Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Girlguiding - an update

418 replies

AgnesBadenPowell · 19/05/2018 21:23

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
NoSquirrels · 20/05/2018 10:20

Thank you Agnes for your commitment to this and speaking with GG head office.

I am so disappointed in their "legal advice".

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

This is absolutely my worry. It's like they've never dealt with teens before! It's wilful blindness.

And THIS:

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.

Bloody hell. There's a thread elsewhere on MN today about a poster who was supposed to be going abroad with her DH, DD and her DD's 11 year old friend. The OP cannot go any more because of pregnancy complications and so it would just be her DH to chaperone his DD and DD's 11 year old female friend at a hobby/sporting activity. The other girl's parents have pulled her out because OP is no longer going.

That thread is full of ordinary people saying they'd be uncomfortable too. That no matter how 'nice' the DH is it's only sensible to consider that sending a lone man abroad with your DD might not be something you want to do.

What GG are suggesting is worse!!

ChattyLion · 20/05/2018 10:34

Thank you Agnes Flowers

InflagranteDelicto · 20/05/2018 10:38

Thank you Agnes for all this. As a leader, and district admin, I feel I stuck in an impossible position. Its also very worrying to see what is becoming a clear hit and run attack.

What's interesting is my dd's pov (having experienced this as a guide). There were two girls identifying as boys during a joint scouting and guiding event she was in. She found the constant tears and drama from them tiresome, and now has very fixed views. She'd not be out of place on this thread, and she's 12.

I really hope you get to stay in guiding. It's leaders like you that the girls need and deserve.

DisturblinglyOrangeScrambleEgg · 20/05/2018 10:50

Do you know what I would really like? For girlguiding to remain single sex and trans inclusive by accepting biological females regardless of their gender identity.

Agnes, that sounds absolutely perfect to me.

Thankyou for doing this. I was once a brownie, and then a guide, and now don't even live in the UK, and only have male children, so have very little connection to this any more, but thankyou - girls need people looking out for them.

Wanderabout · 20/05/2018 10:51

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.

This. Guides are making this into something it didn't need to be by ignoring safeguarding rules, lying to parents and actively trying to silence anyone raising concerns.

cropcirclesinthefields · 20/05/2018 11:19

@AgnesBadenPowell I've been following this for a while, I was in guiding for over 20 years and don't recognise the organisation. I just wanted to say Thank you for all the hard work you have been doing highlighting this issue.

Kyanite · 20/05/2018 11:25

Sounds like the legal advice was that it's their choice and they've been lobbied into making their decision this way. The guidance isn't well drafted...you can but you shouldn't, and what are the other options? You either exclude or you don't.

2015 guidance from the Gov

The Equality Act 2010 says that organisations may treat people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment differently in very particular and limited circumstances.
The key areas in which people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment may be treated differently under the law are:
ï‚· Some competitive sport.
ï‚· The provision of separate and single sex services.
ï‚· Religious marriage services.
ï‚· Insurance contracts.
ï‚· Communal accommodation.
It is advisable for an organisation always to seek ways to enable full inclusion and only use the exceptions if no other option can be found. Under no circumstances should the allowable exceptions be treated as something an organisation should do.

Wanderabout · 20/05/2018 11:32

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

Good point. And this is a below the radar issue which they tried to silence.

Plus how many signatures did the Times letter get? It was well over 50 just on its own.

Thank you Agnes and everyone involved for doing this.

Offred · 20/05/2018 11:37

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

This made me choke on my coffee.

Yes, this whole thing is a case study on why the proposed ‘retention’ of sex based protections in the letter of the law makes not a jot of difference to the damage self ID does to how those rights are exercised.

crispbuttyfan · 20/05/2018 11:43

In the US trans girl have been able to join girl scouts since 2015 with no problems.

The main takeaway from all this, is the acknowledgement of the equality act establishing the rights, that people are conflating with changes to GRA reform and self-id. As has been said countless times and any legitimate legal advice makes clear, these are issues of the equality act, and there is no evidence any harm is caused to anyone by being more inclusive.

crispbuttyfan · 20/05/2018 11:48

Actually some since 2012... edition.cnn.com/2015/05/20/living/girl-scouts-welcomes-transgender-girls-feat/index.html

NoSquirrels · 20/05/2018 11:48

Girls can join Scouts here too, crisp.

But boys can't join Girl Guiding, because it's single-sex. GG is choosing to break its own covenants.

Ereshkigal · 20/05/2018 11:48

This is about self ID, as a concept. The changes to the GRA are relevant to this as they codify the concept directly into law. But we're going to keep pointing out how shitty gender self ID is for women and girls in general. If that is OK with you?

R0wantrees · 20/05/2018 11:50

The difference between scouts and guides' policies with regards sex has been discussed at length.

Juells · 20/05/2018 11:53

I wondered when defenders of 'making girls second class citizens' would turn up.

sorenipples · 20/05/2018 12:07

I believe girl scouts in the US is equivalent to girl guides and distinct from US boy scouts. Therefore crisps points are relevant.

Ineedacupofteadesperately · 20/05/2018 12:08

no evidence any harm is caused to anyone by being more inclusive.

Apart from the evidence of many women here saying they and their daughters would feel uncomfortable / unsafe with the GG policy, and the fact many of us are simply going to stay away because of the risk of harm. Why is that not good enough?

Ineedacupofteadesperately · 20/05/2018 12:10

And the evidence of 900+ signatures to the GG letter

sorenipples · 20/05/2018 12:13

An important difference in US policy to what I am reading about UK policy is that decisions are made on a case by case basis rather than a blanket acceptance based on self id.

R0wantrees · 20/05/2018 12:15

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.

With regards legal understandings/ interpretations, an article in today's Daily Mail includes the following statements which may overlap with some of the concerns raised on this thread:

"The policy at Arbury Primary in Cambridge states that it is 'illegal' to call someone 'he/she' or 'it' against their wishes...."

"The statement that misgendering is illegal may be based on the school's interpretation of the 2010 Equalities Act, which suggests that a hate crime takes place when a member of a minority perceives one to have happened."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5748821/Children-young-4-told-head-teacher-tell-pupils-misgender-classmates.html

NoSquirrels · 20/05/2018 12:16

I believe girl scouts in the US is equivalent to girl guides and distinct from US boy scouts. Therefore crisps points are relevant.

But GG here has disregarded its own constitution - it hasn't consulted its members, and it's received dodgy legal advice. I've no idea how the US changes to girl scouts were implemented.

I think this falls under "just because you can, doesn't mean you ^should".

If GG went about this in a transparent way, and sounded as if it were listening to concerns, leaders like Agnes wouldn't be in the position they currently are.

Offred · 20/05/2018 12:16

Crisp - ‘More inclusive’ would be the scouts policy where both sexes are included and the safeguarding rules are written according to this approach.

Have you considered why up until recently girl guides being single sex was legal?

What is happening here with girl guides is not that they are becoming ‘more inclusive’ it is that they are changing who they exclude/include from exclusion/inclusion on the basis of biological sex (legitimate aim up until now for guides - again think about why) to exclusion/inclusion on the basis of self identification regarding gender identity.

Wanderabout · 20/05/2018 12:17

I believe girls should be able to choose single sex organisations if they wish to. If other organisations want to be single gender that's up to them.

All of the organisations need transparent and robust safeguarding policies which is the main thing being discussed here. What are your views on that point crisp?

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth · 20/05/2018 12:19

Crisp doesn't want any female only organisation or group to exist. It's that simple

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.