Girlguiding - an update

[AgnesBadenPowell]

Firstly, apologies for being offline for a while. It's been a busy few weeks, I went on holiday and started a new job. But back on it now!

You'll know that an article was published in the Sunday Times in March and a couple of weeks later the open letter went in: the final tally was 927 signatures (some of these collected after publication).

Since then I met the CEO, deputy CEO and chief guide. Prior to that, I was warned in emails to use the internal procedures for complaints and to not make things public (I did, and was ignored). I was also "reminded" of the social media policy and told that the campaign would not change the trans policy.

It's probably not appropriate to share my full notes from that meeting here. But I will say that Girlguiding was defensive and prickly. The fact that I have publicly discussed the trans policy on social media in particular irritated Julie Bentley (CEO). I don't know why; the policy is a public document available on the website.

Girlguiding stressed to me that the legal advice they received confirmed that they HAVE to treat trans members (including those who self identify, not just with a GRC) as the opposite sex) as the gender they identify as.

We did agree that in the absence of a test case, there is no legal precedent. It was left that we would await the updated EHRC guidance expected next month before any review is conducted (if they chose to review it).

We did discuss the inconsistencies that the trans policy brings about, eg GG has strict rules that accompanying male children on leaders must have separate sleeping and washing facilities. Even boys as young as 4. But if that boy identified as a girl, then no such rules apply, despite there being no physical, material difference between the two groups of males. Girlguiding referred back to their legal advice that have to treat trans members as the gender they identify as. This includes males who identify as females providing personal care to girls on residentials, a role which is strictly for female leaders only according to GG's safeguarding policy.

We also discussed gender non confirming girls. There was an agreement that the language in the policy was rather clinical, and it could be interpreted as a strict instruction for a GNC girl to be removed from their unit. It was agreed that the policy language would be reviewed. This is particularly important as most trans issues within GG are, as you might expect, around girls who are transitioning.

One of the key issues for me is that girlguiding now offers single gender but mixed sex accommodation. I accept that the number of trans girls joining guides will be small compared to our overall membership - but it would only take one incident to cause huge harm to the children involved, their families and girlguiding. I suggested that GG might want to make the single gender / mixed sex aspect clearer, perhaps by adapting the standard consent form to advise parents that we don't guarantee single sex accommodation. Yet again, I was accused of wanting "out" individuals. That is not my intention at all.

I've heard nothing from girlguiding since. I will be following up on the action points. We will have a new CEO in June and updated EHRC guidance which will hopefully give all children equal rights to bodily privacy and autonomy, not just the trans kids.

What does ‘performing femininity’ look like?

What does ‘performing femininity’ look like?

Not being a "TERF", apparently.

Bewilderness’ 8th rule;

8th rule of misogyny: Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.

What do you expect GG to do here? They cannot possibly go against national policy on their own.

How big a problem is this? Are we saying lots of young boys are going to announce themselves to be girls just to molest girls?

I only know one trans boy and he is a tortured soul who believes he should be a girl and is transitioning slowly.

What do you expect GG to do here? They cannot possibly go against national policy on their own.

What national policy?

Are we saying lots of young boys are going to announce themselves to be girls just to molest girls?

🙄 no, some people have said male bodies in female only sleeping and washing facilities remain male bodies for safeguarding purposes whether those people have a female gender identity or not and guides does not seem to understand this.

What I’m concerned about is that under the banner of ‘trans inclusion’ GG are excluding females who don’t have a feminine gender identity and including males who have a feminine gender identity.

This changes girl guides from a single sex organisation into a single gender identity organisation. There is no basis in law for that to be legitimate.

It is possible though for organisations to be single sex if this is legitimate and proportional. This is why girl guides has been allowed to remain single sex.

Have emailed despite not having any girls- hope others feel they can do the same

Thank you for what you are doing Agnes- I know the personal cost can be huge and your time alone on this is a big commitment. We need more women like you in the world.

On further thinking, the Period Poverty badge might bring the issues to the attention of many more Guiders who were previously unaware.

On another note, at my last District meeting, I looked around and noticed that none of the 20-25 leaders there 'performed femininity'. To a woman we were wearing trousers, no make up, short unpolished nails, most with very short hair. Someone who performed a hypersexualised stereotypical femininity would stick out a mile.

Those tweets above about TERFs are quite enlightening, aren't they? "You can tell they're not real women by their aggressive attitude mannerisms and entitled attitudes."

I've never seen any actual women defined as not 'real women' before.

It's as though 'real women' are now supposed to be what is served up on screen - in films or video games. Not you wonderful guiders, giving up your time voluntarily to help the next generation.

Staggeringly delusional. I can't think of any other way to describe it.

It’s redefining ‘woman’ as gender role compliance and ‘misogyny’ as hate based on gender identity rather than female sex that’s particularly clear in those tweets.

Those vile tweets are also an example of DARVO; deny, attack, reverse victim and offender.
Its seems the latest move is to define 'terfs' as MRA's and misogynists.

Here's another...if you don't identify as a women, you are not a woman and you are also being transphobic by saying you are a woman because of your biology.

Well shit the goalposts keep moving around
Last time i looked a woman was female.
Overnight it seems that's not enough, I must feel womanly too?

I'm getting to the point of thinking 'Well, if my womanhood invalidates someone else's identity, that's their problem.'

I don't like that feeling much, but I suspect I share it with quite a few actual women.

I wonder what this was awarded for....appropriate in the circumstances?

@silent, Agnes BP is Helen

oops sorry didn't mean to tag!

This is going to be a long one.

A quick reminder: I have been in contact with Girl Guiding UK about their safeguarding procedures. They have very strict protocols in place regarding the sleeping arrangements for male children of guide leaders on residential trips, but do not follow these same protocols if the child in question identifies as a girl. In this case the child is permitted to sleep in a dorm with female children without the informed consent of these children’s parents.

When I questioned this with Girl Guiding UK, they sent me this in response.

“[W]e do allow volunteers’ family members to attend residential events. Such requests are carefully considered by the local commissioner and as a part of the mandatory risk assessment or any trips. However this same process would not apply to a trans girl as this would be a breach of the Equality Act.”

I then wrote to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who are the organisation in charge of overseeing and upholding by the Equality Act 2010, to ask them if risk assessments and other safeguarding procedures were indeed prohibited by the EA. This is the response I got from them today.

We note your concern regarding the potential impact of trans inclusive policies of Girl Guiding UK upon other members, and you ask us if they are correct in stating that the Equality Act 2010 (the EA 2010) prohibits the use of risk assessments and other safeguarding procedures.

The exclusion of trans people from membership of organisations and access to benefits and services that they provide would normally constitute unlawful gender reassignment discrimination, unless this is expressly permitted and justifiable by reference to exceptions from the non-discrimination principle. The most relevant here being membership of associations (schedule 16 EA 2010) and the provision of communal accommodation (schedule 23 EA 2010).

As a single-characteristic association for the purposes of schedule 16 of the EA 2010, Girl Guiding UK can choose to refuse membership to trans girls, or choose to admit trans girls as members.

As a provider of communal accommodation for the purposes of schedule 23, paragraph 3, Girl Guiding UK can also choose to exclude or include trans girls. Operating trans inclusive policies is permissible, provided that this is consistent with the rights of others and justifiable. The risk of sex discrimination against other members can be a relevant consideration in this context.

These matters must be approached carefully and sensitively, without prejudice, stereotypes or unwarranted assumptions. We consider that a case-by-case approach to the operation of any exception, including the question of whether reliance on any exception can be objectively justified, will be appropriate and necessary. Where organisations decide to adopt trans inclusive policies and practices, the needs of all members or service users have to be considered in any particular case.

The EA 2010 does not prohibit the use of risk assessments and other safeguarding procedures where warranted in individual cases. Occasionally, it may be necessary to carry out risk assessment and use safeguarding procedures, but whether that is necessary and what form that takes depends on the precise circumstances of each situation.

No worries. Even more reason to get behind her, then!

LemonJello

A) so they're wrong.

B) do people think that using 25 words where one will makes them sound smart.

To clarify my post. The girl guides are wrong!

They have been erroneously advised.

It’s written by lawyers

I’m just going to invoke Agnes as this may be useful for her.

@AgnesBadenPowell

Well, of course they’re wrong. We knew this all along. I wonder if they’ve been advised by lawyers or just some lobby group like Allsorts.

That’s what we need to find out. Why and how were they led to believe this? And now that they know they are mistaken what are they going to do about it?