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.

This is horrific news. Girls will be taken out of the GG by concerned parents and rightly so. Who will take responsibility when something happens, as it surely will? Thank you AgnesBadenPowell for continuing to fight this madness.

On the issue of the interaction between sex and gender ID in guides - biological females who self ID as Male or GNC are the ones who satisfy both purposes of sex based exclusion and trans inclusion. They are the ones being excluded out of the group of trans people....

Think on that.

@AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth

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

I fear you're right

All of the organisations need transparent and robust safeguarding policies which is the main thing being discussed here.

That's what worries me - lack of transparency around safeguarding suggest to me if there were problems I'd worry they'd try and cover up and put pressure of the girls to be quiet rather than deal with any failings. It doesn't inspire confidence.

My DD brownies and guide groups are very small at minute and guides don't do any camps because of this - that's actually a relief at the minute.

The schools advice is worrying as well. I again don't think this would be an issue for my children yet - but it's worrying.

biological females who self ID as Male or GNC are the ones who satisfy both purposes of sex based exclusion and trans inclusion. They are the ones being excluded out of the group of trans people....

But they don't want to be "in the club", I guess. And the trans girls do. It sucks.

The whole rhetoric around this is so disingenuous. Prominent trans spokespeople with a platform say it is not OK to refer to "boys identifying as girls" - we HAVE to agree that they are girls.

But - they're not! They're boys (biological males) who identify with the gender of "girl". They are all under the age of consent to fully transition. They are boys. They are boys who would prefer to be treated as "girls".

I would prefer girls to be treated as boys are - encouraged to play outside, take leadership roles, develop their interests and skills so they can confidently call out BS when they see it and take their places in the world. There's a wealth of evidence that a single-sex environment is useful to girls.

And GG provided that space.

I feel extremely sorry for any kid who believes they are the "wrong gender". But I don't know why the majority has to accept that a minority might need to deal with a difficult truth - that they are not in fact "the other", they are just themselves, but they are on a more difficult journey with their gender identity than many others.

I want to be inclusive, I honestly truly do. I believe all the GG leaders want to be inclusive too. But you can't just wish something to be so and it be done. You have to face up to reality too. In this case, safeguarding and the law.

Another one here saying thank you for tackling this head on Agnes.

The views of adult members and girls have absolutely NOT been asked.

Here are a couple of examples, from my own experience in the last few months, of the thoughts of young members.

At a recent Ranger residential (girls were 16-19) they were discussing a boy at their school who now identifies as a girl. I did not prompt this discussion or give my opinion I just let them get on with it. They were very sympathetic the trans girls feelings but said they did not think they were "really" a girl and they would not want to share the bedroom (large dormitory with bunks and no privacy) or the communal showers (cubicles with curtains). Out of a group of around a dozen girls, only one did not agree.

We have just taken part in "Future Girl" a survey, with lots of discussion, of girls feelings and views. They told how they loved the girl only space at Guides: boys at school talk over them, are listened to in preference to girls by the teachers, push them out of mixed sports teams "you can't play football here, your a girl". It was very depressing and shocking to here how these children (aged 10-12) were being treated, just because they are girls.

Girlguiding told me that they haven't consulted the membership because they don't consult on legal matters - they follow the law.

But gender self identity isn't the law. It's also unlawful to discriminate against someone who is in the process of reassigning their gender. So I really don't see how the current policy stacks up - GG is directly discriminating against its female members who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. I'm not a lawyer though so I'd be interested to hear what legal experts make of this.

I think there are two separate issues here. The first is the ideological debate around gender, and whether gender identity is really a suitable criterion for membership of a female only organisation, whose other policies are based on the premise that only females will be members and in leadership positions.

The second, and most pressing in my mind, is the immediate concern that the policy as it stands poses a safeguarding risk.

We need to address point 2 NOW. Girls privacy could be comprised NOW, right this minute, on a camp where her and her parents have not been informed that GG cannot guarantee single sex accommodation.

We need to be bold and bring these issues up with local leaders. I do not believe that GG will do anything to make this policy safer until the worst happens. And then it will be too late.

Point 1 will take a lot longer to address

That's what worries me - lack of transparency around safeguarding suggest to me if there were problems I'd worry they'd try and cover up and put pressure of the girls to be quiet rather than deal with any failings. It doesn't inspire confidence.

I am also not confident that GG management would deal with any failings appropriately.

When I met JB, I questioned the secrecy aspects of the policy and was immediately slapped down. She didn't want me to use the world secret because it implies covering things up. But that's exactly what thy are doing.

JB has been a disaster over this issue. She doesn't care about girls. She cares about her career and being seen to be inclusive.

I agree Agnes. I am horrified by the safeguarding. I am undecided on the gender acceptance issue.

Safeguarding MUST come down to facts, and the facts are that children and teenagers shouldn't be sharing mixed sex accommodation without their parents' consent. Nuh-uh.

"They were very sympathetic the trans girls feelings but said they did not think they were "really" a girl and they would not want to share the bedroom (large dormitory with bunks and no privacy) or the communal showers (cubicles with curtains)."

These girls sound like they need some serious re-education until they get over their phobias.

Is it GG or swim england who talked about how uncomfortable girls needed to be re-educated? May have been swim england. Still, principle is the same. Girls need to be educated to accept that a penis, a male body, is a female organ, a female body, if they are told it is. In any and all circs.

How this meshes with safeguarding / protection is anyone's guess. Previously - man with dick out in the changing rooms = get away and tell someone. Now, girls need to be educated to pretend they haven't noticed and everything is fine and normal. Thing is lots of girls are socialised very strongly not to "make a fuss" and so this is just pushing that even further. They MUST pretend to be cool with things right up to... what point? Many men take pkeasure from making girls and women upset / uncomfortable, including feeling sexual threat, and they can do this without laying a hand on them. This is all so infuriating.

*Is it GG or swim england who talked about how uncomfortable girls
needed to be re-educated? *

The advice from ScottishTrans, promulgated by Stonewall Scotland advises this. I'm sure others do, too.

Yes, the Swim England guidance, also co written with Stonewall, advised this.

The legal section of the Transgender Trend pack (p.31 on) has a good explanation of the legal issues and the different protections afforded on the basis of sex and gender reassignment:

www.transgendertrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Transgender-Trend-Resource-Pack-for-Schools.pdf

has anyone done a freedom of information request on the advice?

has anyone written to the insurer or insurance broker?

Their “legal advice” is wrong. It is perfectly lawful to provide single sex services.

I’ll bet they got told their advice by a lobbying group such as mermaids

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

Crisp is a believer in the ideological concept of female penis .

What about a male child, age, say, 13 who is being treated by the NHS for gender dysphoria and has thought himself a girl from a young age. His parents have eventually supported a social transition and he is now on puberty blockers. He, or she, is treated for all intents and purposes as a girl, and wants to join girl guides. His/ her friends do not know that he is biologically male.

I can sort of see how a careful, well-managed policy might be able too include this child in girl guides. I can also imagine that this is the scenario painted for the GG leadership when they were considering how to be inclusive.

Now consider a biologically male child, say age 13, who has recently told his parents he is a girl. They really don't know what to do but, faced with stories of suicide, and looking at guidance for schools, support a social transition. The child is on a waiting list for the Tavi, has all sorts of mental health difficulties but CAMHS can't see him/her either. The child asks to go to Girl guides. The child has some social difficulties l and is quite immature - but is adamant that he is a girl in a boy's body. Everyone knows that this is a biological male going through puberty, Everyone wants to be kind and inclusive but now what do you do?

has anyone done a freedom of information request on the advice?

I expect legal privilege will apply and it won't be disclosable. Lawyer/client confidentiality.

It's discombobulating to realise how disregarded girls are, and how some women collude with men to make that even worse.

If you look at the guidance notes, you can see why they could be advised this way...

"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."

This includes males who identify as females providing personal care to girls on residentials,

Going right back to the op here.
Are you saying that there could be male bodied adults providing intimate care to girls?

What about a male child, age, say, 13 who is being treated by the NHS for gender dysphoria and has thought himself a girl from a young age. His parents have eventually supported a social transition and he is now on puberty blockers. He, or she, is treated for all intents and purposes as a girl, and wants to join girl guides. His/ her friends do not know that he is biologically male.

But he is still male. He's not female, he's not a girl. Puberty blockers do not change a person sex, and a boy not going through puberty is not going to be seen, or treated, like a girl going through puberty.

What, so the GG are interpreting 'inclusion' to mean 'violating girls boundaries, ignoring their rights to privacy, dignity and safety, and ripping up established safeguarding practice while in loco parentis and simultaneously hiding it from most parents'. I don't think so.