examples do you want?

Or do you really need women here on this thread to expose their trauma to you? Considering the dismissive way you have acted towards the needs of female children, why on earth should any poster do this since I doubt it will convince you at all.

In the example you use, a public toilet is in itself a privilege, depending on your position. The point about rights and privileges are moot, as they are all dependent on power, status and precedent.

Mixed sex provision is often preferable - I agree - as an option for everyone.

But under the Supreme Court ruling, is there now anything to stop a male walking into a women's toilet anyway, as they can just say they are a transman? It does feel like in some ways the sex-based ruling makes single sex spaces less safe, if they are inclusive of trans men.

Your son can't KNOW he is a girl because he isn't. If he believes he is it is because adults who ought to know better have lied to him. Any pain he feels from being excluded from single sex spaces as a result of those lies are 100% the fault of those adults.

My child told the cahms professional that she is not a boy. She just doesn't like girly stuff. It was entirely inappropriate for that CAMHS professional to put ideas into my gender non conforming daughters head.

When she was little she did have some gender confusion and wonder if liking boys things made her a boy. Explaining that girls can be whatever they want to be massively helped. As did the fact she was home educated due to her additional needs as I was able to shield her, to a degree, from captured institutions like schools.

I don't accept your definition of men and women/ boy and girl as it is reductive.

Children of both sexes can play football, why on earth do you think that's a gotcha?

Please Helleo, I specifically asked to only share what people are comfortable with, in good faith. That's what I'm trying to do too. I'm trying not to make demands, just debate.

Thanks for the links, I'll take some time to read.

"is there now anything to stop a male walking into a women's toilet anyway, as they can just say they are a transman?"

yes, obviously, as we can now challenge them without being called transphobic. We can ask (eg) our workplaces to ensure our privacy and dignity in single-sex spaces and then can enforce that. Women's prisons will be single sex, and so will rape crisis centres

Yes, for me, too. And actually attending sessions run "in support of" trans people. Sitting in a room listening to an adult man use the phrase (or close), "Of course, we can all change sex nowadays, so that's good," in a talk to an audience that included several impressionable 11-year-olds did nothing to inspire my confidence. I mean, I honestly wasn't sure myself for a while if transwomen could have periods or not (I know, I know - please don't comment on that, it still embarrasses me... but it was a direct consequence of messaging like his, from "experts"). In the light of that, what the heck are the kids thinking?! I do know some of them at least struggle to recognise sex in the sense of those who made it clear to me that women in Afghanistan are oppressed on the basis of their subjective internal gender identity! I mean, they're being taught untruths! Upthread, Solid asked me to try to see it from the perspective of the kids. And I am - I really, really am!

There are a few times that I look back on now, before I was fully au fait with what was happening, when I wish I'd not said what I said, or had said more. That presentation was one of them. Nowadays, I'd ask the guy about the success rates of operations, and, particularly, associated complications. It would make my point nicely - if he's telling kids they can change sex, he needs to explain what he means by that. And he frankly shouldn't feel able to, thereby demonstrating the inappropriateness of such messaging. As it is, I don't even really believe he'd even feel able to respond in honest and vaguely age-appropriate terms eg. Not all operations are successful, and almost all leave long-term health issues. The propaganda has been too influential to comfortably permit such truths to be freely spoken.

Woman = females (born female) + transwomen (born male) + (presumably, I'm still waiting for clarification when it comes to sex-based rights?) intersex people

Men = males (born male) + trans men (born female) + intersex people

Just pointing out the incoherence of these definitions again due to the destabilisation of language.

When you use the term 'female' - this actually includes 'trans men'. PLUS those male people who demand to be described as female.

Your definition is and remains incoherent no matter the tweaks you make because you, personally, are using destabilised language. The very destablisation of language you have given your full support to, is making every thing you say now obfuscated and inaccurate.

Do you see it yet? Do you see what we have all been pointing to while you personally attack us in defence of your own efforts to destabilise language?

Do you think masculine looking women should stay out of female only spaces then?

Nope. Please see my post about about trans-identifying males - transwomen - being the demographic most likely to be convicted of sexual assault by a very, very long way. Over and above males. Way over and above females, including transmen.

I ask again, are you actually reading our replies??? I mean, in recent posts, at your explicit request, people have obliged you with literally hundreds of media and research-based examples of transwomen assaulting women. I've not yet seen you respond to this with anything bar, Yes, but transmen having access creates an even greater risk.

And to pre-empt the argument, if this is what you meant, that permitting transmen entry makes it harder to discern males entering, this relies on the presumption that transmen look more like males than transwomen. Until they work out a way to medicate males so that their skeletons shrink, I'm afraid this just isn't realistic.