Victoria Derbyshire today and Girlguides

[AgnesBadenPowell]

Did anyone see Victoria Derbyshire on BBC2 this morning? Interesting discussion about transgender people and self ID. One of the speakers mentioned Girlguiding, which caught my attention as I am a Leader and I’ve had similar concerns but few people to discuss it with IRL.

You might have seen the press coverage (and threads here) about the changes to Girlguiding UK’s policy on inclusivity for transgender members

As a leader it’s my duty to implement the policy. I also have a duty of care to the girls in my unit. I’ve thought long and hard about this and in my view, GG has got it wrong.

GGUK recognises gender self identity, which is “a person’s inner sense of being a girl or a woman”. A male child who identifies as a girl can enroll as a rainbow, brownie, guide or ranger and a male who identifies as a woman can make the Guide promise and become a leader. Leadership roles have historically been women only (although men can volunteer for support roles that don’t need the promise and aren’t in charge of units).

The policy states that transgender children should use the accommodation of their acquired gender on camp. Parents of other children should not be informed - leaders are told it is neither required or best practice. Remember that Guiding also permits adult leaders (including men who identify as women) to share accommodation with children; it’s not the preferred option and at least 2 adults should always be present in the tent or guide hut but it does happen.

I have written to GGUK to outline my concerns:

1. the policy allows, for example, a 14 yo biological male Guide to share sleeping accommodation with a 10 year old female Guide.NSPCC advice is that children over 10 do not share a bedroom with the opposite sex. It’s not unreasonable for parents to expect GG to follow this advice. Why aren’t we?

1. The policy does not acknowledge the embarrassment a teen may feel when dealing with periods, washing and bathing in shared facilities with a person they may have known as a boy.

1. The policy is focused on the needs of the transchild and their preferences. As a Leader I have a duty to all children in my care and must balance each of their needs. Only in reference to changing clothes does the policy state that all children should be offered a more private place to change if desired, otherwise transchildren chose what facilities they use with no reference to their fellow guides.

1. If GG cannot guarantee truly single sex accommodation then some girls will miss out on residentials, eg girls from certain religious groups, those who have been subjected to abuse or who just don’t want to. This is against GG’s inclusive ethos

So far GG has responded with (template?) emails to say that GG has always been a single gender organisation, gender identity (as defined above) is recognised as separate from biological sex and Leaders should refer concerned parents to the higher ups.

Today’s TV show made me wonder how many people really understand the implications of the policy and have similar concerns. Leaders can't discuss other children with parents (rightIy so) but that means parents can't give informed consent to their child sharing mixed sex facilities. I'd like to gauge the feeling of parents but it's a sensitive issue and not something that I can just ask my girls’ parents. Perhaps you think I am over reacting. Perhaps you share my concerns. Either way, I’d like to know.

Finally, I should add that I’m not trying to have transgirls removed from GG. Neither do I think all men/boys are potential sex offenders. But I do owe it to the parents and children in my care to have assessed all the risks thoroughly. My point is that this policy poses a risk, which doesn't appear to be recognised by GG and Leaders aren't being advised how to manage it.

I do have to pop out for a bit now but will come back later, if anyone replies!

TerfyOwl that is it put perfectly.

I have Brownies so haven’t got the concerns about peer to peer sexual relationships that are relevant to older groups.

But it is massively important that the girls in my care have the ability to talk and behave freely. I appreciate that they should be able to do this anywhere but that’s not reality.

I am struggling to succinctly explain my objection to GGUK’s stance. Small steps but I raised this with my DisCom last night - I think many of us had the email and ignored it not appreciating the implications.

This should be being talked about at grass roots level as we are the ones who are going to have to deal with this in a practical level. If we embrace this guidance, I fear we are open to attack from parents of girls. If we object, we are open to attack from parents of trans children and the very vocal (and initimidating) trans lobby.

I have just been on the GGA website, I find legal stuff really confusing, so perhaps someone with more of a grip could have a look too, but I can't see how any responsible leader could implement these policies as they contradict each other. For example:

"Girlguiding complies with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 which makes clear that organisations providing single-sex services such as Girlguiding should treat people according to their acquired gender. As such, and in line with our values of inclusion, we welcome any young person who self-identifies as a girl or young woman."
www.girlguiding.org.uk/what-we-do/our-stories-and-news/news/equality-and-diversity-policy/

Here they are calling the protected characteristic of sex, 'gender'!!!!
"Girlguiding's approach to inclusion
Girlguiding is open to all girls and young women between the ages of 5-25 (4 in Ulster). Girlguiding provides resources and support for adult volunteers to enable them to include all girls and young women and give them a great guiding experience.

Further information about how Girlguiding supports the inclusion of individuals with legally protected characteristics can be found in the following supporting information.

Gender.
Age.
Disability.
Transgender and gender reassignment.
Marriage and civil partnership.
Race and ethnicity.
Religion or belief.
Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) members. "
www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/policies/girlguiding-policies/equality-and-diversity-policy/

Plus ""In addition to providing a ‘girl only’ space for our young members, we are committed to ensuring our young members have female role models in leadership within Girlguiding. In order to support this, roles such as Unit Leader, can only be undertaken by female members.

Whilst some roles are restricted to only being held by women, adult males (18+) are welcome to join the charity in a variety of other volunteer roles.

Further information can be found in our Membership and Recruitment policy."

"Girlguiding is a single-sex organisation in accordance with the provisions of the Equality Act 2010. Girlguiding believes that the needs of girls and young women are best met through an organisation catering specifically for girls and led by women.
Our policies
Girlguiding’s policies and related statements provide a structure in which guiding can take place safely, consistently and in accordance with legislation.

Policies must be followed by Girlguiding’s members and by recognised volunteers involved in delivering or supporting guiding. These policy statements are supported by further information and resources to ensure that our members put the policies into practice."
www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/policies/girlguiding-policies/membership-and-recruitment-policy/

They seem on the one hand to be saying they are invoking exemptions to keep it girl only, but on the other that any one who identifies as a girl is a girl or 'female' (they conflate that word a lot). Their safeguarding and membership also talks about informed consent (how does that gel with parents not being being told?) and also not doing or being discriminatory in order to discourage anyone from joining (inc religion) so that also contradicts 'you are free to go elsewhere if you don't like it'.

I can't see how any leader, in good faith, could implement this without falling foul of contradictory policies. I'm not sure where that'd then leave them in terms of liability.

Also, attached a little gem from EA2010

I have a bit of spare time in the next couple of weeks so am going to do some letter writing- hq, region, any one I can think of.
All debate seems to have been shut down on this. Yesterday a couple of people posted questions about the Victoria Derbyshire interview - although the mods did allow the posts, they turned off comments and just posted a link to gga website guidelines.

If they don't like it, they can sack me. After 25 years as a leader they can fuck off if they think I am allowing the girls and young women in my care loose the girl only space they have now. Which incidentally they have many times told me they want to continue

Sorry, posted questions on a couple of gg fb groups, missed that out!

If any guide leaders are here I would recommend pressuring GG to take independent professional legal advice from a reputable firm of solicitors and probably get an expert opinion from leading counsel in the field regarding the Equality act 2010 and the sex exemptions. It looks like they are winging it.

I would also want to see an explanation of how safeguarding operates at grass roots level. Who has responsibility? Which organisation regulates safeguarding at local level? Is it the local authority?

Who has ultimate responsibility if something goes wrong?

These are your pressure points and once you have the names then you know who to lobby

TerfyOwl

That is a heartbreaking post.

One of the things Stephanie Davis Arai says (Transgendertrend website for parents of trans-children), is that when a boy who identifies as a girl comes to school, he is usually presenting as very feminine.

She says that the effect on girls can be profound. They look at this boy, being very feminine, being feted and celebrated precisely for his femininity, and then they look at themselves and feel rather shattered. If that's what a a girl is, or is supposed to be, then what am I? A boy?

You're absolutely right. It is confirmed to girls, at an incredibly impressionable age, that they are defined by stereotypes.

Personally, I think in single sex organisations like the guides, trans-girls should be excluded. They are for girls.

But, if they do have to be included, the narrative needs to be changed.

The focus should be less on celebration, and more on say compassion. The belief that that boy has should not be taken as real.

GirlScout72

Strewth. They have the law, they know what it is, and they are trying, furiously, to cobble something together that also reflects the nonsense from trans pressure groups.

And of course, it's contradictory!

No wonder they are confused and coming across as clueless.

They've got it wrong anyway the act provides for specific sex exemptions which the GG have clearly decided to ignore also I'm not sure it was ever meant to cover self id children. Adults yes but not kids.

Also the NSPCC response looks very strange.

I cannot believe that it would be referring to outdated law.

I have a colleague at another large charity and her comments about the lack of legal oversight into decisions makes me think the NSPCC may well also be penny pinching on getting proper advice.

Again it’s a case of finding the pressure points in the organisation.

I would copy the email you received into a letter to the executive board. Cc in every board member by name: Peter Wanless, Sherry Malik, Philip Noyes and Kate Stanley jump out as being most relevant.

Ask if they have taken legal advice regarding the Equality Act and the specific exemptions. Ask who will be responsible for the safeguarding failure and who will be legally liable as currently as far as you can see they are personally responsible for the current policy.

It's been a few years since I've been involved in Guiding but is the Countess of Wessex still the patron? I wonder if it would be worth writing to her.
Not because she can get involved in the discussion - her Royal status limits how political she can be.
But because it can be mentioned in letters to CHQ and SHQ that she has been contacted. It will be embarrassing to Guiding if, at any level, this absolute mess is brought to the attention of the Royal Family.
Plus, when I was involved in Guiding, there was a network from the Royal Family down through Lord Lieutenants and their families, etc that is actually very active in Guiding circles. It could potentially bring the disquiet around this decision to that very influential network.

With regards to 2 pronged approach to getting the guides to reconsider policy:

I would set out your preferred option invoking the Equality act exemption.

Explain your concerns with regards to safeguarding and inclusion of religious groups and girls recovering/ subject to male violence plus your other reasoning.

Set out consequences of what could happen if safeguarding not addressed. Ie self exclusion and at worst case abuse.

Request that the guides take independent legal advice. Offer to fund raise to pay for it on proviso you choose from their selection of solicitors who to instruct.

Send letter to every district division and all trustees.

If you can organise it get parents in each unit to sign.

I think grassroots is the way to go

As TerfyOwl posted, my concerns are not around pregnancy.
We already have good policies around sex on camp (gay and straight) and the backing of GG where a girl comes to us and says she is about to have sex (remember we've been going on mixed large scale camps for years now).
We also have a good one-to-one policy (no girl and leader to be alone one-to-one) but I'm not massively keen on having to police it any more than I do.
My concerns are around:
a girl telling us they are transgender but that we can't tell their parents, which seems to be included in the policy.
ditto but the girl telling us they want to/are taking puberty blocking drugs.
and members (including adults) choosing who they get changed with and share a room with on a residential.
Remember we already have male helpers, who can come on residentials/help at swimming etc. But we segregate them as a matter of policy (in principle my 4yo son should not have slept with me so I put him in a different pod in my tent, and regulations said that he wasn't allowed to share our toilets either - he had the choice of the big boys' toilets when we stayed at a Scout camp, or the mens' and he chose the mens')

Hi Dr Spouse

GG needs to get proper legal advice which takes into account safeguarding responsibilities. Who is responsible if there is a safeguarding failure? Put pressure on your local contact.

Other leaders must have the same concerns. You need to be putting pressure on your safeguarding leads internally If you don’t get a good enough response then escalate to the next level.

If there is pressure from inside and from parents you will get somewhere

Elle it is very easy for you to say that but anything we bring up locally is just referred upwards and GG just repeat what it says on their website.

elle i have emailed all those people at the NSPCC. Waiting for Peter Wanless to get back to me...he said it would be discussed at the next policy committee of trustees. So that will be their analysis of the law, i expect.

I have pushed and pushed for their (NSPCC) moral/safeguarding of girls stance, but they doubled down on 'there is no safeguarding concern' and wouldnt address my specific points

I have also emailed the Childrens Commissioner and the Minister for Children and Families....nothing. Brick walls everywhere. No one in a position of responsibility for children who can exert influence, will even engage with the consequences of trans-rights on dafeguarding of girls. Its a loud clear message that no one gives a shit

These are the parts of the Equalities Act 2010 which the GG could very eadily use to keep the GG female only.......

I have pushed and pushed for their (NSPCC) moral/safeguarding of girls stance, but they doubled down on 'there is no safeguarding concern' and wouldnt address my specific points

What are their specific policies on safeguarding when boys and girls are involved (ie no mention of trans) wrt changing, room sharing etc? For example I think it was mentioned that opposite Dec children shouldn’t share a room over a certain age. What is their own reasoning behind this? Why exactly do they think these children shouldnt share?

*sex not Dec

Why would you offer to pay for GG seeking legal advice? It is a long-established organisation. It has solicitors. It has funding. It is not lack of funds that has stopped them seeking a legal view on this matter. It's a desire to submit to current political pressure; to pre-empt the law change regarding self-id and probably, to access funds that are dependent on having a trans-inclusive policy.

Sema
There is no GENDER as a protected characteristic. They are legally a single SEX organisation.

I’m just posting to add my encouragement. I chose not to move my daughters from brownies to guides when they reached 10 because of this policy. My only regret is that I didn’t tell the guide leader this was the reason.

This is an extract from the first email i sent to tbe NSPCC Executive Board and Trustees, which explains why i think the Equalities Act DOESNT mean they have to include trans members or leaders, who are male...;

he EA10 has, as protected characteristics; age, sex, gender-reassignments, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, disability, religion and belief, sexual orientation.

The EA10 protects (those with a protected status) from discrimination, harassment and victimisation, which disadvantages that person on the grounds that the person has the protected characteristics

The definition of gender-reassignment given by the EA10 7(1) is;
'A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex, by changing physiological or other attributes of sex'

Therefore, even with the correct Legislation identified, it is not applicable for the following reasons;

1. it is not legal in the UK to prescribe puberty blockers, cross sex hormones or preform cosmetic surgery, to under 16s as a treatment for gender metaphor is. Children cannot comply with the definition of 'gender reassignment'. Given that 90% of children grow out of gender dysphoria by adolescence, it would be unethical to seek to do so.

2). GENDER IDENTITY is not a protected characteristic, as has been stated by the GGA and the NSPCC

3). In any case, exclusion from a single-sex group, sleeping accommodation or facilities is not 'harassment' or 'victimisation'

4. it maybe argued that it coinstitutes 'discrimination'; but the possible discrimination would not be on the basis of gender, but because of biology. Males have been excluded from the GGA for over a hundred years.

5. the exclusion would not disadvantage an individual, as there are many uni-sex activity groups available and the individual can access male sleeping accommodation and facilities

I also think that this trans-policy contravenes the EA2010 protection of a person for their religion or belief. The GGA has for the last 100 years been a single-sex group. It is still, commonly presumed to be a female only group. There are religious and cultural groups within the UK which do not allow girls to attend groups with boys, particularly overnight trips. Policy which states that group members and leaders may or may not be male, but parents will not be informed, IS going to be a barrier to girls participation. Your representative agreed with this interpretation; but went on to say that if a person believes that they are female, then they are. Hence,there would be no males present. Biology is a material reality and cannot be changed by belief. I have provided a number of examples to highlight how unacceptable self-identity is. To re-iterate gender-identity has never been the basis of segregation. There are no safe guarding concerns regarding keeping separate people with different gender-identities. It is the differences in anatomy and physiology that are relevant here.

The EA20 protects the rights of women to maintain female only environments.

Sema and dr spouse

It really sounds like you are frustrated but you will be having an impact.

If the NSPCC are getting proper advice on this now then it will take time to turn that around. It’s untested law and is probably going to mean getting expert opinions. That isn’t fast - it might take 6 weeks. When is the next policy meeting? I’d be asking for a date of their decision and to be provided with a copy of the report. That will be the point to see if the Equality and Human Rights Commission can intervene.

I’m wondering whether there is an indirect sex discrimination claim brewing if they implement a policy which disproportionately impacts on girls.

Dr Spouse I’m sorry if I’m stepping on your toes. I used to be a guide but I don’t know how safeguarding works. Surely the buck stops with individuals at each unit? Who is liable?

Maybe if you can work out where responsibility lies for safeguarding failures (so divorce it from this particular issue) then those people need to realise that they are personally liable?

Well, i asked that lemon very explicitly...i will post my email below and how they responded (before i took it to the board and trustees)...

elle....i first emailed in january 2017. Its been more than a year. Latest email saying it will be discussed at the meeting was yesterday, though