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!

And haru, there are no attributes of sex, other than Anatomical and Physiological

We are trying to make sense of 2 pieces of legislation which contradict themselves and each other. The problem isnt that WE dont understand. The problem is that the people who wrote them, dont understand. They conflate sex and gender throughout, for a start

what does 'live life as a woman' mean?

I think this is the elephant in the room. In 2018, how is living as a woman different from living as a man? Apart from the obvious one that men don't usually wear dresses or makeup (but neither do many women), what is the difference in how we live?

for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

I think in 2010 they were definitely assuming that "physiological attributes of sex" would be the main ones. Not just a man putting a dress on occasionally without any intention to "change sex". It's poorly drafted legislation and it needs updating.

Trans people cant even explain what 'live life as a woman means'...they dont have a definition for 'woman' even

@OldCrone

Looking at the wording EHCR uses (emphasis mine):

Circumstances when being treated differently due to gender reassignment is lawful

A difference in treatment may be lawful if:

• 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.

And the explanatory notes for Schedule 3 -> Part 7 -> ¶ 28 states that an exemption can only be used when it can be objectively justified, and uses the following as an example for when it would be legal to apply an exemption:

• A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

That's a pretty high bar. Basically the example is weighing the risk of increased harm that could be caused to a number of female victims of sexual assault if those women feel unable to access the counselling service compared to the risk of increased harm that could be caused to a number of transgender women victims of sexual assault if they are barred from accessing that service at the same time as the women. Although the risk of increased harm is the same for each individual involved, consideration would be given to the fact that just through demographics alone it is likely that more women would be seeking the use of the service than transgender women and therefore more women are at risk of facing increased harm if they feel unable to access the service compared to the number of transgender women. It also takes into account that the service offering the counselling sessions should, according the law and where possible, then offer a group counselling session that transgender women can access, thereby ameliorating the effects of the lawful discrimination they've experienced.

Going by that the Guides wouldn't be able apply the exemption as they couldn't meet the threshold of the test of when it would become objectively reasonable, and therefore legal, to make the exemption, based on the example given in the statute.

Dodo
But yes. I’m up for ODFOD.

@HaruNoSakura

From what you say, it looks as though the Girl Guides are applying the law as it stands. In that case, the law needs updating, as Ereshkigal says, since the world is a very different place now from when that law was drafted. A girl who is struggling with her identity needs support, not ejection from a safe female-only space.

@SemaMjinga

"But what does 'live life as a woman mean'"

From the wording of the example given in Explanatory Notes -> Part 2 -> Chapter 1 -> Section 7, it appears to be a subjective decision made by an individual, and therefore any legal test of the term would itself be subjective.

"'[a] woman' is defined as 'a female of any age "

s212. General interpretation. This section is there mostly to ensure that the legislation can be interpreted by courts and relevant bodies in a consistent matter. So in this case it ensures that every use of the word woman in the act also applies to those cases which involve girls, or where the term female is used (courts are required to read statute as literally as possible whenever possible, so by adding this it makes it clear that when the term 'woman' is used in the statute it is to cover all women, and it stops people trying to be clever by saying, 'Oh I haven't discriminated against them, because they are girls, and the Act only refers to women', or saying, 'I haven't discriminated against any of my female employees because they are all listed as being female and the Act only references women). If, big if, but if my reasoning on the previous post is sound that means that 'woman' would then also cover anybody who has acquired that identity as a result of the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment when being applied to the provisioning or use of services, including single-sex services, employment, and the use of facilities, except where exceptions apply and exemptions have been legally made.

". . .there are no attributes of sex, other than Anatomical and Physiological"

That is something you would have to take up with the framers of the statute. "Attributes of sex" is quite literally the term used:

• 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. (EA2010.s7.ss1)

Legal work can only ever be undertaken within the body of existing law (which is basically common law, statutes, and case law) and legal arguments have to be framed within that context, constraints, and wording.

Does anyone know how single-sex schools are handling this issue? What I've heard in the past is that they do the opposite of the guides, so if a girl decides to identify as a boy, she is allowed to stay on at her girls' school, but they will not admit boys who identify as girls.

As I was typing that I had this feeling of having entered a strange parallel universe. How have we ever got to the stage where people can just identify as something they are not and everyone is supposed to accept it?

My friend's daughter got a place at a girl's secondary, decided to self-ID as a boy aged 11, and couldn't go to that school (not entirely sure if it was her decision or the school).
She was in home ed for a year and then decided she was a girl again. I think she went to another school (but she's back in school anyway).
She also has ASD.

@OldCrone

"[T]he law needs updating"

Bit of a genie in a bottle that one. It's a risk because imagine the situation where it is decided to revise the Equality Act and the consultation stage comes back: Conflation of Gender Reassignment and Sex into a new protected characteristic of Gender Identity; yes: repealing GRA2004 and incorporating Self-ID into the Equality Bill; yes. Or Parliament amends the Bill to incorporate this. Or the House of Lords amends the Bill to incorporate this.

I've seen a lot of WomansPlaceUK support on my social media today - having had a look at their website would it be worth contacting them about this?

I hadn't come across them before, but they are gender critical women's libbers.

Haru

Nicola Williams wrote this up for FPFW website, I don't think you're right, GGA can lawfully exclude.

fairplayforwomen.com/legal-rights-transgender-people-biological-women/

But you are right, there is no case law, which is why, I think, it'll boil down to a legal challenge somewhere.

FPFW also did a factsheet:

Sorry, here: fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EA2010_womensrights_-factsheet.pdf

@GirlScout72

I'm assuming it's the section on Women-Only Clubs. The only problem I can see there with the interpretation is how it meshes with the requirements set out in 13.60 of the Services, Public Functions and Associations Statutory Guidance which would cover Women-Only Clubs:

13.60

As stated at the beginning of this chapter, any exception to the prohibition of discrimination must be applied as restrictively as possible and the denial of a service to a transsexual person should only occur in exceptional circumstances. A service provider can have a policy on provision of the service to transsexual users but should apply this policy on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether the exclusion of a transsexual person is proportionate in the individual circumstances. Service providers will need to balance the need of the transsexual person for the service and the detriment to them if they are denied access, against the needs of other service users and any detriment that may affect them if the transsexual person has access to the service. To do this will often require discussion with service users (maintaining confidentiality for the transsexual service user). Care should be taken in each case to avoid a decision based on ignorance or prejudice. Also, the provider will need to show that a less discriminatory way to achieve the objective was not available.

What's ringing my alarm bells there are (highlighted areas are of particular concern):

"...any exception to the prohibition of discrimination must be applied as restrictively as possible..."

"... the denial of a service to a transsexual person should only occur in exceptional circumstances."

"A service provider can have a policy on provision of the service to transsexual users but should apply this policy on a case-by-case basis..."

When this gets coupled with the example of what constitutes lawful discrimination within the statute itself I can see why the Guides aren't going to take the risk of trying to invoke the exemption.

No it's not on women only clubs, Nic has spent months painstakingly going through the law, all of it on all the exemptions. Hopefully she'll be along soon, but meanwhile I suggest you read all the guidance on the website.

GGA are perfectly entitled to be female only. They have a MASSIVE historical precedent of over 100 years for starters.

Plus there's a difference with a transgirl being able to join the guides, and a transgirl sharing overnight accommodation with girls, without their parents' knowledge.

@GirlScout72

Sorry, I meant solely in terms of the Guides as a single-sex service provider and Association. I mean, for things like Communal Accommodation, I can't immediately see a problem if the Guides wanted to invoke the exemption, although I don't know if the law around Communal Accommodation extends to temporary structures like tents, or is only applicable to permanent structures.

Exactly. But from everything I've read, even if GGA wanted to say, for over 100 years we've been female only, and we wish to continue to be so (which they kinda say on their word salad website) they are perfectly entitled to do so.

They can easily demonstrate the negative impact on girls of admitting males, and they have huge amounts of evidence on their website to demostrate how girls benefit from female only space, and are detrimentally affected by sexism. It's a slam dunk.

The only reason GGA aren't invoking the exemption in full, is they've been bamboozled by a bunch of snake oil salesmen masquerading as civil rights advocates. Or, even worse, they don't really care about the girls in their charge, and have decided to prioritise the feelings of boys instead.

Haru

yes I understood that, but you are incorrect I'm almost certain. the law allows exactly for this, they can exclude on gender reassignment and they can exclude people of the male sex (kids can't legally change sex til they are 18). They can also exclude transwomen with a GRC (males who are legally female).

The way they COULD be trans inclusive is to include girls who are NB or identify as boys and not ask them to leave (be a good environment for them imho, if they dropped all the self ID bobbins imho)

Eton for example, will not allow in girls who identify as boys, but will allow in boys who identify as girls. Invoking their single SEX exemption, whilst also protecting kids under gender reassignment. Same thing.

Oh and aristocratic titles. A TIM can still inherit, but his older sister who decides she's a man, guess what, not getting her hands on the family pile.

I see debate has moved on a bit here. My dd was in Rainbows/Brownies and GG for about 6 or 7 years.

Just wanted to share what I put on the OP's other thread I'm AIBU...

My daughter left Girl Guides because she was bored. I'm relieved. I feel very sad GG is buying into this stuff and not challenging sex stereotypes dressed up as innate identity.

Most of all I am angry that young girls are being subjected to massive gaslighting that says a boy is a girl because he says so.

Gender Recognition Certificates are for adults (correct me, please, if I am wrong).

So IMHO youngsters who are experiencing gender dysforia should be allowed to be as gender non-conforming as they like and grow up keeping their options open.

There are many unisex youth organisations to choose from. Very few for single sex.

I was part of a unisex youth organisation. It was great.

I sadly predict this will kill of support for GG. And it is there own fault!

They jumped into self Id for children and adults before anything was set in UK law for anyone (and I REALLY hope self id will not for just this sort of problem!).

They have put the desires or expectations of a tiny percentage of natal boys and men over the interests of girls.

Very sad and disappointing.

And their stance on girls who do not feel like girls/ 'trans boys' shows they are not, in fact, inclusive.

wondering if Im being dumb.... the law quoted above discusses transsexuals ... i.e. those post op..... and others have flagged up physiological change being end point....

Surely children under 18, and especially under 16, don't qualify????

Love under the current legislation, you'd be right. Under Self-ID, the only thing a person needs to be recognised as the opposite sex is their own say so.

It's beyond bizarre.

People are recognised as their preferred gender under gender reassignment on their say so already by 'proposing to undergo' so they do have legal protection, just for being trans. However some rights for trans people are only conferred by a legal change e.g. standing on a women's only short list - this is open to LEGAL females so would include natal women and transwomen with a GRC.

In some instances you could exclude a transwoman even with a GRC - say a rape crisis centre.

Sometimes NOT treating everyone the same is the fairest thing to do. The law completely allows for this.

However kids cannot legally change sex, you're right. So a boy who identifies as a girl is protected by 'gender reassignment' he does not, afaik, also get to piggy back 'sex' as a girl, he remains of the male sex. So a single sex organisation, like GG, which says it's invoking a female only exemption, could exclude him. And in fact could exclude a legal transwoman for the same reason, as long as it's a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. I think the GGA can more than demonstrate this and have in fact demonstrated this for more than 100 years.

There was a big hoo ha a few years ago when a boy tried to join (before all the gender nonsense) - after the EA2010 came into effect Im pretty sure, and he was excluded and the GGA defended their decision for all the reasons we've discussed on this thread. That was not unlawful.

Just as famous boy's school Eton will accept boys who identify as girls - there they are protecting their single (male) sex exemption, AND protecting the pupil's 'gender reassignment' characteristic. Trans inclusive and single sex. It's legal.

They would have a good argument for excluding girls who indentify as boys as they are a single SEX school.

The thing to get your head around is exemptions, women have them to address the imbalance of sexism: fairplayforwomen.com/legal-rights-transgender-people-biological-women/

So GGA are either confused about or choosing not to invoke their single sex exemption (despite saying on their website that they do, their website makes my head hurt, it's a mess). Where I think they'd have a harder time is excluding FEMALES who identify as boys or non binary. And actually including TiFs would be a way for GGA to keep everyone happy, remain female only, AND be trans inclusive. As I said above, surely being in a positive female environment where you can be free of gendered expectations would be a balm for dysphoria and the choppy waters of adolescence that girls go through. Most dysphoric kids grow out of it, most trans identified girls turn out to be lesbians, GGA could do a wonderful thing by embracing these female children and offering them a safe space to work it all out.

I'm hoping Dr Williams of FPFW will be along soon to double check I'm correct, I'm 99.99% sure I am!