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!

If gender identity becomes a protected category and men can say they are women, are we still covered by 'sex' being a protected catergory.

Will sex still be defined in law by biology or will they combine/confuse it with gender?

Offhand:

Equality Act in full

Then s7. & s11. define the protected characteristics of Gender Reassignment and Sex respectively.

Chapter 2 in its entirety deals with defining what is Prohibited Conduct, but s15-s18, & s20-22 can be skipped (they deal specifically with disability, pregnancy, and absences from work for gender reassignment purposes).

s29. as this situation is likely to fall under the provisioning of services.

I don't know enough about the Guides, Scouts, etc, to know if they count as Associations, but if I'm reading s107 right then they are in which case s100-s103

Part 11 -> Chapter 2 (Positive Action) s158-s159

Then there's the Schedules:

So Schedule 3 -> Part 7 -> s26-28

and maybe Schedule 23 -> s3 if ss5 is in effect

And then, because to be fair, that's a headache to get through, there's actual explanatory notes containing commentary on the different sections in each Schedule/Part as well:

so for Schedule 3 -> Part 7

and Schedule 23 (Ctrl-F "Communal Accomodation", it's down near the bottom of the page)

Given the way that EHCR has worded the guidance I get the feeling that there might be case law involved as well somewhere, but I can't find anything off-hand.

There's probably sections I've missed though, so if anybody spots them feel free to add.

Sorry, that was for @Elletorro

Thanks Haru

I’ve got some homework now!

Sorry for disappearing, it was Rainbows tonight. I'm so glad I started this thread; there's some very articulate posters who've been able to put into words what I've been struggling to say. It's so much more than anxiety about teen boys/girls sharing tents - it's about how self ID may be exploited by those who are not trans, how GG have unilaterally redefined what it is to be a girl, what the impact of losing one of the few girls only spaces will be.

I said this in my other post on AIBU:

It really hit home (at Rainbows tonight) that these are wonderful girls with so much potential - and GGUK is already imposing a gender stereotype on them, denying their biology and overriding their ability to make their own choices and assert their boundaries. I will protect them as much as I can but how much can one guider do?

Even at this young age (5-7), they already talk about what girls and boys can and can't do. We involve them in our all unit decisions, give them a voice, make sure no one is left out and hopefully give them confidence that they can be whatever they want when they grow up. We try to teach them about being kind and helpful - it's part of the rainbow promise - but I fear with the new policy, it's nurturing an attitude of giving way to whatever a boy or man wants, because no one likes a "difficult" woman.

GGUK has always been an inclusive organisation. In my unit, 25% have English as an additional language. There are SEN issues, disabilities - and GGUK has always trained and empowered leaders to make our unit meetings and events accessible to all. If one girl can't participate in an activity, then we adapt so everyone can. I can't understand why GG is now determined to excluded so many girls, when a few changes to the policy would make it accessible again.

@Elletorro I think you are onto something here (I am not a lawyer!):

*GG is allowed to sex segregate under the Equality Act 2010. So only girls.

However they say boys who id as girls can join too. Letting self id boys in but not biological boys discriminated against biological boys.

Direct sex discrimination. No defence

On top of that they are directly discriminating against transgender girls by saying they are not allowed in.

Both sexist and transsexist

Conversely, does that mean that by asking girls who ID as boys to leave but letting other girls be members, GGUK are discriminating against girls who self ID as boys?

Would that explain the language in the policy around consulting with the trans boy and their parents to manage their exit - to avoid direct discrimination?

@Elletorro sorry, I didn't read your post properly. You did say the policy was transsexist. Apologies - my brain is always frazzled after Rainbows!

Hi Agnes

I’m pretty certain that there’s direct discrimination there against girls who id as boys on the grounds of them being transgender henc my made up word “transsexist” Possibly it’s sexist too. My brain is also broken now.

There’s no way that managing an exit can be a defence against a claim. There is no defence for direct discrimination like that.

It’s rather satisfying because the trans lobby would have to support such a stance and actually illustrates that you are trans INCLUSIONARY.

I’m not sure about the biological boys though but I’m not wading through the Equality act tonight, too stupid now.

On a different note

Please do help them find their inner difficult woman!

How would this work in legal terms? Girls who ID as boys should not be excluded, since to do so would be to discriminate against them on grounds of gender identity or gender reassignment or whatever the term is. Boys who ID as girls can be excluded on grounds of sex, using the Equality Act exemption. They are not being discriminated against due to their gender identity, since all boys are excluded on grounds of sex, by invoking the Equality Act exemption.

Anyone seen this?

This is really sad. And mind-boggling.

What is really tragic about it is that - as another poster eloquently said:

"Firstly because there is something special about the guides being only for girls and free from the usual pressures around bodies, make up, constant social media and never ending pink onslaught of their childhoods."

I really honestly believe that a huge proportion of "trans" young people just wouldn't be "trans" in another culture. It is something that is driven by trends, by tumblr, by a certain kind of glamorous peer pressure, by certain strands of youth culture and media; and it's a dysphoric response as much to that pernicious, unhealthy culture as it to oneself or one's own body. This is a commercialised insanity that is to do with money being made out of longing and dissatisfaction packaged in a very groovy and ad-friendly way - not to mention the actual sales of physical stuff that go along with it. This is neoliberal commercialism preying on our children when they are at their most emotional and malleable and vulnerable; when they need to define themselves as against their parents, this shiny twinkly dangerous glamorous poison is what they are being offered.

Guides is (used to be) about the opposite of that: no selling, no bullshit, no glamour, no posing, finding your real strength, using your body and your mind in honest fellowship with other girls. Where can young people who NEED a break from this bullshit go now?

I have a troubled niece who has dabbled in nonsense about trans (the trans nonsense seems to be going away although her underlying anxiety remains) and her mental health improves in direct proportion to how long she spends outdoors away from this echo chamber of internet guff. I cannot understand why all this is being pandered to.

@PlectrumElectrum I've just found it on twitter. More cutting and pasting from GGUK. I liked the posters comment about how GGHQ doesn't seem to care about the comfort of the other children in its units.

The youth are being fed lies that they can solve all of their mental health problems by pretending they can become someone else and completely ignore any possible underlying issues that will now magically disappear.

Those who are genuinely dysphoric will simply get lost in the crowd and not be given the help they need.

Someone asked GGUK about this on Twitter. See response here: mobile.twitter.com/mintyylamb/status/970753226042724354?s=21

"As an organisation dedicated to supporting girls and young women we have robust processes and procedures which are updated on an ongoing basis to ensure all girls and young women who are part of guiding are supported to have a fun, safe and positive time.

The well being of all our young members is always at the heart of everything we do and will continue to be. If a young person doesn’t feel comfortable sharing accommodation,
for whatever reason, we encourage them to talk to their leader about alternative accommodation and facilities."

As one poster on Twitter said, what if a girl doesn't feel able to ask for alternative accommodation, because she's shy, been socialised not to ask for things or be difficult, or because she's frightened of being labelled a transphobe?

What if a girl feels comfortable sharing with a biological boy but her parents don't?

So girls that have joined girls movement have to share accommodation with boys and it's their fault if they don't like it...

What if all the (bio) girls request alternative accommodation and facilities away from the trans girl? The alternative accommodation would then become the main accommodation. Would that be deemed to be transphobic? Or are they only allowed to do that if they don't want to share with anyone?

Hi Agnes

Just checked the transgender policy. It seems there is an assumption that girls who are transgender will want to leave.

It doesn’t explicitly say they have to leave. Is there some additional policy somewhere on this? As far as I can see there’s nothing to show they would be asked to leave.

It’s very odd that sex is included on their list of protected characteristics.

Still haven’t worked through the Equality act to double check if there’s direct discrimination against boys.

Been mulling over whether there’s an indirect sex discrimination issue with GG failing to consider how it’s policies disproportionately negatively affect girls

That should say

Sex is “not” included

Sex is a protected characteristic whether the Girl Guides like it or not. They say they are adhering to the EA but if they fail to recognise all protected characteristics then they are not doing so.

Someone should challenge them on Twitter about this.

I posted further up thread, GGA confuse sex and gender on their site, so in some places they list the protected characteristics and include 'sex' and in other places they don't say sex they say 'gender' and 'gender reassignment'.

Re the tweets about, GGA are quoting equality and human rights commission which offers an interpretation of EA2010. She's quoting this big but leaving the bit at the end off (which is odd as elsewhere on their site they say they are invoking the exemption for sex, to keep GGA female only)
"A service provider provides single-sex services. If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your acquired gender. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment." [ie the sex exemption, which GGA say they are using, but they are not]

equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination

Sorry for typos! Tweets ABOVE

And *this BIT

Fair Play for Women provide some really good guidance on single sex exemptions in EA2010 (which is what the other tweeter is quoting): fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

Hi @Elletorro

This is the bit of the policy that concerned me: "flexibility and the Leaders’ discretion in conversation with the parents must be used to determine how long the child stays within the unit”.

To me, that says GG are expecting a transboy to leave the unit, it's just a matter of when that happens.

Hi Agnes

It does look like that’s the expectation but that’s not necessarily discrimination because it doesn’t explicitly say they have to leave.

Maybe ask for some clarity on that to flush it out?