have I got this right? (girl guides again)

[Thanksforthatamazingpost]

I'm sorry, it's another girl guides thread, but I was eating my tuna sandwich and suddenly had this thought.

Some teenage boys become girls for the purposes of the Girl Guides' current guidance.

Contrary to what I had once naively assumed, many transwomen are still predominantly sexually attracted to women. I only realised this once a close trans friend explained that actually she isn't into men.

So these teenagers who have become girls (from the Guides' point of view) are sexually attracted to girls, and presumably have all the usual desires to explore that most teenagers have.

And then they share a tent.

And the girls are not allowed to say anything.

Please tell me this is wrong.

Yes op, a large number of transgender people who were born male are lesbians.

No, a lesbian is a woman attracted to other women. A transwoman attracted to women is heterosexual. Trans is not a sexual orientation.

If a girl reported harassment/inappropriate behaviour/assault by a male Guide to their parents, other guides (or anyone else), what would be the response? Is that covered in the Guides paperwork? Would they be in trouble for 'outing' the male Guide?

What about if the male Guide does not 'pass' at all, would female Guides and their parents be expected to pretend they hadn't noticed and/or compelled not to mention it (or how they feel about that) to each other?

People don't realise that transwomen may well have a sexual preference for women. This is why we have the attacks on lesbians because they say they don't want to have sex with someone who has a penis, apparently that is transphobic. People also don't realise that they may have no intention of taking hormones or having surgery, believing that their male bodies are really female.

You are correct, OP.

Several concerned Guide leaders have emailed HQ to say that consensual sexual activity is a safeguarding risk and been told very brusquely that it isn't.

We recently had a long thread with prominent transactivist and academic Stephen Whittle on here. Stephen felt that the best solution would be to provide leaders with a supply of condoms.

Sorry, I should have used quotation marks but I'm being careful. Without quotation marks it looks ridiculous because it is ridiculous.

Google cotton ceiling or Youtube search your dating preferences are transphobic Note: In the context of adults

"People don't realise that transwomen may well have a sexual preference for women."

this is so strange. I've been into these discussions for a couple of months now but had never connected what was being said with what my own fairly close transwoman friend had already explicitly told me.

I actually feel a bit of compassion for the girl guides leadership and how confused they have been.

I also feel that it's disrespectful to a trans-identifying teenager/young adult to treat them as if they did not have typical sexual appetite.

It's bizarre. Girl guides guidance on residential is that male volunteers and male children must be provided separate sleeping and bathroom provision for them. But if a male happens to identify as a woman or a girl then they're allowed to wander around freely in a place where women and girls are sleeping or partially dressed.

I want to know what the safe guarding issues are that require males to be provided with separate sleeping and bathroom provision. And why don't these safeguarding issues apply to those males' who believe themselves to be women or girls?

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/running-your-unit/events-and-going-away/going-on-residentials/

Oh gosh, should have read through my post before posting it. Hope you can make sense of it.

Apologies @MyAuntyBadger,

I'm so bloody cross about this. The gaslighting and the complete disregard for girls' boundaries makes me feel so betrayed.

And how on earth did a normally perfectly sensible organisation end up thinking this was OK?

Keeping my train of thought going. If a female volunteer with girl guides identifies as a man or a boy, what are the safe guarding issues which mean they would have to be provided with separate sleeping and bathing facilities away from the women and girls?

I'm just curious as to if people think that Guiding has never up to this point had to deal with underage (or legal as some young members are over 16) sex on camps? Even if a camp is just your unit, the campsite may have other groups of scouts or youth groups, large-scale events often have people of different sexes socialising together.

Many leaders have condoms for young people to access alongside things like sanitary ware and medicines.

If all you are concerned about is the risk of pregnancy after consensual sex, this policy is not going to increase the small risk that already exists.

Every time I read one of these threads I keep thinking isn't this really simple. Willy = male. No willy = female.

No sure if lesbian transwomen (not sure I get that though) are more prevalent than hetero transwomen... this is blowing my mind.

If a no willy transwoman is there she is err committed to being seen as a woman. With willy = could be a danger. Am I being thick?

this policy is not going to increase the small risk that already exists.

How not?

Are you saying that mixing the sexes doesn't cause a risk? If so, why do we usually have separate sleeping arrangements?

We're used to thinking of trans folk as suffering from gender dysphoria and there is a tendency for them to be homosexual or bi-sexual (I have a trans friend also who now lives as women but prefers men). The transgenders seem to be the ones with a sexual preference for women, which makes self-id all the more concerning as they're the ones happy with their "lady penis".

lancelottie I said there is already a small risk, this won't increase that risk because leaders already plan for the possibility of that happening and provide measures that members can access to protect themselves.

The risk has been assessed

The risk, as far as I can see, has been assessed by going 'Nah, can't see anything wrong with that, Guides would never have sex.'

Guide leaders have been specifically asking how they risk-assess in this new situation of NOT separating by sex but by gender, and being told they are not thinking inclusively enough.

and provide measures that members can access to protect themselves

Unfortunately many of these teenage girls are totally accepting of trans ideology, and consider a self-declared 'girl' to be a girl, complete with a female penis. And as girls can't get other girls pregnant, why would they need a condom?

Besides, if they know that sex is illegal under 16, and I'm sure they do, why would they announce to a Leader that they're going to Do It? And just how likely is it that they've planned ahead? And can you really see any of them getting past the embarrassment of asking for a condom?

JellySlice, I would have assumed you were joking, but talking to my teenage DD last year it appeared that she genuinely thought transgirls were now somehow genetically female.

We forget sometimes that kids only half-listen to explanations, and this topic seems (ahem) harder to discuss in clear terms than most.

@loopsdefruit - how do you know this risk has been assessed? Is it just your assumption?

How did the assessment conclude there was no increased risk of pregnancy? Prior to the policy being in place, sleeping arrangements were not mixed sex even if other group activities might have been. It flies in the face of common sense to think that the risk of a couple sneaking off into the woods or behind the bike sheds is the same as a couple have sex at night in a bed.

In fairness, most teens identifying are likely to be genuinely dysphoric as opposed to agp and consequently attracted to the opp sex but that's not going to affect results of experimenting. More important is what barracker said; one pregnant girl, bad every guide denied privacy and boundaries. Disastrous.

"......this won't increase that risk......"
Nope, you've forgotten how to compute probabilities correctly.So, a basic sketch of a computation would be something like:

Assessing Risk of teenage pregnancy

1. Probability of pregnancy when not using a condom per act of PIV
2. You have to ADD to this the probability of pregnancy when using a condom, and then factor in to both the ease and otherwise of accessing a condom.

Which is why making access to condoms easier would hopefully decrease the risk........

BUT then you have to multiply the whole shebang (pun intended), by a factor which reflects the ease/likelihood of situations occurring where a PIV encounter might occur. So, for example, in WonderWoman, on the island before any males arrive, the multiplicative factor would be zero to all intents and purposes, which is why they didn't have a condom machine around..........

Whereas in the case of GG, allowing males into the sleeping accomodation of females DOES increase the risk. Because (if nothing else) condom use is not 100%, and the contraception rate of condoms isn't 100% either. But not letting males in is (probably) the largest factor in the computation that is controllable at the moment, rather than encouraging more use of/greater availability of condoms.

Here endeth the first lesson (courtesy of Rev. Bayes).......