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!

TheMonstrousRegiment

You're not needlessly worrying, no.

Have a quick read of the opening post on the link below. And you'll see why. We need to talk about this and broadcast the information far and wide. And, if that doesn't happen this is only going one way.

Because the law is open to interpretation, public opinion is everything. I can't stress that enough.

Ideally, public opinion will stop swinging in favour of disadvantaging women. But meanwhile we can try to squeeze as much benefit from the badly written, misused laws that are currently in place.

And if those laws aren't being fair, then we can lobby to get them changed. This is what feminists do.

It's what they've always done. Otherwise you wouldn't have maternity leave, breastfeeding protocols. Hell, you wouldn't have an education or a vote or a public toilet that has ladies written on it.

It's one thing to be aware of the law, analyse it, and decide that there is little wiggle room.

It's quite another to throw up your hands to say oh well, that's that then.

Women have had to fight tooth and nail for every single law that gives them equality.

And then fight extra hard for those laws that are only pertinent to them, based on their specific set of requirements.

It's no surprise that men aren't rushing around trying to find obscure bits of equality law to keep their toilets, locker rooms, kids' overnight accommodation as single sex. It doesn't occur to most men that laws, customs and protocols, are necessary for women and girls' safety, privacy and dignity.

It might if you repeatedly point it out. But you only have to take a look at the way the #metoo campaign was received by many men.

There was an awful lot of disbelief, minimisation, ridiculous complaints like, what! now you can't even flirt with a woman?! Despite that campaign running to 11 million posts in under 24 hours.

Unfortunately, women have to shout for 10 times as long and 10 times as loud, to get themselves heard.

It's fortunate that mumsnet is one of the only places on the Internet that has allowed them to have this voice.

And given there are 12 million unique users per month on mumsnet, that's a fairly loud voice.

Let's use it. Write to the girl guides, email them, contact your MP.

Don't stop talking.

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

Hey

No you are absolutely NOT needlessly worrying, Datun has it completely correct, we need to keep shouting, but we do currently have in law things to our advantage - lawful exemptions. Posting reams of legalese here just makes this thread unreadable and as Datun says, in any case, if the law is unfair, we get it changed, we're feminists that is what we do.

There is no case law in this area, we are probably going to have to go to court around a test case eventually and point out the massive loop holes now being exploited by fetishists to disadvantage women AND the transsexuals the law was written for. GRA is bad law. You can try all day to make it make sense, it doesn't make sense, it's hastily written, ill thought out, bad law.

We need to get a grip on the discourse, there is absolutely no reason why transactivists should be in charge of the terms of this debate, which is why places like mumsnet are so important (and why I think posting reams of guidance and legal speak is a waste of time here, no one is going to read it, and it just scares people off).

What we need to do is let the world know that women are OFFENDED by this bullshit, how dare they say that a woman is just a man in a dress. Is a black person just a person with curly hair with boot polish on their face??? Of course not! That would be abject, disgusting RACISM. Why is it any different to be told that the criteria for being a woman is to be a sodding transvestite? How dare they? Is that OK with you? And is that OK for your daughter, that she's only a girl because she likes girly things? That's she only a woman by a set of criteria a bunch of men have gleaned from pornography? It's certainly not OK with me, I don't care what the law says!

The thing is PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS, they think we mean harmless transsexuals who have had the chop. I have no problem with those people. But this is a men's sexual rights movement. We need to let people know. Once public opinion is on our side, once PEOPLE GET IT, then legal stuff will follow.

It was legal until 1991 for your husband to rape you. EVEN if you'd chucked him out, got a barring order, and begun divorce, he could find you and rape you and legally you had already consented by saying 'I do' in church! The ONLY reason that is illegal now is enough women said 'this is totally unacceptable and we are not keeping quiet'.

From that perspective, it doesn't really matter what the law says down in the small print, we need to win the argument, once we've done that, we'll get the laws we want - we are half the population, what they gonna do, say no? So as Datun said, it's vitally important to get women on board, get them to understand that this means a burly man in a dress getting dick tingles from doing your smear test, or flashing his dick in the changing rooms. NOT HAPPENING ON MY WATCH.

So, what can you do? As Datun said:

• Write to GGA and tell them to keep it female only, tell them you are OFFENDED
• Write to your MP
• Talk to your friends
• Start following groups and websites like Woman's Place UK and the Fair Play for Women website for calls to action
• COMPLAIN - I've just seen that Waitrose are doing gender neutral mother's day cards, that's only happened because transactivists have complained. NO ONE has ever doubted if their mother is FEMALE. We have one day for mothers, and now it's about men! Is that OK with you? If not write to Waitrose and tell them you are withdrawing your business.
• Your local swimming baths gone gender neutral? Print off the FPFW exemptions fact sheet, and tell them you will not be back until they respect your privacy. Get a group of you together and make a noise.
• ITV done a trans flagwaving documentary? Report them to Ofcom!
• etc etc etc!

We've all got to ACT, we can sit here waffling and splitting hairs over obscure details, but look at Brexit, facts had very little to do with that, what did it was OPINION. That's what we need to change. Just so happens that we're right too :-)

Mermaids are one of the pressure groups who are training people like the guides, the NSPCC, all schools, companies, organisations, etc.

This is what they want children to think (screenshot).

The guides are an organisation who explicitly try to dismantle the gender stereotypes expected of girls.

But the 'guidance' they are receiving reinforces it.

This ridiculous 'gender spectrum', claims that femininity is solely in the province of females and masculinity solely in the province of males.

It doesn't even try to make the people neutral. It says girls things are for girls and boys things are for boys. If you want to step outside that box, you might want to question your sex because you could be trans.

Unbelievably regressive and incredibly damaging. I can't think of any other ideology where the end result is absence of sexual function, permanent sterility, prepubescent genitals for the rest of your life or, alternatively, irreversible genital surgery.

This should remain well and truly within the medical profession. This is not a bloody lifestyle choice, or something that should be taught, actually taught, in schools.

With kids being invited to express their interests and then labelled and categorised on that basis.

What preferences are female preferences or male preferences? When you start to list them, you see how ridiculous they actually are.

Baking? Is that male or female? Is it that women bake cakes, but men become world-famous pastry chefs?

Sewing? Is it that women sew on buttons and darn socks but men become tailors in Savile Row?

When you actually start to think about what they are saying, it makes no sense. (Apart from the framework around which women generally come off second-best).

Datun

Don't get me started on Mermaids! Did you see in the Sunday Times this morning that a concerned mother was questioned under caution and told if she left the country she'd get arrested for stating her opinions on social media about Mermaids?! The world has gone mad.

When you join it all up with what we've been discussing here, and what is in the public domain about that charity and it's founder, people have every right to be deeply concerned.

Even the doctor they recommend (to circumvent the watchful waiting recommended by Tavistock) got suspended by the GMC.

WHO are these people and WHY are they so interested in other people's kids????

As a member of Girlguiding I find it deeply upsetting that this is your take. I've been involved since I was a Rainbow, and guiding has been a source of comfort, familiarity and a place where I've always felt welcomed, cared for and safe. I can't know what it would feel like to be trans, but if I can only imagine that the decision to transition is not an easy one, and Girlguiding would be a great place to support a young person while they are having this tough time.

Yes, some young people abuse and assault other young people and that is unacceptable. But there is no data to suggest that trans young people are more likely to do this than non trans young people. In fact, there is data that trans young people are more likely to be the victim of abuse and assault, so again, it would be ideal if Girlguiding could be there to support them and have a place where they feel safe. I do not believe that an adult or young person would go through the motions of transitioning mtf in order to specifically abuse girls. This is a costly exercise (both financially and emotionally) and unfortunately if someone wants to abuse or assault a child then there are easier ways for them to do this.

The benefit of guiding to a trans young person could be incredible, and as someone who has made a promise to do her best to help other people, I would welcome a trans girl (or trans woman leader) into my unit, and, knowing my girls, they would do exactly the same.

@ofclocksandkings "Girlguiding would be a great place to support a young person while they are having this tough time."

Except if that person is female and is identifying as a boy they would be encouraged to leave, so not so supportive.

" I do not believe that an adult or young person would go through the motions of transitioning mtf in order to specifically abuse girls. This is a costly exercise (both financially and emotionally) and unfortunately if someone wants to abuse or assault a child then there are easier ways for them to do this." There is no requirement to 'do' anything under these new guidelines, just to identify as a girl or a women.

I would welcome a trans girl (or trans woman leader) into my unit, and, knowing my girls, they would do exactly the same." I am guessing the girls in your unit would be given no choice in this. You have decided this doesn't matter to you, as an adult, and the girls in the unit are expected to follow suit. If they don't want to I am guessing they would be viewed as bigoted. So what is happening is a gaslighting of young girls so that they cannot say they are uncomfortable with having a biological male in their tent. In an organisation set up to support girls you are now being asked to support people who identify as girls. If you cannot see how wrong this is then I find this deeply upsetting.

I completely think children identifying as trans girls should be supported but that doesn't mean that they need to sleep in tents with natal girls on overnight trips and everyone needs to act as if this is not at all a problem.

On school trips natal boys and girls do not share the same dorm rooms do they, there is a reason for this and it is not because people hate boys or demonize them.

I'm glad my daughter is not in Girl Guides anymore. It's not an organisation that cares about girls.

Hi ofclocks

I am not interested in launching an attack on trans kids.

I am interested in ensuring that GG’s policies aren’t discriminatory ( for example kicking girls out because they are transitioning to boys)

I am interested in ensuring safeguarding is fit for purpose and that sex based protections are invoked.

I am interested in ensuring that there is no under the radar indirect discrimination against girls.

None of that is anti transgender

Girlguiding would be a great place to support a young person while they are having this tough time.

I entirely agree. Sadly GGUK would require any member to leave in those circumstances.

Would the local leaders even know? Could a boy not just apply by stating that he was a girl, as that’s how he identifies; IYSWIM?

Hi elletorro and italiangreyhound. Girlguiding policy actually isn't to 'kick out' young people transitioning ftm. The guidance is that leaders should still support the young person as it is a potentially traumatic time and one where not changing everything and being removed from their friends is important. The guidance is that once the young person is settled or at the time of transitioning between sections a chat is had about where it is best for the young person to be, and they are signposted towards mixed gender youth groups.

I find it surprising that everyone is so convinced that it would be a bad thing for them to sleep in the same room. As a leader if I was aware that two young people were going to potentially have sex I would not put them in the same tent, but I do think that a) it's unlikely that there would only be two young people in a tent or room and it's unlikely that they will have sex when there are other people there and b) if they want to have sex then they will find a way and having them sleep in separate rooms won't stop that. A significant proportion of girls are attracted to girls, and we don't stop them from sharing tents with other girls.

@PencilsInSpace

I'll do the easy one first:

"Which leads. . .There is a paucity of case law. . .

This can change. . .A few strategic cases could bring the whole of this bullshit crashing to the ground."

So the problem here, and the reason why available case law is thin on the ground, is that a court case could only be brought when a service provider discriminates against somebody with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and that person then brings a case against that service provider. It can't be done the other way around because there isn't a mechanism within the Equality Act 2010 that can be used to directly force a service provider to invoke the Sch.3 Part 7 s28 exemption.

To save space, in relation to this post:

13.59, for the sake of brevity, states that where a transsexual person is visually and practically indistinguishable. . .Or in other words, a service provider shouldn't, within reason, challenge that transsexual person on their use of facilities or resources. 13.59 doesn't say that if a transsexual person isn't visually or practically indistinguishable. . .etc; that they shouldn't be treated as their acquired gender. When using stat codes care should always be given to only give weight to what is written and to ignore any conclusion arrived at based on what hasn't been written. Likewise application of the guidance in 13.59 doesn't preclude the guidance laid down in 13.6, 13.57, and 13.58.

So I'm not reading into the code things that aren't there, instead I'm taking the relevant bits of the code and attempting to apply it to the question you asked. So nowhere in the code does it say that somebody who isn't indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person shouldn't be treated as their acquired gender identity, and the code does clearly state that, "If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present†" and that "The intention is to ensure that the transsexual person is treated in a way that best meets their needs", and it can be seen that these codes are in turn partly derived from 13.6, "Where an exception permits discrimination in relation to one protected characteristic, service providers, persons exercising public functions and associations must ensure that they do not discriminate in relation to any of the other protected characteristics."

† 'present' in this case doesn't necessarily mean physical presentation via clothes or jewellery. Any presentation whether physical, verbal, or otherwise would meet the definition.

And I'll try and cover this post in my next post.

@ofclocksandkings "signposted towards mixed gender youth groups" or "encouraged to leave" as I said.

Do you agree with that policy? You do not need to answer if you do not wish to. I am not trying to be antagonistic, I am just interested.

Who said anything about sex? "two young people were going to potentially have sex I would not put them in the same tent"

Of course that might happen (and I wonder how you would know if it was?) but quite aside from that maybe all parties would feel uncomfortable changing in front of each other.

"A significant proportion of girls are attracted to girls, and we don't stop them from sharing tents with other girls." Well, of course a girls group will need the girls to share unless you are giving them a tent each, but girls cannot get each other pregnant. And quite aside from that I think most parents would know some girls would be lesbians and would be fine with that. This is not about lesbians.

Can I ask you in all honestly if you see any problems or issues with telling the girls in your group that a natal boy identifies as a girl and they are expected to treat that child as one of the girls? If they wer say 10, or 14 or 17?

Would you have any issues with a natal male identifying a a woman and using the showers and women's changing area at the gym?

Please only answer if you wish to. I am not having a go. I expect I would have shared your views about 3 years ago. Now, I do not, because I see that girls and women are being given no choice in who uses spaces specifically for girls and women. And this all feels rather familiar.

@italiangreyhound I don't think you're having a go and I hope you don't think I am. I'm really interested in all this and especially in how you said you would have shared my views and now you don't.

By "a chat is had about where it is best for the young person to be, and they are signposted towards mixed gender youth groups" I can see how this can be seen as encouraged to leave. Personally I would only do this if I genuinely believed that they would be having a better experience elsewhere. It's important to me that no young person ever feels that I'm 'kicking them out'.

All parties may feel uncomfortable changing in front of each other (whether they are all girls, all boys, a mixture or and whether there are any trans kids there). Whenever I run a residential there is always a space for private changing so hopefully no one feels embarrassed changing. You're right, I wouldn't necessarily know if two young people wanted to have sex, but I might know if they were in a relationship or wanted to be.

I see a problem with telling the girls that there is a trans girl in the group as I wouldn't disclose this without the girls' permission. However, I have had chats with girls aged 7-14 (on different occasions) about trans stuff and every time the children have been totally chill with it and don't even see that it could be a negative thing, as it's brought up in schools. I've occasionally seen a bit of confusion, but the other girls then clear it right up. I think it's important to talk to young people and have them comfortable talking to me about these sorts of issues (which is why I volunteer with them). I also wouldn't feel uncomfortable with a trans woman using the changing areas in a gym (but that might be because I don't pay that much attention to other people while getting changed!)

ofclocks What if you had a leader that was uncomfortable about sharing with a man? Or parents - whether religious or just, you know, relying on science to tell them who is male and female, who didn't want their daughter sharing with a boy?
On a big camp you can't possibly have all the girls changing in the loos - 100 girls in tents ranged up the field and 10-15 loos right at the bottom. Showers with curtains not locks and nowhere to put your dry clothes in the cubicle.

@PencilsInSpace

"Which bit of the EHRC code does it explain and how?"

Fully, so if people want to look it up it'll be easier for them:

Code of Practice: Services, public functions and associations Statutory Code of Practice ; Chapter 13, s13.57 - s13.60 (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2011, ISBN: 978-0-10-850972-8)

For those who aren't aware, courts and tribunals are legally obliged to take into account guidance issued in Statutory Codes of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (read; unless there is an obvious reason to not adhere to the guidance issued in the stat code a court will use it to reach its determination). For this particular Statutory Code it's validity was authorised via this Statutory Instrument.

So then the example given here.

Fully, the example given is, "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."

When the courts look at this example, or any case where the exemption is being applied, the criteria used will be an objective test to see if the arguments put forward by the service can justify the claim put forward by the service that its discrimination against a transsexual person is both a legitimate aim and a proportionate means. The objective test will take into account all the relevant factors involved in the argument put forth. So in the example give, what relevant factors will the court take into account?

i) The example details a situation where a group of people are involved. Every person in that group, whether a woman or transsexual woman shares something in common, they are all victims/survivors of sexual assault. So when the court considers the case they will take a neutral and dispassionate view of all the people who could be effected by this case, but won't include in their consideration people who don't share that characteristic. Furthermore, the service provider cannot provide a less discriminatory way of providing this specific session. Either somebody is able to attend, or they are not able to attend.

ii) The court will take into consideration that all the people in the example share another characteristic. They all wish access to a group counselling session specifically set-up to help victims/survivors of sexual assault. The court will not take into account people who don't wish to have access to this service. It sounds like a statement of the bleeding obvious, but it's important for (iii) and (iv) below.

iii) It is objectively reasonable to state that that it can be assumed that all the people involved in the consideration have already experienced significant and severe harm. This decision is reached because it is extremely likely like all the people involved in the consideration have experienced sexual assault (because they are seeking access to group counselling session that is focussed on helping victims/survivors of sexual assault), and that they have experienced significant and severe harm as a result of experiencing sexual assault (a statement that objectively stands on its own, and then is also confirmed by the fact that the victims/survivors are seeking access to a group counselling session that is focussed on helping victims/survivors of sexual assault).

iv) it is objectively reasonable to reach the conclusion that because of (iii) anybody, whether they are a woman or transsexual woman, would experience further severe and significant harm if they are unable to access this service for whatever reason. This conclusion is reached objectively because every person being taken into account in the consideration is attempting to access the service and therefore it can be assumed, only the balance of probability, that every person needs to have access to that service, and that independent expert studies show that those who don't have access to such studies not only continue to experience severe and significant harm, but will also experience more severe and significant harm.

v) It is objectively reasonable to state that given the group counselling session is for victims/survivors of sexual assault that the perpetrators of that assault are, by average consideration, considerably more likely to men than women. This can be, again, be verified by independent expert research and evidence. (As a contrary example, if the group counselling session had been set-up for women who had been sexually assaulted by same-sex partners then, of course, that conclusion wouldn't be objectively reasonable. This example-within-an-example is a way of showing that when the parameters of the situation change, the way that the situation is considered also changes).

vi) Up until this point the considerations being made by the court doesn't have to differentiate between women and transsexual women trying to access the counselling service. But now the court decides that it's appropriate to look at these two groups separately for the next sections.

vii) Because the victims/survivors of the sexual assault are more likely to have been assaulted by men than women then it is objectively reasonable to say that the presence of one or more non-transsexual men in the group counselling session could cause any person in that group to experience significant distress as a result of the vulnerability they are experiencing while part of that group and, as a result of that increased level of harm experienced, it is objectively reasonable to state that they may not attend the session as a result. It is also objectively reasonable to consider that a transsexual woman is less likely to perceive a non-transsexual woman as being a non-transsexual man, than a non-transsexual woman perceiving a transsexual woman as being a non-transsexual man. Therefore the likelihood of a person of experiencing distress, and therefore harm, as the result of the perception of a non-transsexual man being part of the group is higher for non-transsexual women than transsexual women. (Note, this isn't a numbers thing. It is just saying that as an average across an unspecified group size a non-transsexual woman is more likely to perceive a non-transsexual man being present, compared to a transsexual woman perceiving a non-transgender man being present.)

viii) The act of deliberately excluding somebody from a service based on a protected characteristic is an act of discrimination, whether lawful or not. The court will recognise that regardless of how lawful the action was, any person who has been discriminated against has experienced harm (this has already been determined by case law involving discrimination with the same protected characteristic but in different areas like employment), and that this must also be taken into account when the case is being considered. (Note that choosing not to use the service is not in itself considered harmful, regardless of the reasons why (unless it can be shown to be unlawful discrimination under EA2010). However, consideration can, and in this example, has been given to the harm caused if, as an average, a woman is may be unable to attend the group counselling session because the presence of a transsexual woman makes them feel too vulnerable to access the service.)

ix) It is objectively justifiable to state that when the group counselling service was set-up the demographics of the country as a whole means that the service provider would expect a much higher proportion of women seeking to access the service compared to the number of transsexual women. Barring other factors (these factors would actually be taken into consideration and revolve around incidence of sexual assault for the relevant groups, population groupings, etc, but is too complicated to take into account here) the court could come to the objective conclusion that the service provider was right in their assessment, on balance the number of women seeking to access the service would be significantly greater than the number of transsexual women.

x) Therefore:

• When taken as an individual experience, the inability of any woman or transsexual woman to access the group counselling service causes the same level of harm, but the transsexual woman would also experience more harm as a result of being discriminated against. Therefore, going by this standard, the service would not be acting legally by excluding the transsexual woman from the counselling service. But that is a subjective test, as it only focusses on the individualistic experiences of a single woman, and a single transsexual woman. I've put it in here to show just how different a conclusion reached by a subjective test of whether something is justifiable is compared to when an objective test is applied.

• Objectively, the harm experienced by any woman or any transsexual woman being unable to access the service is the same. However, any transsexual woman is also experiencing additional harm as a result of the additional discrimination faced in the example provided. But when viewed in totality, the court comes to the conclusion that in this situation the aggregate amount of harm that may be experienced as a result of an unspecified number of women feeling unable to access the service is greater than the aggregate amount of harm that may be experienced by an unspecified number of transsexual woman who have been barred from accessing the service via a discriminatory measure. Therefore, as courts will always seek the path of greater benefit, or least harm, in these cases, the court decides that the service provider has objectively justified that they have had a legitimate aim and have acted with proportional means when excluding transsexual people from the service. The service provider will actually increase the chances of getting that judgement if they can show that they've done everything they can to lay on alternative provision for the transsexual women (e.g. a group counselling session for the same purpose, but is specifically setup for transsexual women and non-transsexual women who are comfortable being in the same group.)

Now, it's really important to note, this isn't a numbers game. The court won't go, 'Here there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 women affected,, 1 transsexual woman affected, therefore the transsexual woman can be legally discriminated against.' Just as importantly, it isn't a mathematical equation. Just because any individual woman and any individual transsexual woman would experience the same level of harm in being unable to access the service it doesn't make the harm cancel out for the purposes of the consideration. Everything relevant to the scenario must be taken into account.

So to transfer it across as a comparison: look at just how much the scales must tip to be able to objectively justify causing the harm that is solely experienced as the result of discrimination when the discrimination is crossing across protected characteristics. If the discrimination is occurring within a protected characteristic (discriminating against men in favour of women by setting up a group counselling session for female victims of sexual assault) the point at which it becomes objectively justifiable is lower. But because the entire purpose of EA2010 is to forbid unlawful discrimination, and the Act specifically prohibits the use of legal discrimination within one protected characteristic as a justification for discrimination against a different protected characteristic the point at which it becomes objectively justifiable to legally justify expanding that discrimination so it discriminates against multiple protected characteristics is set very high within the example given.

And I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call it a day. My brain is now refusing to cooperate, and I had to retype that last paragraph quite a few times. It kept on going in circles.

Hope this helps answer your questions.

Ofclocks - can you expand on 'the children have been totally chill with it and don't even see that it could be a negative thing, as it's brought up in schools. I've occasionally seen a bit of confusion, but the other girls then clear it right up'?

What I'm seeing is that children who do have any problem with it very quickly learn that they will be hushed and frowned down by the others. They learn not to say anything, however uneasy they feel.

@Datun and @GirlScout72 Thank you for all the info, I'll check out that link. Damn though, was hoping when GirlScout was talking about exemptions that there was a light at the end of this bloody tunnel.

Datun that Gender Spectrum pic gave me the creeps. That far left little pink lady reminded me of 50s ladies Notice how the further 'female' you are the smaller the waist, WTH!

Just read a bit of the rainbows "discussing gender" guidance. The first sentence of the "background" had me rolling my eyes. :(

"Background
From a very young age children develop a sense of gender. This can be shown through their choice of
clothes, hairstyles or toys that they play with. "

Or they could just be kids trying stuff out with no idea of what gender is until they absorb the stereotypes from adults and older kids. 🤔

ofclocks "I've occasionally seen a bit of confusion, but the other girls then clear it right up." Can you give an example of what you mean, please?

I'd be really uncomfortable with my child going to ofcourse's group and being told trans is completely normal way to express self etc. I'd rather they were told gender does NOT equal choice of hairstyles/toys/etc.

Brainwashing :(

@drspouse

If any leader or girl was uncomfortable with sharing with any other leader or girl (for any reason) than I'd address that and they could go in different rooms.

If a parent was uncomfortable with their child sharing with a trans child or any other child I would be questioning the parent trying to stop us including another child rather excluding the child who hadn't done anything wrong.

And yes, on a big camp with 100 girls they couldn't all change in the loo, but I wouldn't expect a large portion of girls to have issues with changing in front of each other - I would imagine that this would only be a few girls based on my experience of teenage girls.

Gosh :(

So the 99 girls have to change in front of a boy. Needs of the many overriden by the needs of the one.

I would be one of the many questioning parents as most of this thread!