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)

My earlier one, to avoid the need for annoying scrolling. The opening bold was a quote from yourself arguing that it's unethical to exclude transwomen as a demographic for safeguarding purposes.

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!

No I haven't read it. That's really interesting that she has seen that link.

It's one of those books that I keep meaning to read so I will order it.

OK. Give me a sec, and I'll see if I can confirm what I recall, at least about her discussing how services interacted...

Just searched "CAMHS" in it on my iPad and got 97 matches, so it's definitely referenced in some detail, whether or not my recollection of the exact dynamics with gender services are accurate.

But OP and their child think women are female or male people, so being male IS being a woman for them.

They don't think "woman" is limited to "female" - it's to do with the things that make you happy.

So being male shouldn't be an issue for them.

It does seem to be relevant. Two short quotes on skimming the matches.

'"While many young people seen at GIDS were very distressed, not all were. But they still needed help and there was nowhere else for them to go. 'Some of the children didn't experience high levels of distress, but they really valued coming to a place and just talking with someone who understands. They would never get into CAMHS," the clinician explained.' (Chapt. 21)

'..."I'd be in tears because CAMHS is treating him as a woman and saying all this will be cured when he goes to the Tavistock."' (quote from parent "Diana" in Chapt. 5)

PS On reviewing, a small proportion of the matches are in the bibliography - although this may be helpful in itself - and certain chapters will be likely to have much more concentrated reference to CAMHs, depending on their relevance to the focus. But it does look like I didn't remember entirely wrongly, and it may be of interest to you. Please be aware that I found it a distressing read even without a child of my own experiencing related issues.

While emphasising my warning to Dimes above, Solid, I wonder if it may perhaps be of interest to you, too. If you've not already heard of it, it won a significant journalism award for its exploration of the NHS gender identity clinic known as the Tavistock, delving into the complex reasons behind its recent closure with facts, stats, whistleblowers, personal anecdotes and opportunities for refutation and counter-argument. It was praised for its meticulous research, balance and diplomacy.

thanks so much for that. I'll definitely order it.

Sorry for prolonged editing of the above. A bad habit. Wanted to extend my recommendation to Solid. (And be v. accurate re. what I'd found).

It's awful to read this.

I'm not sure I said that mixed sexed facilities improved the safety of females.

I did say that there is not necessarily a heightened threat because males are present, which is true. If there is a male abuser present then of course it is less safe. It depends on the male, the context and setting.

This of course is little comfort to those who are abused.

I would also expect that any mixed sex toilet/changing provision are fiercely risk assessed so that they are not inherently dangerous places to be.

It's come back to toilets once again and for good reason. Obviously I do not want to be accused of being permissive to abusers.

However blanket bans of males in same sex spaces does not solve the issue of abuse, as well as aggravating the many women who would stand with my trans daughter over this issue.

it doesn't solve it but it sure as heck reduces the risk

However blanket bans of males in same sex spaces does not solve the issue of abuse, as well as aggravating the many women who would stand with my trans daughter over this issue.

@SolidMam

Third spaces would solve that but that's not something that the trans community seem to want.

To bring back to this thread, your son could have achieved that in the Scouts, but you chose the single sex organisation instead.

I am going to repost this (posted a few pages back) as it is entirely relevant as to why no male people above about 8 years old should be in female single sex toilets. AND it is relevant as to why those single sex toilets should not be replaced with unisex toilets.

Often, what also was not considered is the female toilet usage includes activities outside of the ability to lock the door. It is like there is a group of people who have never in their life needed to use a toilet facility where what they needed didn't fit neatly into a toilet cubicle with a locked door.

How great for them!

Here is that list of toilet usage this is just my own experience:

I have had to use the toilet while having a pram / pushchair jammed into the door with groceries.

I have had to have my mum use the public toilet because the disable toilet was not available and had her wheelchair jammed in the door because I couldn't leave her sit to move it and shut the door.

I have had breastmilk leaks / children's vomit / food spilled on my clothes and needed to have an unbuttoned top to dry the top under the hand drier.

I have come across other women quite regularly washing out their tops or their skirts etc and drying them enough to put back on .

I have friends who have miscarried in toilets and needed assistance and for that to be female people to make it more comfortable.

I went to the pub the other night and there was a woman dealing with a spilled wine on her top.

Toilets are not just used behind a closed cubicle door. There are quite a few aspects of female toilet usage that happen in the public space, or even now still occur with a toilet door jammed open.

So, this push for 'unisex' toilets with just locked cubicles etc also really doesn't work in practice, women still need female single sex toilet provision. Imagine waiting for a woman to dry out her top in one cubicle while there is a line forming. It just doesn't work the way people demand that it does.

Why in the above circumstances, should any female person have to accept a male person's presence above the age of about 8 years old who need to be with their mother?

I look forward to your answer.

However blanket bans of males in same sex spaces does not solve the issue of abuse...

Locking doors doesn't "solve the issue of" burglary, either. Or speed limits, car crashes. This is an endlessly recycled, bad faith logical fallacy.

Sadly, I would not be surprised if threats of violence have been sent to GGHQ in the last few days.

Does the email instruct you not to share it?

"However blanket bans of males in same sex spaces does not solve the issue of abuse, as well as aggravating the many women who would stand with my trans daughter over this issue."

Shall I repost all the posts that I posted a few pages back about safeguarding principles and discrimination?

You obviously have not bothered to read them and engage with them, but I will repost if it means you will read them.

Safeguarding = ALL male people are blanket banned on the basis of sex as that is the only legitimate discrimination that is acceptable if something has been labelled with the words 'female', 'girls' or 'women.'

Just not every male person with a transgender identity is an abuser, nor is 'ALL men and boys'. Yet, safeguarding policy excludes them ALL. Because no 'risk assessment' can be done on who is entering a publicly accessed provision.

It is fucking irrelevant if it aggravates you and your friends. Unless you have fully informed consent from every single female person (and as a safeguarding expert you will know that children cannot consent) then you and your friends who are aggravated cannot change the fact that not every female person using the provision has consented to male people above the age of about 8 being there.

Also from that post:

I'm not sure I said that mixed sexed facilities improved the safety of females.

You did. I think the exact wording was "better for everyone", because it struck me at the time, although I've not been able to find it to check.

I did say that there is not necessarily a heightened threat because males are present, which is true.

But you also, elsewhere, clearly acknowledge that males are by far and away the majority of perpetrators of abuse.

I would also expect that any mixed sex toilet/changing provision are fiercely risk assessed so that they are not inherently dangerous places to be.

Risk assessment identifies risk, it doesn't mitigate it.

Have you seen my thrice-posted questions?

Have you guys got lost from your own thread, or have I got lost in this thread? I can't find what you're talking about...

Yes it does because they are male and we keep all males out even the nice ones, why because they don't have rapist, pedophile etc tattooed on their foreheads so we don't know which are safe and nice and which aren't so safeguarding insists absolutely no males.
Hope that helps

How about this approach, Solid?

Can you tell me (and please answer this one - I'm feeling a bit ignored!) why charities advocate for female-only toilets in the developing world (with reference to your convictions that including males doesn't increase risk, and blanket bans don't solve abuses?) Do you think campaigns for such facilities are unethical? If not, why would you support them over there, but not over here?

@Catiette This one - but you need to look at the edit history

I'm so sorry, I've got totally lost. I thought I'd caught everything!

Got it. That's awful, but not surprising, sadly. I find it interesting that this implicitly recognises which side is most (exclusively, almost!) associated with threats and demonstrations of physical violence and intimidation - yet they still see this one as The Side Of Right.