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.

That is it in a nutshell. It’s shocking.

One of the main issues of this policy, is that GG are assuming that girls and women cannot tell if someone is trans. And they are trying to allow boys and men into the organisation without anyone knowing. In reality, what they want to happen is for girls to pretend that they haven't noticed that there are males present and more importantly, not to speak of it. I don't want to send my child to an organisation were they have to keep secrets.

Yes, everyone else gets thrown under a bus, apparently.

When you may treat people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment differently

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:
 Some competitive sport.
 The provision of separate and single sex services.
 Religious marriage services.
 Insurance contracts.
 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.

'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' is not an option. Therefore GG either need to use the sex exemptions or find a viable option.

Full inclusion does not equal violating girls boundaries around consent, telling children they must lie including to their parents, keeping mixed sex accommodation decisions from parents or allowing male bodied leaders to provide intimate care to girls.

It's the Equality Act not the Men's Rights and anti-consent/safeguarding Act FFS.

These things need to be recognised as harassment against women and girls.

Agnes I don't have anything useful to add, but I just want to thank you and your supporters for your dedicated and principled stand

I've had no option but to sadly pull my daughter out of Brownies until an adequate response to this dilemma is met. I will not put her safety at risk.
As an ex rainbow/brownie/guide/young leader, who's mother was a brown owl, I just don't recognise this once great organisation anymore.

Pips Bunce for JB’s replacement, then.

The notes do also say:

"Organisations should take reasonable steps to meet the needs of those with the protected characteristic without adversely affecting other people. What is lawful and appropriate will depend on the circumstances of each case."

It's so woolly when the rest of it is pushing for inclusion even when you might be able to exclude.

How is it woolly?

Unless GG are trying to argue that 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 are 'reasonable steps'. Which clearly they are not.

So either a different solution which does take reasonable steps, or use of the sex exemptions is needed.

For further info and showing how far we have already gone since 2010:

‘Gender reassignment’ is when a person takes steps to alter the outward expression of their gender so that it better aligns with their sense of who they are or, in other words, their identity.

This means that if someone adopts a new gender role by changing their name, title and pronoun and/or by wearing different clothing, altering their body language, speech and hairstyle, they have reassigned their gender. As part of their gender reassignment some people may choose to take hormones and/or have surgery, but medical intervention is not an essential part of gender reassignment.

“A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.”3

 The Act protects people of all ages, regardless of whether they are children or adults.
 The characteristic applies to anyone who has proposed, started or completed a process to change his or her sex.4
 A person does not need to be under medical supervision to qualify for protection.
 Someone assigned female at birth who makes the transition to live as a man and a person assigned male at birth who makes the transition to live as a woman both share the characteristic of gender reassignment.

@Tp4mybung please then write to HQ and tell them why you have done this, at the moment they are saying only a few people have complained.
They are taking no notice of leaders (I've been called a terf and a bigot on a guide leaders fb group) so the more parents complain the better.

If you just leave, or just tell the local leader, it will have no effect on HQ's policy.

Oh, and please tell the local leader as well or she might think she has done something to upset you. We do worry when girls just leave with no explanation.

Not sure what your point is Kyanite?

A single glance at this with a risk management head on is surely helpful? The risk of being sued for excluding a child inappropriately versus the risk of a breach of safeguarding? I'm not saying exclusion isn't harmful but if you are required to balance these risks, which harm looks more significantly in terms of your duty of care to the children involved?

That version of the legal advice sounds unlikely and as if a very limited question was asked.

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

Why can’t that child join the Scouts? (which accept both sexes I believe)

Why does it always have to include pushing the boundaries? The parents know who GG is supposed to be for, the child knows, everyone knows.

So why purposefully target an organisation that is supposed to be just just for girls?

It smacks of trying to prove a point, to validate an untruth, whilst simultaneously not giving one fuck about who you are negatively affecting.

So why purposefully target an organisation that is supposed to be just just for girls?

This!^ In most of these cases there is a similar mixed sex service / organisation / group that a trans person could legitimately attend as whatever gender they want to be. But no, they insist on being included in single sex groups not of their sex. That smacks of choosing to make a point, rather than desperately trying to access the only available service / organisation / group

There are exemptions in the Equality Act that make it perfectly legal, and Transgender Trend go into a lot that directly relates to this in their schools guidance, and suggest that it may even be illegal not offer single sex spaces etc in certain instances, and highlights that in the technical guidance it is the trans child that is suggested has a third space in relation to shared facilities/changing rooms etc.

This is why I think the EA needs updating, the exemptions need to be overhauled in order to ensure that single sex provision is upheld where it is wanted & usually provided, and it needs to be written in order to minimise the risk of legal action, because that is why so few use the exemptions.

It smacks of trying to prove a point, to validate an untruth, whilst simultaneously not giving one fuck about who you are negatively affecting.

That exactly what it is - it's all about validation, getting the ultimate acceptance & approval to 'seamlessly ' fit into a group that you want to belong to & if you can't do that by request (meaning actually asking the people affected - leaders, parents & the girls themselves) you'll do it by force. All to legitimise a delusion.

It's utterly fucked up to put that on girls & young women.

But no, they insist on being included in single sex groups not of their sex

To be fair, I don't think there are many 13 year old 'transgirls' demanding this. I think this is is pushed by adult TIM who see GG as an easy target. And I'll be charitable and say it's mainly for validation.

This is why I think the EA needs updating, the exemptions need to be overhauled in order to ensure that single sex provision is upheld where it is wanted & usually provided, and it needs to be written in order to minimise the risk of legal action, because that is why so few use the exemptions.

YY. I think forcing women and girls to use intimate sex segregated facilities and services with males without their consent needs to be viewed as sexual harassment in and of itself. Under the Equality Act.

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

Yes, I am saying that the policy makes that a possibility. I don't know if it's actually happened. GG won't disclose someone's trans status, and rightly so. But mix that with policy of gender self ID and a refusal to use single sex exemptions, and we have a massive failing which is wide open to abuse.

And by abuse, I also mean it opens the trans person to spurious allegations as well.

I'm also a leader and have also had posts deleted or just plain not approved on the FB groups. I've written with my concerns and I've received no reply though it was recent. There is other stuff going on that I can't talk about also.
But my plan is to make sure all leaders involved in all residentials and all joint events I'm at that involve changing clothes (e.g. swimming) know the policy because I'll be asking them to tell me so I can check my girls are OK with it.
I'm not sure I can stretch this to joint events with shared loos though.
I think that a parent of a boy who identifies as a girl would tell me that is who they are. Obviously I have no guarantee if they are prepubescent but it would be daft of them not to if they think their child will be sharing loos with girls. The girls would probably know - but they may be from a different school.

So basically a girl can need intimate care and it can come from a trans identifying man and she wouldn't be asked for her consent first (in relation to the adult being male) and nor would her parents?

Oh and I shall be asking if they have male leaders who identify as women and using those terms. I actually doubt we do locally but nobody will understand "trans girl".