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.

Good work Agnes for at least trying to get GG to see the huge gaping flaw in their 'inclusive' plan. Anyone with a lick of commonsense can surely see it.

Makes me wonder if they consulted actual lawyers, or people who identify as lawyers.

The latter it seems! It is very sad to think it will take one (or even many) girls to be harmed before safeguards are brought back in.

The trouble is everyone is afraid to put their heads over the parapet. The leaders I've talked to have simply said "thank fuck I don't have any trans children boys trying to join at the moment, if they do I'll quit". I expect that's how a lot of people feel. Let's keep our heads down, let's hope it doesn't happen in our group, if it does we'll quietly close. It's very sad.

As for trans adults - I simply don't see how any "single sex" group could possibly accept a man as a leader of girls, a full leader, with access to children. How can anyone think that's ok? I know many men who are fantastic kids club/scout/youth/sports leaders/coaches so I'm not anti-man at all. But safeguarding is there for a reason, and the reason GG have got away with more relaxed safeguarding rules than mixed groups is that they are single sex. No other youth group that I know of has the relaxed sleeping arrangements for adults/youth members that GG has - and that's because of the leader/young leader/older youth member crossover there is in many guide groups that simply couldn't happen in a non-single-SEX organisation.

I haven't tried to post this précis of the meeting, no. All posts are moderated before publication and all mine have been refused previously.

But I will try to get this past the moderators.

The other point is, we need to to protect the trans kids as much as the girls.

Saying nothing to parents and carrying on as if a trans girl is a girl like any other could lead to some truly awful gossip, speculation, and even spurious accusations of inappropriate behaviour. Similarly with trans adult leaders. Let's be open and make sensible arrangements that will keep GG accessible to all girls.

Agnes
Thank you for standing up for girls.

When I was growing up in the 70s, Scouting was a national joke and "scoutmaster" (along with "choirmaster") was a byword for the sort of man who really, really shouldn't have access to children. In a nudge, nudge, wink, wink sort of way.

It seems that Guiding are determined to take that role for themselves.

Can they honestly not see how big the shitstorm will be when a girl comes back from guide camp pregnant (whether from consensual sex or otherwise)? Or when they have the first rape allegation?

How on earth can they not see the obvious risk here?

A lot of guide leaders are worried that if they protest about this openly, they will be perceived as "anti trans" , guilty of "hate speech" and this could have real implications for their livelihoods.

Anyone who works in the civil service, for schools, in the nhs for example. Few people want to put their job on the line.

And that is not including the real fear that we will be hounded out of Guiding itself.

The worrying thing is that most parents of Rainbows / Brownies / Guides are totally unaware of all this.

The thing is, GG does take the risk of pregnancy seriously on mixed camps (rangers/scouts). There's guidance for leaders on how to manage situations where young people have sexual relationships in such a setting, and even advocates provision of contraception (although this didn't mandatory, GG will support leaders who chose to provide it).

GG don't seem to recognise that sexual activity could occur between a male and female, regardless of their gender identities. It's negligent.

I've just started a new contract. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried about what GG or certain activists might do to my livelihood.

I'm lucky that I work in the world of risk management. I think they would stand by my concerns. I also have support from a number of trans women. I'm also exceptionally stubborn and have no children of my own to worry about/provide for. Many leaders aren't in that position.

Women are being bullied into submission.

The worrying thing is that most parents of Rainbows / Brownies / Guides are totally unaware of all this.

So how do they find out? Can we tell them, and how best to word it?

I’m a volunteer with Brownies and have a daughter that’s a Rainbow.

I doubt our Leader or the other volunteers or parents know about any of this. It’s so disturbing that the rights and safety of girls are disregarded by an organisation set up to empower them in a single sex environment.

How can I discuss this with other local volunteers and my Brown Owl?

I’m just baffled by how they can’t see that that will happen. And it’s not just the risk of non-consensual sex - a vulnerable trans-identifying boy among a group of nice, caring, female-socialised girls could lead to all sorts of boundary issues that sooner or later will result in underage sexual contact.

It’s insane that they can’t see this - they’re setting themselves up to get sued to kingdom come and back again.

Thank you so much for your efforts. I wrote twice - saying as you have done that they seem to have been advised wrongly; they should be being trans inclusive of trans boys not trans girls; and that excluding children who couldn’t be in a mixed group was appalling. I was told they could see that we would never agree so any further correspondence from me would not receive a reply.

Someone at GG has completely drunk the kool aid. Trans activists are deliberately targeting strongly feminist/female organisations like GG, refugees and rape crisis and doing their best to destroy them. We are not wrong to be paranoid.

I am so sad about GG: it was such an important part of my life growing up. And now I am feeling disenfranchised from almost anything meant to be for women - I no longer trust these things. I can see that TAs have set me against the women’s organisations I loved. They have won.

And when it does happen girls will stay silent. It won't reach the press, girls discomfort won't be measured. Girls are now hearing the message that to be a girl they have to perform girl, Girl Guides needs to do better.

Interestingly, Julie Bentley told me she'd only had 50 complaints about this issue. That doesn't stack up with my experience.

Keep writing to [email protected]

I know it's a difficult conversation to have with your local leaders but please bite the bullet if you can. An upcoming residential is a good way to start the conversation. Ask whether accommodation will be single sex or gender and whether single sex accommodation will be provided for those that request it.

See my earlier post about links with girlguiding and Stonewall. They've not just drunk the kool aid, they make it and sell it

Show them the GG Equality and diversity policy. Ask them what they think this means for safeguarding.

It takes no account of the sex protections in the Equality Act. To my mind failure to invoke the protections is a policy which indirectly discriminates against girls.

You should be able to discuss this without detriment either within the Guides or at work. The Equality Act itself states that subjecting you to a detriment in these circumstances would be victimisation.

"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."

What the what? I can't believe so many high up in Guiding would be okay with that? Are they thinking it is so unlikely they will actually get a trans leader that they think it is a non-issue and easier to go along with legal advice?

If transactivism is anything to go by they will wait until this gains traction and then deliberately target the GG with TIMs as leaders.

It's happened with women's officers, the Jo Cox award for women, etc. Not to mention numerous other, smaller places like restaurants, libraries, women's aid shelters, gyms, spas, salons, shops etc. All deliberately targetted.

If GG had 50 complaints about any other issue in a short space of time, how seriously would they take it?

SeahorsesAREhorses is right. Girls will just quietly leave. As will leaders.

We are back to girls/women being compliant, not wanting to speak up, wanting to be "nice" and inclusive and all that shit.

Girls are being made to feel shit for speaking up about this. Even most of us, as adults, are worried that people won't like us if we speak up, how can we expect young teenagers to stand up for themselves in an environment that will label them as transphobic and bully them into agreement.

Worse than that Maryz, women who speak up will be pushed out. It's a deliberate tactic to beat other women into submission.

Would giving out leaflets to other parents of Guides, saying something like "Are you aware that GG has recently changed from a single-sex org to a feminine-gender org, and that girls who are gender-non-conforming may be asked to leave".

That might make parents take notice, without the accusations of bigots/transphobe. Then they can realise themselves about the mixed-sex tents.

I think any message needs to be in plain English- 'GG is now mixed sex' can be understood by most people.