Girl guide trans policy following Supreme Court ruling

[Iamwhoiamwhoareyou]

Girl guides have a trans inclusive policy with links on their website to “the law” where info pre-dates the Supreme Court ruling allowing women only spaces to exclude trans members (biological boys)

Does anyone have any information in regards to them updating their policy in light of the new ruling?

The Charity Commission registration for GG does indeed specify that it's for girls only.
We await them reading and understanding, or failing actual reading and understanding, for them to be referred to the Charity Commission.
Before Helen Watts and I were expelled, they were chucking out girls and women who identified as boys/men and they admitted they were discriminating against those girls/women and changed their policy. That is true trans inclusion: women and girls regardless of how they identify.

They used to manage by having single sex tents etc. And it was always more “left wing” than “green”.

Maybe "green Brownies " just referred to their green uniforms. But the group I was with seemed fairly Green as well as left-wing.

Yup as they are a charity for girls which is now defined by biology rather than whim, they need to support biological girls only. It's really clear, no debate.

I don't have any standing to engage with girl guides on this as I don't have any daughters.
However, if you have skin in the game with them, they key question to ask and keep asking is "please could you provide evidence that your Public Liability Insurance remains valid in conjunction with this policy?"

Apparently the big insurers for Public Liability Insurance have declared all policies void for any organisation that has a policy allowing males into single-sex spaces in contravention of the law. On this page https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/information-for-volunteers/running-your-unit/finance-insurance-and-property/insurance/public-liability-insurance/ the girl guiding website says that there is Public Liability Insurance in place, and having this will be a condition for a lot of their activities. either Girl Guiding needs to obtain written confirmation from their insurers that their PLI cover remains valid despite them having an official policy that breaks the law, or they need to change the policy.

Wow, that’s a big declaration. I’m guessing there’s many organisations that are falling foul of this.

It's apparently why several major sports organisations have hurriedly announced new policies in the last few days - because they were notified that their insurance was now invalid. It will probably take a while for this to percolate through all organisations, and what I don't know is whether there are any suppliers of Public Liability Insurance who will be willing to go oj the record and say that their insurance is still valid even if your policies are in contravention of the law.

There are also some companies who effectively self insure ?

There are, but when I have e.g. hired a hall, or arranged a larger group activity that involves a 3rd party supplier, I have usually been required to sign a document confirming that I hold PLI for at least £5 million/£10 million/£20 million depending on the context. Organisations that self-insure would need to fully own any facilities they use, which wouldn't apply in Guiding.

It does seem like momentum is building of large organisations announcing policy changes. That may help smaller organisations like GG plan how to manage and navigate this.

I do hope GG has accepted that it was wrong and needs to change, and is actively working through how to implement that change promptly and properly rather than focusing on doubling down.

I don't know how many boys they had admitted (do GG even know?), but I don't think it's the children's fault they're in this situation. I blame the adults around them. So I hope part of the delay from GG is because they're working out how to deal with the necessary exiting of those children from the organisation in the last damaging way for them.

And that they're not just focused on PR management and protecting their own back legally. Or trying to find ways to dig in further with their untenable position.

Thank you for thinking of all those poor little boys. They've had adults supporting them by promising them something that can never happen.
I want GG back to single sex, although I don't know how many boys are involved.
Where we have trans identified male adults then there is still a role for them as unit helpers recognising that they should be welcomed but must be accepting that they are male and need to avoid female areas and that there are some things that you can't do. Females identifying as non binary have always been welcome as are confused girls struggling with gender identity. In fact I feel that we have a really important role supporting these girls.
I think that those leaders posting on Facebook are partly supporting their lovely friends/relatives without recognising that safeguarding and risk assessment looks at population level.
I have no idea how GG are going to sort this out. I definitely don't want HQ wasting money on expensive court cases.

I doubt it would be proportionate or appropriate to make any male child who is currently a member leave as part of a policy change. It would be cruel and it's not Girl Guides job to manage any kind of process to reassert reality to individual children.

What I hope they would do would be to (1) immediately Institute and enforce a proper policy to stop all mixed-sex sleeping on camps or other overnights, and ensure that any other activities that involve being partially unclothed (getting changed for plays/performances, lavatories/swimming) has male guides in a separate room and (2) close admission for any new members who are male, but allow existing members to continue until the next natural exit point, where they can be encouraged to move to the next step up within the mixed-sex scouting organisation instead.

I understand the point you're making, but proportionality is at policy level not individual level. It is GG's job to comply with the law in delivering their charitable objectives.

Waiting until they age out of a section could mean boys continuing to be members of a "single sex" organisation for 4 years. I am not persuaded that would be tenable.

The FA are exiting all their transgender women from women's football with effect from 1 June 2025.

GG could support affected members to move on at the end of the summer term as that is a natural ending point. There are other circumstances where members are asked to leave. I think describing it as cruel in these circumstances is hyperbolic. It's perfectly possible to manage it in a compassionate way.

Current policy that encompasses gender says that any transgirls who desist have to leave. So brutal though that seems the GG stance even before SC ruling was if you're not born a girl and stop identifying as one, you have to leave.

They were equally abrupt in ending the membership of overseas members when they closed down Guiding overseas.
As it's now quite clearly not lawful to have male children in Guiding - finishing as the end of term would be just.

Girls will leave Guiding for a wide number of reasons including distance, clash with other activities or parents wanting them to do other things. So it would not all be "you have done something wrong" or "you don't like it any more".

Parents are the ones who should handle this sensitively (it isn't the right place for you any more) but I bet they won't (there are so many people who hate you poor darling).

Has there been any update on this, does anyone know?

I noticed the inclusion and and Accessibility Specialist for Girlguiding. Who reviews and edits policy documents, programme developments, and activities is trans and works for gendered intelligence a trans charity

Which makes a lot of sense given the policy update last week (that is too say there have been no changes, waiting for guidance etc). Ironically sent out to leaders the day before the guidance was sent to parliament.

On one hand, I get it, they're fearful of the mantrum that'll manifest itself. On the other hand, there's no excuse, the supreme court has already given them the reason they needed.

As a leader, im a bit worried about the legal position I could be put in. GG says existing policy stands despite the law (ridiculous to have to write this down). So if I were to admit a trans child, could I personally be challenged in court for breaking the law by eg. a GC parent? Or would it just be the organisation? But if I refused to admit a trans child, could I be challenged in court by eg. a trans parent for not permitting the child to join in line with GG policies? What a shitshow!