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)

I really did find that quote alarming. Frightening, in fact. It was so extreme that it did make me wonder if we were being trolled. Either way, though, the opportunity to lay out these arguments in a single AIBU thread, and, I think, seeing the impossibility of countering them convincingly unfolding in real time, is very helpful.

When I read it, I took it as being the product of someone who has superficially been reading content from sources with no safeguarding knowledge or from sources who have prioritised inclusion above any other consideration.

Over two threads there have been far too many instances of tropism to think it is anything else.

It is all superficial and overly simplistic. It may be because there is too heavy a price to pay for changing direction now. But that is just an explanation. It is no excuse.

Solid, when you make it back (as things have moved on quite a bit now), I'd really appreciate your thoughts on the above. (Maybe, for context, also read my other related posts, in which I acknowledge why I've regrettably felt the need to mention such upsetting stats, and my sympathy for yourself and your child in this difficult context).

ETA: Gah, keep calling Solid the OP! Sorry, OP - and Solid!

Why would we accept a male person as a woman?
Women are adult human females not males they are men.
You are trying to bully and manipulate women into giving up our words for ourselves just so men dont feel left out we've repeatedly explained why thats eradicating women and our ability to define ourselves as a group thats exclusive of all men.
You dont get to redefine the word woman nor strip it of its meaning because you dont want to accept that you've sold your son a lie.
There's no echo chamber here nor do we have any need to be seen as accepting of you and your son to prevent being ostracised or attacked by being seen as unkind so we can tell you the truth that those who know you personally cant. Hence your not getting told how special and brave you and your son are.
Please understand that we aren't being mean were just refusing to pander to a harmful belief system that wants to erase women as a sex class and strip us of our rights, dignity, privacy and humanity.
We say no man or boy can ever be a woman so no we won't include transwomen as women because they are men

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.

Not all men are rapists either,so why do you think we exclude all men from women's single sex spaces?

Is it a) because we're nasty mean unkind bigots who want men to be sad for no good reason or b) because any man could be a predator and you can't tell by looking and by the time you know he is it's too late?

Only people who think women are just service animals to facilitate the wants of men think it's better to risk women being harmed than to risk men being sad.

Ah yes, women are so privileged aren't we? I mean, we're only allowed absolutely anything to ourselves if no male person wants in on it but sure. Mostly middle class, mostly white males managing to convince individuals and institutions that they are the most oppressed and vulnerable really was quite the feat.

And yes mixed sex provision is preferable for men. For the kind who say they're women and the kind who mean to harm women and the kind who are both of those things it's great. Not quite so great for women, who are 9 times more likely to be assaulted in a mixed sex space than a single sex space, but what does that matter as long as the main kind of humans are happy?

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

The issue comes back to something that you keep rejecting @SolidMam .

Many male people with transgender identities don't want 'mixed sex' provision if there is also a female single sex provision. They have told us on threads, through social media, in court cases that they absolutely will not use those mixed sex provisions.

Why?

Because it is not about having a provision created for them. It is about using the female people in the female single sex provision as validation resources for their philosophical belief. It is about using the female people in those provisions as therapeutic resources as well.

Then there is the male people who use the single sex provision to make sure that female people know that those male people have power over them. They enter those provisions knowing that they will cause at least some female people distress in being there. And knowing that many of those female people are absolutely powerless to get them removed, or the female people don't want the stress of speaking out.

The adult male people with transgender identities have made this very very clear.

Would you like us to link up with a string of links that show this?

We have them.

Just ask.

It absolutely is out there on the internet and is very easy to find. There are male people with swords. There are male people posting threatening videos telling female people exactly what they will do to female people who don't just allow them to come into the space. There are groups of male people who are influential transgender males taking group videos and photos and widely publishing them for all women and girls to see.

If I remember correctly, there is even one of those groups of influential male people with transgender identities where one of them is an elected member of US Congress posted after Congress asked him to use a unisex option.

Just ask. Between all of us on this thread, we can link up thousands I reckon.

Not just toilets and changing rooms, but prisons too.

When the UK MoJ built a wing just to house male people with transgender identities at Downview, the male prisoners refused to be moved there.

There's little about women's lives or history that isn't appropriated by extreme transactivism. The lack of respect, empathy or even basic insight into the reality of the lives of girls and women is quite startling when you first encounter it. And tediously predictable when you see it spouted for the nth time on here.

I do see it as evidence of the lack of intellectual and moral arguments for sex change. It's presumably impossible to argue for removing child safeguarding and women's rights without displaying a disdain for those groups. If you value women / children as a sex class or protected group, entitled to rights, then you have to acknowledge their needs / rights.
Framing groups as inconsequential, not deserving of respect or safeguarding is fundamental to removing rights

Oh. I forgot this recent incident about the massive safeguarding failures that remove female people's ability to have single sex provisions.

here is the background

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5439360-is-it-not-possible-to-have-trans-rights-and-womens-rights-at-the-same-time?page=1

Here is Tish in her latest interview. Hard to think that the issue happened only one month ago, Tish has been on a very steep learning curve.

https://x.com/salltweets/status/1996404005698953664?s=20

This is another 'incident' causing trauma where a male person has caused harm by being in a female only single sex space.

There's no such thing as intersex. The words you are looking for are men and women who have a dsd.
People who have a dsd are either male or female
Feminism is not patriarchal. Nor does it accept gender. Feminists (real ones not handmaiden) accept that we are discriminated because of our sex and gender stereotypes are used to do so. As such we reject gender in all forms as reductive and misogynistic.
The only group promoting outdated regressive gender stereotypes are the gender idealogs like yourself.
You may claim to be a Feminist @SolidMam but its clear to everyone on this thread that you're not 1 you're a fully fledged MRA

Tbh I would say that your sex-based position is a huge over-simplification of a complicated social issue - but we disagree on gender terms, so it's probably a further non-starter of a conversation.

I have experience of safeguarding and have held PVGs, both professionally and as a volunteer. I prioritise inclusion, unless actual safety is the priority - which in many day-to-day cases it isn't.

Maybe the words of Sarah Vine KC will be listened to over us randoms on the internet.

This is a snipped segment

https://x.com/treesey/status/1996545116774002689?s=20

Here is the full segment.

"I prioritise inclusion, unless actual safety is the priority - which in many day-to-day cases it isn't"

There are times you prioritise inclusion over safety?!!

And I would say that you actually lack any depth of knowledge about this issue beyond how it impacts you and your family. The very fact that you have used repeated personal attacks and bullying towards me on this thread shows that you are unable to listen to other people's opinions and you have a very prejudiced preconception about what people believe and don't believe.

You may have 'experience' in safeguarding, but you don't understand the principles that have created the foundation of safeguarding policy.

You have demonstrated this repeatedly on these threads.

The fact that you 'prioritise' inclusion in situations where it cannot be managed, is just highlighting you lack of understanding.

You're doing the opposite of safeguarding your own child though @SolidMam by telling him he is a girl and should therefore be in single sex spaces for female people you are setting him up to be told no.

Any mental health distress caused by that falls squarely on your shoulders.

It is not the fault of women and girls that you have lied to him and made him believe he should be entitled to be treated by others as a girl.

@SolidMam

Here you are. Just another example of what happens when inclusion is prioritised over 'safety'.

Or... maybe you just have a narrow and dismissive view on what is safety.

Maybe you don't believe that a woman being seen naked is a 'safety' issue.

Could you please clarify what is and is not a 'safety' issue in your opinion?

Yes of course she does.

The inclusion of her male child in spaces for girls is prioritised at all times.

She hasn't answered whether she expects her son to play football in the girls teams/ leagues. If she does then this is a safeguarding issue for girls in those leagues. But his inclusion is more important than the safety of those girls.

It is totally unacceptable to prioritise the inclusion of boys over the safety of girls.

Its actually shocking to see this being admitted to. How on earth did our moral framework fail so badly to allow this to take hold?

I think this is ingrained misogyny. Many women believe males matter more.

Absolutely

But still, shocking to see it laid out so barely

I think we all knew it was thus though.

The FA have ruled that she can play girls football until the age of 12, actually. Which I don't necessarily agree with (I think it depends on the context and level of the match being played and I wish there was more inclusive, casual mixed teams) but can accept the logic of, given the general hormonal differences that kick in at puberty.

If there was a threat to female girls safety in any given activity, then of course I would prioritise it. But the mere presence of a male doesn't always constitute a threat to safety.

It takes my breath away to see it laid out like that.

Can I ask how you explain to your son, exactly how he can be a 'girl' for some purposes and not others?

Particularly since you don't seem to understand sex categorisation well and you use destabilised language.