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!

@loveyouradvice

From the Equality Act 2010
7 Gender reassignment
(1)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.
(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

So proposing to undergo gender reassignment could just be deciding to do so one morning and telling your mates, and you have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

In fact, with that in mind, self-id changes very little apart from being able to get a GRC under the above circumstances.

I'm now hoping that someone with a better understanding of the law will come along and tell me I'm wrong.

No that is correct crone. Self ID is pretty much already here and those people have protections - even if the only person they told ws their mum over breakfast. However without a GRC you remain your birth sex. So for women and girls, EXEMPTIONS is our ace up the sleeve.

So changing rooms and loos - it's not illegal for a man to go in the ladies, but Topshop could and SHOULD invoke the exemption. The pressure is on them not to, but that's what we have to change. Even with a GRC, shops, loos, clubs, changing rooms, sports teams, colleges etc, just need to invoke the exemptions, they are entitled to.

Self ID massively effects prisons, which is why FPFW have done some much work on prisons, some great reports on the website and they've made waves in the press, and with the MoJ etc.

Also, in some places self ID is being used as if it was law, hospital wards, that woman getting a TiM nurse for a smear despite asking for a female etc, imho those exemptions should be mandatory - remember you can exclude a legal female (a transwoman) even if they have a GRC if you can show it's legitimate, and nearly always it is. Ditto data collection, some forces are now collecting data by gender not sex. We have to shout loud enough til they stop.

And short of repeal of the sloppy bit of law that is GRA 2004, then extension of exemptions with some of them becoming mandatory is my wish.

All GGA need to do is invoke the exemption. There'd probably be a very loud amount of shouting, but they would not be breaking the law.

Did you read these reports, it's all here: fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

If you go on FPFW website you can find the Hansard transcripts for when the GRA 2004 was passed into law (who'd have thought I'd be reading them thinking, OMG I agree with Norman Tebbit!)

The argument was it was such a TINY number of transsexuals (about 90 a year) that it'd have virtually no impact. If you read the FPFW reports on 'how did we get here' you'll see the wriggle room you are now highlighting is how TRAs are now driving a coach and horses through bad law. It was only ever meant to protect your 'old money' transssexuals, not cross dressers and drag queens and all the rest now 'under the umbrella'.

Another soapbox of mine, those pushing this gender ID through are almost always NOT transsexuals, and also NOT dysphoric, they are adult men with a fetish. The FPFW report on the prison consultation would make your hair curl, some data in there that left me speechless. I suggest everyone read it.

it seems to me that this is a Men's Sexual Rights Movement masquerading as civil rights, using kids as collateral or a battering ram. Problem is they are extremely effective at lobbying (well they would be, they are rich, powerful white men)

Hello all, sorry for abandoning my own thread - work stuff got in the way.

I haven't read all the new comments since my last post but I'm both touched and impressed at the amount of work some posters have put into research the legal background, giving this matter such careful thought. I do value each and every contribution and will read all posts thoroughly - although probably not until tomorrow as I'm still not back at home and I must get some sleep soon!

It has struck me how many leaders and parents are also wary of GG policy. If we can come together maybe we will have a stronger voice. Do share the link to this thread!

@DodoPatrol

I think we need to establish an Organization for the Defence of Female Only Divisions

Yes!

@loveyouradvice

The term transsexual is used because that is the language used in s7. of the Equality Act:

Gender reassignment

(1)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.

(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.

So ss1. states that somebody gains the protected characteristic of gender reassignment the moment they make the choice to undergo. . .a process, etc; and the process itself isn't deemed to be necessarily medical, it could just be a social transition.

ss2. then is used to declare that any use of the term 'transsexual' refers to any person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (so a transsexual in the terms of the Act is somebody who may or may not have had any medical treatment)

ss3. is then mostly legalese for the purposes of the Act, but also contains the the definition that somebody who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is a reference to a transsexual person for the purposes of the Act.

So under the terms of the Act children qualify for s7. protection as long as they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing, or have undergone, etc.

For anyone confused about the equality law and the exemptions, guess what? it is confusing

Because it's conflates gender with sex, it doesn't define certain words, and it was never meant to be exploited in the way it is.

Thankfully some bright spark put exemptions in. But, even they, could not have envisaged quite how the law would be twisted to suit an agenda.

For instance, I'm sure they never meant that men could compete in sport as women, or work in rape refuges, or this boy/girl overnight accommodation, or grown men demanding to change amongst teen girls.

And I'm sure, they didn't see burly men, with beards, presenting as entirely masculine, demanding they be treated 'as women'.

In short, this was for effeminate transsexuals, who are not political, just trying to get on with it under the radar.

It has now been exploited by transvestites. They, more than anyone else, thrive on the validation of been thought of as women. Which is why they target everything women.

And explanation of the exemptions, which is specific, is here.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3175666-Want-to-know-why-women-are-livid-trans-thread

Exactly Datun

It was really interesting to read the Hansard transcripts for the GRA when it went through it's readings in the HoC, a lot of the pro arguments were 'you are exaggerating, this is a TINY number of people' - they did not forsee this.

Here's the piece Dr W did with the transcripts as GRA passed through the Lords and the Commons fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-rights-get-part-2-changing-legal-sex-status/

But then like with the Mesmac scandal at the weekend, wherever there is wriggle room in law or safeguarding, it seems to me creepy men seem to find a way of exploiting it.

Datun, GirlScout72

Yes. Bad law with unintended consequences.

Nobody ever foresaw that the activists would include the cross dressers in all this. And, even if they had foreseen it, policy makers would probably have been ignorant of the correlation with domestic abuse (see trans widows thread) and sex offending (see prisons).

We are in such a mess. Yes, the GRA and EA need revising. Just not in the way the TRAs think.

In short, this was for effeminate transsexuals, who are not political, just trying to get on with it under the radar.

I'd go further and say that they were meant for effeminate same-sex attracted transsexuals (i.e. TIMs who were attracted to men). It appears that the thought that this could be applied to adult males attracted to women never occurred to them - although they cared enough about the detail to prevent any woman changing sex to inherit a title, money or be able to take male religious positions.

although they cared enough about the detail to prevent any woman changing sex to inherit a title, money or be able to take male religious positions.

I can just see a couple of men poring over the legislation.

"I've gone over the entire thing, and I can't see a single problem with it. No one is going to be negatively affected, this won't impact on anyone else's rights, we needn't bother even consulting over it. It all looks absolutely perfectly doable..oh wait, just one thing"

GirlScout72
However without a GRC you remain your birth sex.

I think this is the most important point, and where GG are getting it wrong. From the moment you declare your intention to transition, you acquire the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment. But legally you remain your birth sex until such time as you acquire a GRC. So a girl who identifies as a boy is still a girl, but has the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment. So girl guides should have no problem remaining single sex, since under-18s cannot get a GRC.

I think where I have been confused on this is the assumption that once you have the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment, you also have in some way changed your legal sex. I think this is the assumption many people are making and is why we are in this mess. I think the other reason it is confusing is the terminology around single sex exemptions. Schedule 16, Part 1 of the EA2010 allows single-sex organisations. But there is a further exemption by which even those with a GRC can be excluded, which I think is harder to invoke, but is not required to simply keep boys out of the Girl Guides.

I'm still not sure if I've totally understood this correctly, so please put me right if I haven't.

Agree with you all, and yes transwidows really deserve more support than they are getting in this. I was reading yesterday the story Bruce Jenner told about dressing up in his ten year old daughter's underwear and watching himself in the mirror. I can imagine this is a nightmare for kids and female partners. Oh and Kelly Maloney, wife beater, now admitting to pimping women for clients! Such a lady!

Crone - I confess it makes my head hurt. And I think it's HOW the GRA and the EA10 interact that is still open for interpretation, as there's no case law. I suspect it will boil down to a test case eventually. This whole thing gets further complicated by human rights guidance then interpreting the law (which I think is what GGA are quoting).

But agree, all GGA need to do is keep it single sex, and admit girls who identify as boys - then they are female only AND trans inclusive, without undue neg impact on the other girls.

You know it's a men's rights movement when it's not front page of Pink News that Eton aren't allowing in girls who identify as boys. Nobody cares about TiFs, because they are just women.

I'm sure Nicola Williams will pull us up if we've got it wrong, but she's my go to when I get confused, I just keep rereading her fab factsheets!

@OldCrone

N.B. 'Woman' in this context also means 'girl'.

Not quite correct. It is, as with everything involving the Equality Act 2010, somewhat complicated but I'll try and break it down as much as possible.

Part 7 details the law surrounding discrimination and how it applies to Associations

Schedule 16 provides an exemption to Part 7, allowing for the formation of Associations that restrict membership to people who share a protected charcteristic.

s.29 of the EA2010 concerns itself with the provisioning of services by a service provider and via s100.2 EA2010, and section 1.23 of the "Services, public functions and associations Statutory Code of Practice" [ISBN: 978-0-10-850972-8], any Association is considered to be a service provider for the purposes of this Act.

Schedule 3, Part 7, s27 details when service providers are allowed to provide a single-sex service

Schedule 3, Part 7, s28 details when single-sex service providers are allowed to discriminate against providing their service to somebody with the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment (regardless of whether that person has a GRC or not).

The explanatory notes for Schedule 3, Part 7, s28 then explain what is meant by Schedule 3, Part 7, s28, what test needs to be applied to determine if a single-sex service can legally discriminate against somebody with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (can the discrimination be objectively justified), and an example of what would be considered objectively justifiable for the purposes of Schedule 3, Part 7, s28.

Then sections 13.57 to 13.60 of the "Services, public functions and associations Statutory Code of Practice" gives further guidance and detail as to when a single-sex service shouldn't discriminate against somebody who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Special note should be taken of section 13.60.

So how does that apply to the Girl Guides?

• In the case of the Girl Guides they are allowed to form an Association under the EA2010 (Part 7 EA2010);
↳
--• are forbidden to engage in discrimination, harassment or victimisation as applies to Parts 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the EA2010 (Part 7 s100.2 EA2010);
↳
----• are not forbidden to restrict their membership to persons who share the same protected characteristic of sex (Schedule 16). In other words they are allowed to restrict their membership to women under the use of the word 'woman' in EA2010;
↳
-• are a service provider for the purposes of EA2010;
↳
--• are not forbidden from being a single-sex service provider for the purposes of EA2010;
↳
---• may, if they so wish, seek to invoke Schedule 3, Part 7, s28 of the EA2010 if they wished to exclude any transsexual (transgender) woman who by definition of s7. EA2010 has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. However, this exemption is only legal if it can be shown to be an objectively justifiable proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, where the standard of what is considered to be objectively justifiable is set by the example given the relevant explanatory notes contained in EA2010, and is further clarified by the "Services, public functions and associations Statutory Code of Practice".

So the Girl Guides could seek to exclude any transgender woman from joining whether they have a GRC or not, but given the standards set out in the legislation that must be met, and given the details contained in the EHRCs "Services, public functions and associations Statutory Code of Practice", and given the further guidance on EHRC website, it is unlikely that the discrimination would be considered legal.

these boys who think that they're girls

I've been reading this post and trying to work out what I think of this issue (as an ex-Guide and mother of a daughter) and why some of what is being said sits so uncomfortably with me. I think that it's this misunderstanding... The point is they aren't^ boys. In their sense of self they are a girl. It's not that they want to be a girl it is that they are^ but have the wrong body.

If they have the wrong body to be a girl, it’s because they’re a boy.

If their sense of self says they’re a girl, they are still a boy, but one who needs to reconsider what being a boy feels like, in that it feels like being a person with a boy’s body, no more, no less.

Haru

Girlguides have been single sex for over 100 years. They've been single sex since GRA 2004, and since 2010 when EA10 came into law.

In 2011, they won a case to keep a boy out. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356075/Teenage-boy-wanted-join-Girl-Guides-accuses-organisation-sexual-discrimination-turned-away.html

It is perfectly legal to exclude transwomen, partic legal males (remember only 1% of transwomen have a GRC).

I think it's important not to over complicate it, I'm sure you've read the guidance written by a women's rights barrister outlining women and girls' rights to single sex spaces.

The ONLY thing preventing girl guides keeping it female only and even excluding transwomen with a GRC, is the GIRL GUIDES!

BTW I think trans lobby groups know this, which is why they are quietly going around lobbying and 'advising' rather than slapping law suits on everyone, but if need be we could see them in court. As Datun said, it's BAD LAW.

Haru
So the Girl Guides could seek to exclude any transgender woman from joining whether they have a GRC or not, but given the standards set out in the legislation that must be met, and given the details contained in the EHRCs "Services, public functions and associations Statutory Code of Practice", and given the further guidance on EHRC website, it is unlikely that the discrimination would be considered legal.

This is untested in court so we simply do not know whether it would be legal or not to apply schedule 3 Part 7 (28). It needs to meet the 'proportionate means and legitimate aim' test and this is dependent on the overall impact on all the people affected. The least discriminatory policy must be implemented and think its clear that the adverse impact on girls has not been considered or given appropriate weight. I think there are good arguments to say their current policy needs reviewing and shifting to rebalance things.

heggy79
I've been reading this post and trying to work out what I think of this issue (as an ex-Guide and mother of a daughter) and why some of what is being said sits so uncomfortably with me. I think that it's this misunderstanding... The point is they aren't boys. In their sense of self they are a girl. It's not that they want to be a girl it is that they are but have the wrong body.

However you want to think of it - 'a girl in the wrong body' or as a 'boy thinking he's a girl' it doesn't change the practical safeguarding issue. We have child with a penis undressing and sleeping with children with a vagina. The children with a vagina are at risk from pregnancy or rape or sexual assault from a child with a penis. This reality needs to be acknowledged and safeguarded against. That's the long and the short of it. All the children's needs, the one with a penis and the ones with a vagina, needs to be considered and balanced.

Heggy

Can you define what a girl is? What is this sense of yourself as a girl, can you define it? Do all girls feel like this?

It seems to me that 'feeling like a girl' is something only boys experience.

Couldn't it be far more likely that instead of being born into the wrong body, boys are born into the wrong society, and what they are feeling uncomfortable about are sex role stereotypes? Remember the average age that boys see hard core porn these days is 8 years old, maybe they are looking at that toxic, aggressive, dominant masculinity and rejecting it.

Miranda Yardley, gender critical transsexual says it's more like being a 'refugee from masculinity'. He knows he's not a woman, but a type of a man, a sensitive and gentle man. But still a man. That's objective reality.

It's not possible to born INTO the wrong body, we ARE our bodies. Male and female just describe reproductive function, everything else is (or should be) just your personality.

Personally I find it offensive that I'm supposedly female due to some ineffable feeling, or a set of submissive stereotypes, I'm female because of my biology. I bleed, I have a vagina, a uterus, breasts, fat on my hips and belly etc. THAT is all a woman is, biology.

Maybe what boys are 'identifying' with is the stereotypes on the LEFT of this picture. That's cool, but doesn't make them female. And girl guides is all about tearing down those stereotypes and saying to girls, those aren't innate, you can be anything you want to be. I'm all for feminine boys, doesn't make them girls. It'd be far more revolutionary (and actually ask patriarchy to concede something) if instead of kicking these boys out of the 'man box' as 'girls' we embraced them as boys and widened the bandwith of what it means to be a boy. This is what GGA do for girls. I dont' see it's women's job to babysit the feelings of males, that's their job.

@DoctorW

"The least discriminatory policy must be implemented and think its clear that the adverse impact on girls has not been considered or given appropriate weight. I think there are good arguments to say their current policy needs reviewing and shifting to rebalance things."

Well, this is a matter of policy, and it is entirely the purview of the Girl Guides on how they wish to set it. As I'm not involved in the policy making decisions, and it isn't a matter of interpreting current legislation, there really isn't anything I can add there.

As to being tested in court, I certainly agree, However, given the courts are legally required to take into account all relevant Statutory Codes of Practice issued by EHCR, insomuch as it covers the area(s) in a case, and given that nearly all organisations now use the Statutory Codes of Practice as the basis for their own policies, I'm struggling to see any organisation that would be willing to take that risk given the potential losses involved if they lose the case, unless that organisation can be certain it meets the threshold set in the example given in the legislation via an objective justification.

I think there are good arguments to say their current policy needs reviewing and shifting to rebalance things.

I also think that to some extent these policies and outcome if it goes to court depend on prevailing public views about single sex spaces, and I am concerned that this debate is not being had honestly.

I dunno Haru, I think women are so pissed off about this, that the money would come from somewhere. We kind of need a 'Gina Miller' type person willing to put their hand in their pocket on a test case.