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'm not surprised it gets chalked up as conspiracy theory as it sounds so unbelievable.

That's the extraordinary thing. There is so much trust in the medical profession, that people find this incomprehensible. I really wonder what the long term fall out of this will be.

The devastation to lives has already started to be recorded. The detransitioners are largely ignored by the gender clinics and the trans support groups. They are ostracised by people who espouse inclusivity, and ‘love’. Although since so many parents complained about the messaging of love that so often looked like it was taken from PIE propaganda that ‘love’ message has disappeared somewhat.

The detransitioner numbers have always been minimised and falsified. I have links to european long term studies from nearly 10 years ago that put the detransitioner rate on long term follow up after surgery was 9%! 10 years or so ago! But that study never gets mentioned at all. The numbers are likely to be bigger now with the huge increase of children being medicalised.

And yet… detransitioner studies were rejected as ‘transphobic’ by at least one university.

The mess is horrific once you start analysing it and following the data and the reading widely.

The intimidation and shame tactics have been very successful.
It's been in evidence on various threads about the GG on here. A number of supposed parents of children claiming devastation about GG is returning to its roots of being single sex. Much emoting and demands to be kind and then suddenly going into extreme transactivist rants about how regressive single sex spaces are, how lesbians must accept men in their dating pool if said men claim to be women, how inclusion should trump safeguarding and all sorts of other odd obsessions.

It would be funny if they weren't so effective in intimidating others and silencing open truthful debate.

I'm so sick of the reporting which says

Inclusion = transgirls

That's it. That's all it is. Nothing to see here, folx!

Not

inclusion = lesbian girls who have a right to have their sexuality validated
inclusion = including ethnic and religious minority girls
inclusion = girls with learning disabilities who may use rigid pronouns
inclusion = including girls with PTSD
inclusion = independent thinkers and girls going against the Zeitgeist
inclusion = upholding Guiding's founding aims, to promote girls in a sexist world

To anyone with any knowledge of this issue, their statement below is pretty clear that all of the above are at best unwelcome, and at worst, undeserving of recognition and respect, let alone membership:

"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, the Board of Trustees for Girlguiding has made the difficult decision that 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."

Sometimes, when referring to inclusion, we fall into the same trap of referring to it as if it's synonymous with transgirls and women eg. "It's crazy that sporting bodies favour inclusion over safety" (more accurately, they're excluding women from sporting opportunities to include transwomen as well as making women unsafe) / "GG has opted to prioritise inclusion over girls" (more accurately and shockingly, they've decided to exclude some girls specifically in order to include transgirls").

It's easier said than done - I'm guilty of it, too - but maybe we could try to be clear that "including males" is usually NOT, actually, "inclusion" at all! It's another verbal sleight of hand - it's more of Barra Kerr's rohypnol.

With hindsight, my first sexual assault was age 7. I was set upon in the school playground at the end of the day by a bunch of boys including the biggest in the class and I was pinned to my hands and knees while they... interfered with a couple of layers of my clothing. Fortunately DM came down to see why I was late and caught them. It was the 80s and the era of DIY threats to deal with issues and pre-safeguarding and any awareness of peer on peer abuse. It's only in recent years with that shift of awareness that it's shifted from (humiliating) toilet humour to seeing it as sexualised behaviour which schools certainly would investigate these days.

My most serious one was sleeping in a mixed sex group with university friends. I woke up to find a hand where uninvited hands certainly should not be.

The first incident was at an age of Rainbow/ Brownie crossover. The latter is why access to single space sleeping arrangements is important, and honesty about them.

As a leader it was frustrating that my sons were held to a different standard to males that say "I am a girl therefore I am". I always abided by Guiding rules on leaders' children. We were transparent that there were (young) leaders' sons in attendance on pack nights and trips. If policies hadn't allowed for that practicality, it would have resulted in loosing a leader with a pack holiday license and I would probably have to have left outright and risked the sustainability of a popular unit. The rules on leader's children are proportionate at balancing safeguarding and the logistics of keeping volunteers. The rules about male "trans-girls" were different and obscured informed choice because leaders weren't allowed to disclose the presence of biological males to allow members and families to make an informed choice. There were double standards in the way that different categories of males were treated. Fortunately we weren't put in the difficult position to have to navigate that.

The rule change brings clarity and consistency. No males can be (young) members. There can be male volunteers but they often have support or specialist roles such as advisors with niche specialisms rather than being regular pack night members. Iirc men (the regular kind) can be unit helpers rather than full leaders but I could be out of date on that.

There is demand for Girl Guiding to be a (mostly) single sex organisation because it has held sustainable numbers of members and volunteers. Scouting couldn't maintain that position and voted to become mixed-sex. Scouting hasn't totally escaped the issue (mainly regarding disclosure), but at least it is transparent that it is a mixed-sex environment.

I am sorry that you experienced this.

However, if @SolidMam by now either cannot understand just how many female children experience male peer abuse and assault and why female children need full and complete honesty about who is in their single sex group, sadly no amount of us, you , me and others, recounting our very personal experience of sexual abuse at the hands of male peers will convince them.

And no, this is no saying ‘all male children’ will abuse female children. But some will. And just as important, abuse survivors who are female often need female single sex provisions to heal, or feel comfortable to participate.

Having a male child present is an impediment to this because it is no longer a female single sex provision.

It is part of the list of harm that safeguarding is suppose to provide protection against.

This is also important when discussing ‘rights’ over ‘privileges’.

There is no infringement on civil rights in excluding male people from female single sex provisions or from correctly identifying the sex class of a male people. In Article 8, there are a list of instances where the right to privacy can be set aside.

Anyone posting about rights often ignore this.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-8-respect-your-private-and-family-life

Article 8 protects your right to respect for your private and family life.

The EHRC link covers what this means. Including these restrictions:

Restrictions to the right to respect for your private and family life
There are situations when public authorities can interfere with your right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:

protect national security
protect public safety
protect the economy
protect health or morals
prevent disorder or crime, or
protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

This is why it is very important to be clear about just what is a right and what is not. And to be very specific.

There is NO right for a male person to access a female single sex provision. And any declared ‘right’ for that male person not to honestly declare them being male when access to a female single sex provision is involve is violating the rights of female people. ie. there is no right for that male person to be using that provision and they cannot claim that they have a right to privacy so they can get that access.

This is often misunderstood.

The thing with GG is that it covers such a broad spectrum of ages. Rainbows it likely doesn't make much difference. But when I was upper brownie/ guide age there was a lot of girl-specific chat. Dealing with periods, boys, body changes etc were often discussed because it was far easier to do in priavte there than at school. If there was a trans girl there I don't think those topics would be discussed due to embarrassment or not wanting to offend.

I was a cub leader for a while and in many ways it was lovely having girls and boys together. But the boys dominated hugely despite our best efforts, and even though there were more girls.

As an aside I attended a dv group for a while. If a trans woman had been there I wouldn't have gone. It is important there are services for everyone, but that doesn't mean everyone should be allowed to attend any service.

I can answer this. A few years ago i was involved with a sports club for women. There was a person who was clearly biologically male - very tall, stubble, large Adam's apple, square set jaw etc. Very easily identifiable as a male.

I was introduced to them as being called a name that could be used for either sex. Let's say Sam. I was told they were transgender. I was perfectly willing to accept that.

However, because they looked so stereotypically male (and in sports kit that was gender neutral) I did get caught out at points using the wrong gender. Becsuse frankly they looked male. Each time I was treated exceptionally harshly by this person- told I was prejudiced, hateful etc. It was utterly horrible especially when they came right up to me (almost a foot taller than me) getting veey angry. They told me that if i made the same mistake again they would ensure I didn't another time, then laughed. I didn't go back and I know other that left after this incident as they didn't feel safe.

I appreciate this is probably a very unusual circumstance and not representative of most trans people. But I also think therr is an undercurrent in some sections of trans and gender neutral politics that refuses to accept mistakes or difference of opinion. Men are often bigger and stronger than women, and often don't appreciate the effect this difference has.

Yep. The one I've not shared - and these were boys, not transgirls, but frankly what matters to me is that they were male (what's in someone's own head or what they're wearing makes no meaningful difference to me when it's their body that can hurt me)...

When I was somewhere between 7 and 10? (AKA Brownie age?), I had a number of close encounters with aggressive boys in my year group at my (tiny, really well-run) school.

One was always trying to intimidate the girls - he was absolutely, unambiguously quite a bit bigger and stronger than us, really male-ly stocky, with this brute animosity, and he clearly relished our wariness. I remember how unsafe we felt in his presence, and how we adapted our behaviour around him. (I took him on once in angry fear - pushed him a little - and was a heroine for weeks!)

And another boy once took my head between his hands, and intentionally smashed it as hard as he could back into a concrete wall.

Interestingly, I do remember a primary school girl trying to physically intimidate me in the changing room, too, but it was markedly all posturing, and I experienced it very differently. She was seriously tall for our age, yet there simply wasn't the same degree of physical dominance, or anticipation of latent aggression, or sense of my own vulnerability in the experience.

I do remember Brownies and Guides as feeling very, very different because of the absence of the boys from school. Not automatically better (and one of my best friends from a very young age was a boy, and there were a number I liked or admired from a distance!)... but sufficiently different for it to quite clearly be offering something special to girls. Something that people are now arguing they should lose.

AI overview (these particular references unchecked - I like "some Quora users" especially - but I understand are proper-research-supported):

Key Findings for Pre-Puberty (Around Age 9)

• Muscle Strength: Boys generally show about 8-10% greater strength in leg muscles and slightly larger differences in upper limbs compared to girls in the 5-10 age range.

• Athletic Performance: Research suggests boys at this age are faster in sprints and runs, complete more pushups, and have stronger grips, notes the Women's Sports Policy Working Group.

• Aerobic Capacity: Boys in early elementary years often have higher aerobic capacity, say

Why the Differences?

• Hormones & Muscle Mass: While significant differences emerge with puberty (increased testosterone in boys leads to faster muscle growth), some physical distinctions are present earlier.

• Body Size: Boys tend to be slightly larger and heavier, contributing to strength differences, say some Quora users.

10% greater strength is, frankly, a LOT. Combine that with that male capacity for quick anger, add in the usual proportion of bullies prepared to exploit this at any school, and you can see why Brownies could be very welcome indeed to many girls, simply removing this risk wholesale for a few enjoyable hours.

We shouldn’t underestimate how much some men (and women) hate women and girls.

Wow.

Poor children. Its abuse

You've summed it up so well. Including males means tge exclusion of a large number of females. It's wrong. Society is very slowly catching up. One day people might acknowledge the massive harms done.

There was a thread recently about how the same word can have two opposite meanings. Eg. Wicked can mean evil, or it can also mean it’s really good. I think the word inclusion could be added to that thread, because by including everyone, it’s actually excluding people. Eg. Including trans women on a female darts team, would exclude an eligible woman.

Inclusion has never meant just opening things up to anyone who wants access. Inclusion has always been about the wider picture and ensuring opportunities for all.

For inclusion to be effective, it necessarily involves exclusion. For example, to include women in public spaces, it is sometimes necessary to exclude men. For example, women from particular religions cannot share public spaces with men. Women who have been abused/are vulnerable for specific reasons need spaces away from men.