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!

Thank you everyone who has read and contributed to this thread.

I'm still seeking legal advice but will continue to press GGUK for answers in the meantime. Thank you to those posters who suggested other bodies I could write to to to keep the pressure up. I have already written to my MP about this in a wider letter about the implications of self ID although I haven't heard back from her either.

Do you think it's worth posting about this in Chat or AIBU? FWR is a much smaller board with lots of gender critical posters who have already thought about what self ID means for organisations like GG. If I could reach a wider audience and get support from across a range of political viewpoints then GG will find it much harder to ignore us.

This is just awful. I have to question why organisations are so keen to have transgender children/adults as members that they’re happy to ignore biological reality - it doesn’t feel like genuine inclusivity to me.

so GGUK would be quite happy for the boys who are "a bit handsy" at parties to declare themselves girls, and carry on being "a bit handsy" while sharing a tent with the girls who've managed not to be backed into a corner by them at parties (or who have been backed into a corner and been rescued by friends)?

And are they saying that sexual assault and rape won't happen? Or even can't, as obviously the 14 year old girl I know who you couldn't shut up at Guides, but was almost totally mute in class, is further up the oppression list than than the gobby 14 year old boy who won't take no for an answer and has to be carefully placed in a class seating plan?

Do you think it's worth posting about this in Chat or AIBU?

Yes. It would also be useful to have something concrete people who agree with you could do i.e. sign a petition.

Agnes

Do dm me. I’m at work right now.

I can help you get a decent referral together to the ECHR. They can intervene before legal proceedings commence. They need to assess so it takes time to come through the system with a yes or a no.

I will be drafting an “on notice” letter for GG tonight. I’ll put it on here and speak with SexMatters about putting together a downloadable document. Then we can spam the threads

Sorry for sporadic replies, am supposed to be working!

Someone did start a petition on CitizenGO but it never really got off the ground. I'm not prepared to have anything to do with CitizenGO - they are an ultra conservative group, anti gay marriage and pro life. So I'd have to start a new one. Will have a think about the wording. As it happens I am gender critical but my issue here is around safe guarding so that should be the focus.

A petition was just an example, it may not be the right way forward, I don’t know. But I do know that people are chomping at the bit to actually do something productive to challenge all of this so if you can find a way to direct their energy that would be amazing.

AgnesBadenPowell Thank you for your well reasoned post and bringing this to people's attention. I think certainly get this out onto the main boards and the legal clarification is a fantastic move.

Are there any news agencies you can try and get involved? You are clearly coming from a position of safe-guarding and balancing competing rights.

I was talking to a fellow scholar about this last night, after one too many wines I must admit, and as we couldn't resolve our feelings on the trans argument - the what is a woman/who gets to define ad infinitum we abandoned it and just discussed good and bad law. They were instantly on board with the notion that we cannot have objective laws based on subjective feelings. We need the law to be applied equally to all people and we cannot do this with subjective and changing definitions.

It appears the GG by leaving it to individuals to decide means they won't have a coherent policy which will apply to everyone equally, this risks discrimination creeping in.

Good luck - Im another who would happily put money into a Crowdfunder.

I think it is great that you are checking out the law and best arguments ... and arising from Datun's comments above, perhaps one tack would be to ask how they have evaluated the least discriminatory option, given that they have the right for exemption and need to take all "girls" needs into account. It would be fascinating to understand how they have evaluated this - without consultation! - and I suspect they havent

As a trustee of another charity, I absolutely wholeheartedly concur with writing to both the Chair of trustees and each of the board by name, both explaining to them your great love of the guides and your desire to enable as many girls to participate as possible ... and your fear from conversations with others that this will be excluding many of the girls they want to reach... and that there may be a better solution.

It does sound as if they are erroneously centring Trans - and I suspect this is not actually what they want to achieve.....

Good luck - and congratulations in advance for making a strong and thought through stand for girls everywhere

Victoria Derbyshire has made a clip of me talking about the girl guides policy of allowing natal boys sleep with girls. It would be ideal for sharing on facebook etc to get the word out and to see who's else is worried about it.

twitter.com/VictoriaLIVE/status/970608359102545920

I'm just going to clarify that DoctorW is Dr Nicola Williams of Fair Play for Women, the one who was talking about Girl Guides on Victoria Derbyshire.

brillaint clip for sharing....

GGUK is an organisation very close to my heart. I was a Brownie and a guide, a Leader for 17 years (Brownies and then Rainbows) and have a Guide and Brownie at home.

This has made me incredibly sad. In one move GGUK has swept away over 100+ years of heritage of supporting girls and women to achieve beyond society's expectations ie their gender. I cannot reconcile in my head how an organisation that has fought vociferously for girls' rights both here and abroad can so easily say that girls who don't like it can just leave.

As a leader and parent, there has been no consultation at all about this change of policy yet it goes to the heart of absolutely everything the organisation stands for. When I think about all the consultation over the changing of the wording of the promise a few years ago, this is a complete stitch up and makes a mockery of all the safeguarding trainings I have done over the years.

In the long run what I guess will happen is:

1. leaders will stop running camps / residentials because the risks become to high to contemplate, the arrangements too complex and the parents too angry
2. parents will feel betrayed that what they all assumed was a single sex organisation turns out not to be and start pulling their girls out
3. the organisation will eventually dwindle away
4. girls will lose out...yet again

I'm not saying anything that others haven't already said upthread, but I wanted you to know that you have my full support.

I can't see what the Scouts organisation is being so complacent about either. The way things are going a predatory TIM scout could absolutely insist on being accommodated with girls and claim discrimination if prevented.

I think the real danger is in attracting new, predatory leaders though. I would hope the GG is looking very closely at any new volunteers.

leaders will stop running camps / residentials because the risks become to high to contemplate, the arrangements too complex and the parents too angry I can see this happening, as I would definitely remove my children, if they were still young. My concern with self identifying intact males, that have bad intentions will step into those vacancies. If women are going to leave, they might as well get sacked fighting for the young girls in their care. If the posters that were going to become helpers, but have been put off, join and do the same.

That's another thing that upsets me: why is no one prepared to accept that this is giving predatory males easy access to women and children?

I don't understand why they can't follow scouts lead on this, its a common sense easy to follow rule all the children can follow being perfectly honest you mitigate risks but thats all leaders can do. But they aren't mitigating obvious risks . They must be petrified of labelling the trans child that they think this is the answer.

Miaow yes the rainbow uniform, what the hell is that about?! Its like they bought the excess stock from the 1980's russian gymnast squad.

Yes Dr W is Dr Nicola Williams of Fair Play for Women - she was on Victoria Derbyshire.

And agree re the appalling 'girls can go elsewhere' attitude. What if the girl is a sexual abuse survivor, or has PTSD? No place for her, because gender feelz?

I urge everyone to get on the GGA website and read their gender guidance, it'd make your head spin. Particularly interesting is their guidance for how to talk to kids about gender ID. I wouldn't want any kid of mine being told she's a girl because of her inner ineffable essence of feeling like a girl! www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/running-your-unit/including-all/lgbt-members/talking-about-gender-and-gender-identity/

Also FEMALE children who identify as boys are not welcome, I think that is particularly cruel, as we all know most of them turn out to be Lesbians and they are being turfed out into the cold at a time when close female friends and role models would probably be a great help to gender confusion, learning to understand gender stereotypes, and being around a positive view of femaleness might in fact help resolve dysphoria (this fits with a lot of what we're reading from professionals who take a watchful waiting, gender crit approach to helping girls with dysphoria)

Meh. It’s practically the law that GG uniform isn’t allowed to fit any actual humans. I’m 5’2” and my trousers are too short.
I’ve been wondering what the WAGGGS stance is on sex v gender. I’m thinking that more liberal countries (ie those that let boys and men join so long as they claim they feel like girls) may run into difficulties at international events. Or does WAGGGS just kowtow to the GGUK line out of colonial deference largely? (With all due apologies for raising that - it’s something I deal with routinely in guiding in my unit)

GG has long been a safe space for lesbians - this is what I'm particularly shocked about - it seems to be the mums of girls Guiders who are up in arms, none of the lesbian Guiders seem to have twigged.

... YES do post on AIBU and Chat.... you should get much more feedback... I'd ask a question in title....

And I suspect you might get further going in with twin aims:

• safeguarding
• true inclusivity, enabling all girls to participate... using Datuns wording re least discriminatory option having taking all girls needs into account..... this is going to play havoc with their BAME figures!!!

Good luck!

Their attitude of "girls who don't like it can go elsewhere" really saddens me - are they completely oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of girls who are restricted to single sex activities have absolutely zero choice in the matter?

Growing up in an area with a large Muslim population, Brownies and then Guides was seen as complete freedom for a lot of my Muslim friends as even girls with the strictest parents were allowed and indeed encouraged to attend because of the faith they had in the single SEX environment. It gave them the freedom to remove their hijabs and brought them out their shells in a way that never happened at school. I can't put into words quite how disappointed I am that these girls are seen as insignificant collateral damage in the "progressive" march to include trans identified males.

I don't know which planet that NSPCC person is on who thinks that strict Muslim families will accept a unit with same "gendered" children.

I made the point about conservative religions and cultures cuckoo; whereby girls arent allowed to socialise with boys, so this would prohibite them from attendung

There reply is quoted but to summarise; GG dont make assumptions about cultures and religions. Anybidy can choose not to go, if they dont like the policy.

So, trying to insinuate that I am a racist for 'making assumptions"' about religions/cultures. You have to be very sheltered to not know this happens.

I also think this contravenes the Equalities Act...because their answer is WELL DONT COME THEN.