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)

The men [do bad things] anyway so why even bother putting barriers up to stop them argument is straight from the TRA handbook.

There is a very apt saying for this situation and your type of thinking "The good men stay out, so the bad men stand out!"

Do you lock your house when you leave? Why bother, burglars gonna burgle after all!

And again, if you actually read the two GG threads in good faith, you will find personal experiences have already been given too.

How many more do you want then?

Because I have not even covered the women's testimonies from prison cells.

I have not linked up the woman who was told that she certainly was not raped by a man while on the hospital ward here in the UK, because there were no 'MEN' on the ward ... when all along there was clear records of a male person on the ward but that destablisation of language was used to further traumatise that woman!

I have not linked up the rapes of girls in the US by male student who anally raped girls in the female toilets in school and how that was hushed up and the parents silenced. That male student was a 'girl' and the parents moved him to another school where he raped another girl in the school toilets.

Shall I go on? and on and on and on and on and fucking ON

How many more do you want to know about?

Now, can you tell us why ANY female person who has also experienced any abuse by a male person should lose access to a female only provision? Why is it that female people must feel unsafe because a male person has a philosophical belief (ie. there is no biological marker at all it is only a belief) that they are female?

It's not a gotcha, it's just a characteristic they might both share as girls, by my definition.

I hope your child flourishes and that her "confusion" is resolved.

And damn right toilets are a privilege. Like we need to be told that! Less than 100 years ago, your grandmother and greatgrandmother may not have been able to leave the house because there was nowhere they could use a toilet (that is, nowhere they could, not nowhere they felt comfortable doing so - women would stay home or go on the streets!)

The demographic you think should remain nameless simply didn't used to have them. At all.

Good to hear you're reading the links, and I do see, reading more closely now (multitasking!) that your transman argument was that they'd make it more likely men slip in. But I refuted that above regardless - it's just nonsense that we can't tell sex in a vast, vast majority of cases.

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

Ridiculous! Makes the terms "women and men" redundant then if it includes anybody and everybody. Noting that transwomen and transmen still get to keep their specific terms as well. But it's not enough, apparently.

If your son plays football he does so with his male body. He is not playing football as a girl because he isn't one.

I do hope. you don't suggest to him he should play on girls teams.

My daughter doesn't play football as it happens she plays another traditionally male sport at a very high level. Thankfully her sport's governing body has now determined that no males (of any gender identity) can play in female teams/ leagues.

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

That sentence is unfinished. What is the quality that they know themselves to have, that means they fit your/their definition of "girl"?

As an example. When you and your child finally state what it is they think a girl is... and all this time your child has thought "girl" meant "left-handed". You can see why a definition would be needed. What if your child has been thinking that "girl" means female? You need to be clear when talking about this or you are doing your child a disservice.

I would say because not all transwomen are rapists, but I know that's not going to go down well given the obvious historic connotations to that argument.

And of course - if a female feels unsafe, then I hope she would be able to express that and have her needs respectfully met. I hope there would be dialogue.

Abusers of all women are almost always born male. It just so happens that so are transwomen - and that some abusers have potentially latched on to the gender identity to facilitate abuse. And some tranwomen are abusive misogynists in their own right.

It doesn't make them all worthy of the same treatment.

No.

I am sorry. I will not accept that pivot to 'a public toilet is a privilege'. You are now trying to deflect.

Having access to sanitation is a right.

"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."

This has been discussed many times on the feminist board. Again, this is a very tired and incoherent trope that has been repeated over and over again by heavily invested transgender activists.

Any male can walk into a female toilet - sure.

AND of course, male people who are in those toilets cleaning, or fixing something will have a sign out that female people can then actively consent to those men being there or go and find an alternative solution.

If a toilet provision has been labelled as being for 'women', 'girls', 'female' use, it is considered single sex under the SC judgement. When someone male enters that provision, any female person in that space can go and seek assistance to have that male person removed, if police are involved there may be charges.

If a male person enters that space, any female person can stand outside and tell other female people that there is a male person there so that the female person can make an informed choice about entering or not.

Before this law was clarified, organisations would put up signs in the toilets informing female people that even microaggressions against a male person in the toilet would be punished by that organisation. This is now considered unlawful if the provision is designated to be single sex.

There are no such thing, by the way, as single gender public toilets. Because any allowed access by a male person with a transgender identity into that toilet space, means that ALL male people who want to enter can. That is how discrimination law under the EA works.

Single sex provision is based on sex. Not gender. Mixed sex provision is for all.

There is no way to deflect from the issue that if a male person demands access to a female single sex space, they have access to ALL provisions which no other group has access to. That is an additional privilege and it is actually disciminatory.

No one has ever said that 'all transwomen are rapists' on MN. No one. Ever. Because it would clearly be not true.

"I know that's not going to go down well given the obvious historic connotations to that argument.'

This is another completely unreasonable accusation. You really do come across in your posts as very prejudiced against the people here discussing this issue with you. You seem to have arrived with a huge pack of preconceptions and they are coming out one by one.

"It doesn't make them all worthy of the same treatment."

SAFEGUARDING

Please understand that strong safeguarding principles where there are a huge number of people accessing provisions absolutely demands people are treated the same.

This means that if a provision is SEX segregated, ALL MALE PEOPLE ARE TREATED THE SAME otherwise it will considered ILLEGITIMATE DISCRIMINATION.

If all male people are excluded from a provision based on historical risk assessment ALL male people are excluded. It is based on risk and for any exceptions to that safeguarding priniciple, a group of male people would need to be evidenced that they have the same rate or lower of committing sex offences than female people. Because any higher risk means that female people in that provision would be at higher risk.

Please provide the evidence that male people with a transgender identity have a risk of committing sex offences that is equal to or lower than female people in the UK.

I suggest you might like to start by looking at the prisoner statistics for male people with transgender identities. Let us know if you need us to point you in the right direction.

It is a safeguarding decision to exclude all male people regardless of how they identity.

Women should not, and do not, need to negotiate keeping same sex toilet provision. Men are free to use the male toilets. If they feel unsafe doing so when cosplaying then that is something they can take up with other men.

@SolidMam

One of the other considerations that feeds into safeguarding principles and relates to treating all male people as one group is male physical advantage.

May I suggest you read this thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5142027-save-female-sports-evidence-thread?page=1

Where there is so much evidence that even from the age of 6 male people have physical advantages over female people. Even with grip strength and punching power.

Because of this male physical advantage, ALL MALE PEOPLE are treated as being at the same level of risk.

That is also why there are blanket exclusions for male people who demand to play sport in the female sports categories.

I think that many of us on this thread can discuss very confidently with you about male physical advantage.

Solid, that’s actually kinda offensive.

It doesn't make them all worthy of the same treatment.

But it does! That's the essence of what democratic societies aiming to balance rights call safeguarding!

Our choices are:

1. We lose all single-sex spaces (I can't believe you're arguing for that).
2. We exclude males except for transwomen (I think you're arguing for this?)
3. We exclude males including transwomen (we're certainly arguing for this)

Please please please, if you answer any question, answer this one.

If I'm right, and you favour 2) above, why is your preference a blanket ban on the group who are statistically less likely to offend sexually against females (non-discriminatory, in your eyes) and an open invitation to the group who a statistically more likely to (discriminatory, in your eyes)?

I do sympathise with the "genuinely dysophoric" transwoman, I do. But I simply don't understand how you can put his feelings over women's physical safety (especially given his physical strength advantages and again, I believe, statistically supported - proportionately greater safety from actual physical attack)

Please, for the love of goodness, explain!!! Quote my post above to address each part, and give us some stats and links!

It is clearly setting up a boy who identifies as trans up for upset by telling him that he is a girl then having to tell him he is not allowed on the girl's football team because he is not actually a girl.

It is absurd to then blame that on other people who hold a different definition from girl to you (one that actually protects girls) and also to claim victim status at the same time.

But this is exactly what @SolidMam is doing to her child, I feel so sorry for him.

It's not transphobia it's protecting female people.

Here is another reminder though:

Safeguarding is not just about protection from physical attack.

Safeguarding female people is about protecting female people from any harm that a male person being present can cause. This will include any female person who is distressed at sharing a provision with a male person - for any reason.

Again, this is based on SEX. And if one group of male people is excluded. They all are because that is how Safeguarding at the very basic level works for population level provisions.

So, yes. As harsh as it sounds, very bluntly, male people are treated as being one group with blanket decisions for population level safeguarding decisions where there is no strict control on who enters.

Btw, I really, really don't like emphasising this point re. proportionate statistical risk of sexual offending, particularly not in this particular thread's context (loving mum, growing child). But, with regard to this, please see my posts above re. feeling forced into reiterating these in the face of arguments like yours, which dismiss sex-based rights as comprehensively inferior and undeserving relative to your child's needs. Such strong claims require strong responses.

Perhaps @SolidMam you might tell us why anyone should accept your demand to prioritise your son to access female single sex provisions above female people who need that provision to remain single sex?

Do you even begin to understand why GG has made this decision and how very very poor their safeguarding policy was?

I'm going to be that annoying poster who reasserts a request that you respond to their post. I never usually do on a busy thread and have let a large number of mine go uncommented on, but, with apologies to all, I really do want a direct answer to this one. It would cover Helle's above, to a degree, so two 🦜s , one stone!

Multi-tasking, but will be back again soon...

ETA: the original should say, "and an open invitation to the group who a statistically more likely to (as to exclude them would be discriminatory, in your eyes)?

Agree Catiette.

However, it also seems that this poster who told us they were actively involved in Brownies seems to have no concept of safeguarding principles and how they were and why they were developed.

And has actually doubled down on how sex based rights is no longer needed, and declared that not all male people should be treated the same under population level safeguarding decisions.

I do feel that maybe if the only thing that readers take away from this thread is why safeguarding measures do require all male people to treated equally then maybe that is something positive? I am actually just waiting to be personally attacked again though, so there is that.

The thing is, I really am sympathetic to Solid's child, and posted in some detail on my thoughts about how best to manage this bearing their vulnerability in mind (with no response, which I try to attribute to Solid being in a minority and doing a sterling job overall 😊... but do sometimes wonder when difficult questions are also being avoided). I also explained why I think trans sex offenders may be overrepresented and how deeply, deeply wrong it is that this ideology supports such people at the obvious and considerable expense of genuinely vulnerable transgirls. Above all, though, I don't think I've seen anywhere in the Solid's responses a similarly meaningful attempt to address female needs, so much as a wholesale denial of them having any proportionate worth (apologies, and please correct me if I'm wrong on this, which I may well be, Solid).

Coming back to this:

"And of course - if a female feels unsafe, then I hope she would be able to express that and have her needs respectfully met. I hope there would be dialogue."

How?

How is this to be managed at a population level?

How do you expect any female child who has been told by adults that they respect that they can express that the very presence of a male child or male adult in a space that they expected and needed to be single sex has caused them distress?

Children have significant issues already processing what and why something makes them uncomfortable. The number of us as women who look back at sexual abuse that we didn't even recognise as abuse happened as children. I certainly didn't raise the cases of sexual abuse that I experienced with anyone, I just assumed it was ok. Because I was a child.

Now, if a female child has been told by someone they trust that a male person is actually a female person, that female child has been silenced through programming. It may not be intentional, but every time someone they trust, an adult, a peer, media tells them that a male person is a female person just like them if that male person says so, it is lowering the boundaries of that female child.

Please tell us how? How do you expect a female child to approach a Brownie leader, who might even be the mother of the male child in question, and express her feeling of being unsafe?

And what fucking expectation would she have if she did anyway that her needs would be respectfully met?

Using the information given by @SolidMam I'd like to do a little show my working maths for you all.

SolidMam's child indicated that they identified as female when he was a pre-verbal child. Most children start speaking at 1 year old.

So we can assume that Solid's boy was under 1 year old when this started.

Solid says that her child is now pre-pubescent, so about 11. That leaves almost exactly 10 years from pre-verbal indication to the current pre-pubescent child.

Solid says that she has known her child as a daughter for longer than she has known her child as her son, so that's over 5 years, lets say 5 years and six months.

So working backwards that brings his age to 4 and a half.

Solid also says that the social transition was played out over the course of a year, so that brings us to 3 and a half.

A three and a half year old child was socially transitioned, but it seems that his fate was sealed before he even turned 1!

I mean, if this isn't utterly bonkers I don't know what is!